Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

I know that the real truth about Jim Morrison is probably in the middle of him being a complete 180 from his portrayal in The Doors and how he was depicted in the film.  

I love The Doors movie.  For me, it is so much fun. I love The Doors--they're my favorite band.  I love Jim Morrison. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

I love The Doors movie.  For me, it is so much fun.

Same here. It's a favorite of my daughter too. Some of my favorite parts is when the movie turns into a music video of American Prayer. 

Morrison was one of those guys with some talent, some creativity and a lot of good looks. When the talent and creativity wasn't working he went with "edgy" controversial shock value. There's a biography, No One Gets Out of Here Alive, any Jim Morrison/Doors fan should read it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Long, Hot Summer (1958) watched On Demand. Orson Welles first scene, supposedly just getting out of a hospital  stay has ridiculous  looking very dark face makeup on. In fact throughout the whole film  you can't help starring at it almost looks like blackface, lol

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

House of Dracula (1945)

It was the end of the line for the monster franchise at Universal when the studio decided to reunite some fairly tired monsters once again for this sporadically enjoyable concoction.

Dracula (a top hatted John Carradine) comes a visitin' Dr. Edelmann (Onslow Stevens) at his castle, hoping that the good doctor can find a medical cure for his vampirism. Soon afterward Larry Talbot, aka the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr.) also pops in, hoping the doctor can do the same for his hirsute issues whenever there is a full moon. And it won't take long before the doctor will also stumble across Frankenstein's Monster (Glenn Strange), lying in a dormant state in a cave near his castle.

The doctor is soon performing frequent blood transfusions on Dracula while working on a formula to help Talbot. As for the Frankenstein Monster, it is agreed to just let sleeping monsters lie (though he does haul him up into his laboratory). Assisting Dr. Edelmann is Nina (Jane Adams), his faithful nurse, who is also hoping that one day the doctor may be able to do something about that hunch on her back.

Martha O'Driscoll is another nursing assistant of the doctor. She feels for Talbot's anguish but, unfortunately, she also captures Dracula's hypnotic eye. Dracula wants to be cured, alright, but, spot a pretty girl and, well, you know, old neck biting habits die hard. Perhaps ticked that the doctor interrupted a session he was about to have with the nurse, Dracula will reverse the flow of one of his blood transfusions with the doctor which, in turn, will cause Dr. Edelmann to start turning a little monstrous himself.

Everything about this production is very familiar and predictable for those horror fans who had seen the previous monster combination flicks in the series (Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man and, particularly, House of Frankenstein). However, the moody black and white photography of the impressive sets is first rate, as well as the musical score (an uncredited William Lava). Onslow Stevens, once his doctor's character starts to turn mad or whatever he is, arguably has the most effective scenes in the film, brief as they are. The doctor will also have an effective nightmare montage sequence, which involves all the monsters in the film, including a clip taken of Karloff from Bride of Frankenstein.

House of Dracula (1945) - Turner Classic Movies

Glenn Strange's Frankenstein Monster is the least utilized monster in the film and the picture will wrap up very quickly once he pops off those straps on his arms and chest on his lab table and starts stomping around. Oh, yes, the villagers will also get upset with the goings on at the castle (have you heard this one before?) and storm the place. Finally, Lionel Atwill is also in the cast, sadly largely wasted as a police official (a reprise, of sorts, of his memorable turn in Son of Frankenstein, only this time with two arms). This was one of Atwill's final roles, as the actor would die the following year.

As I said, House of Dracula was the last of the line for the "serious" Universal monster films, to be brought back one final time three years later when they met up with Abbott and Costello for a surprisingly memorable finale.

House of Dracula (1945) - IMDb

2 out of 4

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2021 at 8:13 AM, AndreaDoria said:

Orson Wells and ridiculous are never far apart.

FYI, it's Orson WELLES (with a second "e" after the ell.)

If Orson were still alive, it's likely he would drunkenly berate you for this before bazooka barfing 2/3 of a bottle Paul Maisson Pinot Grigiot all over your feet.

See the source image

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/11/2021 at 1:45 AM, SansFin said:

How to Steal a Million (1966)

I just saw this for the first time and was a bit disappointed. I am a big fan both Audrey Hepburn and Peter O'Toole and William Wyler is one of my favorite directors. I found it slow moving and not as funny as I was hoping. Hepburn and O'Toole do have some good chemistry and would have liked to see them together again in something better. It was interesting seeing Eli Wallach at around the same time he made The Good The Bad And The Ugly. The best scene for me was the ingenious way O'Toole was able to get a hold of a key to get out of a locked broom closet.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Det Jim McLeod said:

I just saw this for the first time and was a bit disappointed. I am a big fan both Audrey Hepburn and Peter O'Toole and William Wyler is one of my favorite directors. I found it slow moving and not as funny as I was hoping. Hepburn and O'Toole do have some good chemistry and would have liked to see them together again in something better. It was interesting seeing Eli Wallach at around the same time he made The Good The Bad And The Ugly. The best scene for me was the ingenious way O'Toole was able to get a hold of a key to get out of a locked broom closet.

Yes, the film is rather slow going before the plot kicks in and relies too much on the charisma of its stars. I noticed this more this time around. I kept thinking this type of movie wouldnt have been made a few years later once the 60's movie revolution kicked in. It was one of the last of its kind. I still enjoy it though. It was really the last of Audrey's clothes horse films. (Dressed to the nines in every scene) I don't count the execrable Sidney Sheldon's Bloodline made in the late 70s) In her last 2 films in 67. Audrey dressed down.  No Givenchy.

It's never explained what sort of job Audrey has in the film (she mentions she has one, but you never see her working). She must've been making big bucks to afford those outfits!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Hibi said:

Yes, the film is rather slow going before the plot kicks in and relies too much on the charisma of its stars. I noticed this more this time around. I kept thinking this type of movie wouldnt have been made a few years later once the 60's movie revolution kicked in. It was one of the last of its kind. I still enjoy it though. It was really the last of Audrey's clothes horse films. (Dressed to the nines in every scene) I don't count the execrable Sidney Sheldon's Bloodline made in the late 70s) In her last 2 films in 67. Audrey dressed down.  No Givenchy.

It's never explained what sort of job Audrey has in the film (she mentions she has one, but you never see her working). She must've been making big bucks to afford those outfits!

Maybe her modeling career after Funny Face really took off and now she’s a high-end Givenchy haute-couture model, who then gets involved in a caper to spice things up a bit. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

FYI, it's Orson WELLES (with a second "e" after the ell.)

If Orson were still alive, it's likely he would drunkenly berate you for this before bazooka barfing 2/3 of a bottle Paul Maisson Pinot Grigiot all over your feet.

See the source image

"We will barf no wine before its time!"

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TomJH said:

House of Dracula (1945)

Soon afterward Larry Talbot, aka the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr.) also pops in, hoping the doctor can do the same for his hirsute issues whenever there is a full moon.

And, we are told, his hairy condition is actually a brain-pressure problem exacerbated by the moon's influence that could easily be cured with a bit of cranial surgery, in the hopes of finally finale-retiring Lon Chaney's character from the franchise.

I appreciate the 40's attempt to get away from "supernatural" horror concepts after the Code came in, but that's just not playing cricket, by Monsters fans' standards.  😡 Good thing Abbott & Costello were playing to the kids, who still respected monsters as Monsters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Det Jim McLeod said:

I just saw this for the first time and was a bit disappointed. I am a big fan both Audrey Hepburn and Peter O'Toole and William Wyler is one of my favorite directors. I found it slow moving and not as funny as I was hoping. Hepburn and O'Toole do have some good chemistry and would have liked to see them together again in something better. It was interesting seeing Eli Wallach at around the same time he made The Good The Bad And The Ugly. The best scene for me was the ingenious way O'Toole was able to get a hold of a key to get out of a locked broom closet.

I am sorry that you did not enjoy it to a great degree. I had not thought to warn that it is a movie for someone who can simply luxuriate in it. It does go on for twenty minutes and a few seconds prior to anyone being shot. 

I am a great lover of caper movies and this movie has an excellent one in it but I do not feel that that is truly the point of it. 

A person can stay warm with a sip of hot coffee and wrapping themselves in a cheap little space blanket. This is a long bubble bath and crawling into an eider-down duvet sort of movie.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, EricJ said:

And, we are told, his hairy condition is actually a brain-pressure problem exacerbated by the moon's influence that could easily be cured with a bit of cranial surgery, in the hopes of finally finale-retiring Lon Chaney's character from the franchise.

I appreciate the 40's attempt to get away from "supernatural" horror concepts after the Code came in, but that's just not playing cricket, by Monsters fans' standards.  😡 Good thing Abbott & Costello were playing to the kids, who still respected monsters as Monsters.

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein has, among other things, Bela Lugosi's last great performance with his second turn as Dracula. Perhaps due to his aging the actor has a lot of makeup on, giving his face a white pasty look, but that adds to his effectiveness. Incredibly, Lugosi almost didn't get the role as Universal was considering some other actor as the Count (I forget who, possibly Carradine again). And it was not Lugosi but Boris Karloff, who didn't even want to appear in the film, that the studio used to help promote it.

By the way, as a side note, A & C Meet Frankenstein was the ONLY film of the Universal horror series in which Dracula met the Frankenstein Monster and the Wolf Man (the Count was knocked off in both House of Frankenstein and House of Dracula before encountering them).

Animated GIF–Dracula's Coffin Opens – Brian.Carnell.Com

Abbott And Costello Meet Frankenstein (Universal International Pictures,  1948) | The Bela Lugosi Blog

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

FYI, it's Orson WELLES (with a second "e" after the ell.)

If Orson were still alive, it's likely he would drunkenly berate you for this before bazooka barfing 2/3 of a bottle Paul Maisson Pinot Grigiot all over your feet.

See the source image

fyi, isn't it M-a-s-s-o-n. with no i ...

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, laffite said:

fyi, isn't it M-a-s-s-o-n. with no i ...

OH SNAP, YOU'RE RIGHT!!!!!!

All apologies to PAUL MASSON, (weak, drunken laugh), the maker of the finest California Champagne (hic)...which is still available in 2021!!! (I saw a box out by someone's recycling  a few weeks back)

 

**I think "Maisson" just sounded more faux French and thus all the more appropriate for the brand.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/12/2021 at 4:01 PM, CinemaInternational said:

The Doors (1991) -- 1/10

Oliver Stone was considered to be one of America's formost movie directors for about a decade starting in 1986. Between 1986 and 1995, he directed ten films, six of which were up for major Oscars, and half were controversial hits at the box office. Speaking personally, 4 of those films were truly good: Heaven and Earth, Talk Radio, JFK, and Nixon. Many of the others, like Salvador, Platoon, Wall Street, and Born on the Fourth of July were strong in parts, but weak in others. But nothing really prepared me, in spite of not being his biggest fan, for the absolute calamity of The Doors.
Released in early 1991, although one gets the sneaking suspicion that this was failed Oscar bait of 1990 that got delayed after bad test previews, The Doors concentrates on the story of Jim Morrison,  the troubled main singer of the titular band who was found dead in a bathtub in a Paris apartment in 1971, not yet even 28 years of age. Val Kilmer plays Morrison, and is pretty much a dead ringer for him in voice and look, but one ends up wondering long before the end why this film was even made. The Doors were a popular band among youth and the hippies at the time and Oliver Stone pitched a movie idea to the real Morrison in 1970. But, by the time of its release, Morrison was dead for 20 years, his wife for 17 years, and the age of Aquarius had long since ended. And what was left was a shallow, empty shell of a film that seems clueless  to how to approach the man its about, and shows us endless excess of drugs, sex, and vapid behavior instead. Its like a child playing one single note on a keyboard for 140 minutes: monotonous, irritating, offensive, and mind numbing.

Kilmer is truly dressed up with nowhere to go; he embodies the man, but the more we see of the man he plays, the more unbelievable and unbearable the idea of watching  140 minute film about him  is. The Jim of the film is self-absorbed beyond relief, self-destructive, reckless, horrible to everyone around him, excessive in every vice, and vapid to the point of rarely having any idea in his little brain under his hippie-glam surface. If the real Morrison was completely like this, one wonders why people would even want to be around him, if he wasn't so far gone, the film really feels like an insult. The film feels like it was photographed and written by the character as well, it often looks woozy , precarious, and spaced-out inspite of its rich colors, and many of its written scenes feel disoriented, dazed, and clueless. The writers seemingly have no grasp on Morrison's inner life; he remains an enigma to both them and to us.  Watching scenes like a wild, unhinged Miami concert or Jim getting sex from a groupie in an elevator that his wife ultimately witnesses feel like being flung into the outer circles of hell. Hiroshimus Bosch and Dante would be so pleased. Essentially, Kilmer is the film, because the rest of the cast, even the wife, the lover, and the bandmates, feel like gorified cameo players much of the time.
Regarding those little used supporting players, Meg Ryan's performance as the wife is schizophrenic; at times she feels a lot like the 60s party girl he is playing, at other times she feels like a hippie version of June Cleaver; even so, she has some moments and injects some emotion into the bits given to her. Kathleen Quinlan as the lover even out-weirds Kilmer with her big scene talking about the history of witches and asking whether Morrison has ever had blood to drink; even her performance is schizoid, as her last, unresolved scene tearfully shows her in a more conventional light. Talented individuals like Paul Williams, Mimi Rogers, Michael Wincott, Billy Idol, and Crispin Glover (as Andy Warhol) make token appearances. The bandmates, Kyle MacLachlin, Frank Whalley, and Kevin Dillon, are all so very sidelined, you see reaction shots a lot from them, but MacLachlin gets most of the few lines they are handed. Perhaps its because I'd seen a lot of him this year via binging Desperate Housewives and Twin Peaks on Hulu or that he was the lead in one of the best films I have ever seen, Blue Velvet, maybe because Kilmer's character was unbearable, but I focused  on MacLachlin whenever he was onscreen. Even with  terrible wigs that made him look like Jeffrey Dahmer (the whole film is a frightful wig extravaganza for almost everyone involved) and minimal lines and screentime, MacLachlin gives the  most satisfying performance in the film; he quietly radiates down-to-earth normalcy and self-effacing tendencies, a welcome tonic from the wretched excess surrounding him.
Perhaps I would not have been so hard on The Doors if I hadn't been reminded of the sheer amount of honest, tender, heartbreaking soulfulness and depth that Bette Midler and Frederic Forrest had in a similar self-destructive singer film The Rose (inspired by Janis Joplin) or if I hadn't just experienced another, significantly better evils of drug addiction film, the superior 1991 film Rush, with its heartrending and utterly convincing performance from Jennifer Jason Leigh and deep wells of the insight and emotion that this film is completely lacking in. Or if I even liked the music of the band, much of which was definitely not my cup of tea. But a person approaches film armed with everything seen up to that point, and I had seen the cinematic gold before seeing this piece of coal. 1991 was actually an extremely strong year for films, with very few flat-out misfires. In the past I had labled either Martin Scorsese's Cape Fear or Blake Edwards' Switch as the worst films of that otherwise extraordinary year of the 75+ films I had seen. But its pretty clear to me now that Oliver Stone 's The Doors is actually the worst film of 1991, ironic because he also directed one of the best of the year, JFK, as well. Aside from MacLachlin and some Meg Ryan moments, the  only joy I got from The Doors was reading Paul Rudnick slam the film and its pretensions under his Libby Gelman-Waxner pseudonym in an outrageously funny magazine column. To close borrowing one of his trademarks, you can't get much better after viewing an ordeal of a film, "if you ask me".

I loved this film when I was in 8th grade and The Doors were my favorite band and I thought Morrison was the deepest poet to ever live.  They are still one of my favorites simply because I know every song so well and they are now part of my youth, but i see Jim Morrison's lyrics/poetry for what they are- bad 8th grade poetry.  Have you watched the behind the scenes featurette from the DVD's Deluxe Edition?  It's pretty good and pretty telling of what EVERYONE who is part of the Doors history thinks of the film and of Stone (and how disliked Kilmer was by the other cast), they all hate the film and how Stone made his own mythologized version of history and ignored the true story.  It was no secret that the remaining band members didn't want Kilmer as Morrison and didn't think he looked right for the part and were vocally campaigning for the lead singer of The Cult, Ian Astbury, who did look a lot like Morrison, and who the band had singing as part of their revival band, the Doors of the 21st Century.

I recommend the bonus feature on this film because it's rare you see the true thoughts come out like they do here.  Typically it's just the film and cast/crew getting praise.  I still enjoy watching the film but i've come to see it, and Stone for what they really are when given a historical context.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a few from the weekend:

36 Hours (1965) Liked it.  Watched a few James Garner films the past year and surprised he wasn't more popular.

Walk A Crooked Mile (1948) Watched on Noir Alley.  Didn't really care for it.

Monkey Business (1952) First time watching it.  Liked it.  Silly in parts but thought Grant, Rogers and Monroe all had great scenes in it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shank Asu said:

36 Hours (1965) Liked it.  Watched a few James Garner films the past year and surprised he wasn't more popular.

Just wonder why you believe James Garner "wasn't more popular".

While I don't know how to determine what others believe is popular or not,   Garner was one of the top cross-over actors; one who would go from films to T.V. Shows without the reason that their film career was sunsetting so T.V. was their only option.     

In fact I can't think of another actor that was as successful in both film and T.V.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Just wonder why you believe James Garner "wasn't more popular".

While I don't know how to determine what others believe is popular or not,   Garner was one of the top cross-over actors; one who would go from films to T.V. Shows without the reason that their film career was sunsetting so T.V. was their only option.     

In fact I can't think of another actor that was as successful in both film and T.V.

 

Guess because I wasn't alive during the majority of his fame and the only things i recall seeing him in while growing up were a Lonesome Dove miniseries, The Notebook and 8 Simple Rules.  I understand he was a very popular TV actor.  My statement is probably me not realizing just how popular he was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shank Asu said:

Guess because I wasn't alive during the majority of his fame and the only things i recall seeing him in while growing up were a Lonesome Dove miniseries, The Notebook and 8 Simple Rules.  I understand he was a very popular TV actor.  My statement is probably me not realizing just how popular he was.

I never watched much of the Rockford Files growing up (beyond just watching the cool theme), but only recently discovered Garner's Maverick TV series after the Mel Gibson movie.  

THAT put Garner on the map with 50's/60's audience, and his Support Your Local Sheriff movies were all but rewritten Maverick episodes.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, SansFin said:

I am sorry that you did not enjoy it to a great degree. I had not thought to warn that it is a movie for someone who can simply luxuriate in it. It does go on for twenty minutes and a few seconds prior to anyone being shot. 

I am a great lover of caper movies and this movie has an excellent one in it but I do not feel that that is truly the point of it. 

A person can stay warm with a sip of hot coffee and wrapping themselves in a cheap little space blanket. This is a long bubble bath and crawling into an eider-down duvet sort of movie.

I, on the other hand, now understand why you have mentioned several times on these boards how much you love How To Steal a Million. That Audrey Hepburn is lovely, a wonderful comic actress who looks great in Givenchy, didn't surprise me, though seeing Audrey is always a delight. That Peter O'Toole has a flair for light comedy equal to his flair for playing T. E. Lawrence: now that did surprise me.  That Hepburn and O'Toole have great romantic chemistry surprised me, although Audrey almost always has chemistry with her co-stars. Hugh Griffith is an added delight, and I would not have guessed that Eli Wallach would fit so well into this kind of film.

If you want a caper film performed allegro vivace, this isn't your film, although Wyler's gentle andante gives us plenty of time for the romance, and that is the point of the film. I would not have guessed Wyler as the director, and that in itself is a compliment. The cinematography and set design are splendid; the film is a visual treat. As Hibi noted, this is the kind of film that went out of style (appropriate phrase) not long after 1966.

So, thank you, SansFin, for your warm advocacy, and I may just have to get a copy of How To Steal a Million when I'm in the mood for a romantic movie.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shank Asu said:

I understand he was a very popular TV actor.

Movies too, youngster.  He did comedies like Boys Night Out, romantic comedies,  Move Over Darling and The Thrill of it All and drama Grand Prix and The Great Escape.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good as I find James Garner to be in many of his films, for me, he was at the peak of his appeal in his third television series, The Rockford Files, in which he, essentially, revised his Bret Maverick character, only now in the guise of a small time L.A. detective. Nobody has ever been Garner's equal when it came to playing the fraidy cat hero who will come through in the end. Garner's years of experience brought more subtle nuances to his playing by then than he had even had in his early Maverick days, enjoyable and smooth as he was then.

The Rockford episodes had a tendency to have a certain sameness to one another, but the car chases were exciting (with Garner himself doing much of the driving), and he had great rapport with fellow cast members Noah Beery Jr. as his father, who wanted him to get a "real' job like truck driving, Stuart Margolin as Angel, his duplicitous con artist friend always ready to shaft him, and Joe Santos as his cop friend.

And then, as always, there was the delight of enjoying Garner's dry, throwaway delivery of fast or funny dialogue. In the very first Rockford episode, after getting slugged and kidnapped by a couple of goons, Garner asks one of them, "Does your mother know what you do for a living?" For his smart crack he only suffers another collision with a fist.

The other appealing thing about James Garner, not just in Rockford but his entire career, is that he always came across as a regular guy despite his movie star handsome looks. An audience could identify with Garner because he came across like one of them. And he was such a damn natural reactor on screen to his fellow actors. Everything seemed so easy with him, so laid back. He could play comedy (no one was better at portraying exasperation with a slight downward turn of the corner of the mouth). He could play drama. Garner was an acting/personality show business treasure that I hope will always be appreciated.

RIP James Garner | keithroysdon

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TomJH said:

>> Good as I find James Garner to be in many of his films, for me, he was at the peak of his appeal in his third television series, The Rockford Files

Well said...  
Gotta' love Jimmy and his Firebird!  You mentioned he did a lot of the driving - a bit of an understatement I suspect.  I think he also did a lot of driving in Gran Prix (1966).  That's just the kinda guy he was.  And when we talk about his driving and Rockford, we can't forget his J-Turns.  He makes it look so easy.   Punch it in reverse, heavy brake, while at the same time cutting the wheel, putting it in drive, straightening the wheel and punching it.  I would soooo love to try that some day!

 

 

Quote

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Curtis DeHaven said:

 

 

Thanks for mentioning Garner's J-Turns in Rockford (as well as that video). They look so damn cool and usually fooled the bad guys, if only for a moment.

By the way, is there ANYBODY who doesn't enjoy the arrangement of The Rockford Files theme music, including the sounds of that harmonica?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...