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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, jameselliot said:

I was amazed they didn't get injured shooting that fight.

Yes it is an amazing fight,one of the best I have ever seen by memory ,it is also the last great role for Connors unless Iam mistaken

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nakano said:

Yes it is an amazing fight,one of the best I have ever seen by memory ,it is also the last great role for Connors unless Iam mistaken

He starred in an Italian western called Kill Them All and Come Back Alone that I liked very much.

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

I like Hammer's retooling of THE MUMMY (1959). I always enjoy the teaming of Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee.

DRACULA A.D. 1972 is kind of a letdown, especially when compared to HORROR OF DRACULA and THE BRIDES OF DRACULA. Even DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS is more enjoyable for me personally.

I absolutely love THE BODY SNATCHER, in my view, Karloff's best performance aside from the Monster in the FRANKENSTEIN films. If you really want to see Karloff and Lugosi go toe to toe, I recommend 1934's THE BLACK CAT or 1935's THE RAVEN where they have more screen time together.

Cool, i'll try to find those.  Haven't seen The Black Cat, The Raven, and have only seen a few handful of the Hammer films.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Passage (1979)

Director J. Lee Thompson's magic touch for high adventure when he made The Guns of Navarone abandoned him when he helmed this WW2 tale of Basque sheep herder Anthony Quinn (one of the Navarone stars) hired to help a scientist valuable to the Allied side try to escape the Germans by guiding him and his family through a mountain range.

DVD Talk

This film never really captures fire, though it works intermittently as superficial entertainment. It's a shame to see good actors like James Mason as the scientist and Patricia Neal as his long suffering wife largely wasted as performers here. Malcolm McDowall seems to be enjoying himself as the cartoon psychopathic S.S. officer who will let nothing stop him in his pursuit of the scientist. McDowall is so over-the-top that he may provide the production with a few unintentional laughs for some but as the film progresses and his bloody outrages mount it becomes impossible to take his character seriously. There is a sadism to his scenes depicting his cat-and-mouse games with anyone unfortunate to be a hostage of him that gives the film a nasty edge at times. Fortunately the violence is not too graphic, at least compared to some other films.

The Passage (1979 film) - Alchetron, the free social encyclopedia

The film was partially filmed on location in the Pyrenees, its mountainous locales one of the film's main virtues. But it's not enough.

The Passage (1979) – Mike's Take On the Movies ………. Rediscovering Cinema's  Past

2 out of 4

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched this commercial of James Mason selling Thunderbird Wine and thought it had to be a spoof. I love this! 
(Thunderbird is a cheap "fortified" wine, like Night Train, with an "unusual" taste, as James testifies. "Not quite like anything I've ever tasted."  he says with a straight face.  Yes, a potent concoction with a barnyard aroma, a cloying palate, and diesel finish. Empty bottles can be found under bridges and around railroad tracks).

 

 

Added bonus of Orson Welles drunk as a skunk in outtakes of HIS wine commercial.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of Italian classics yesterday:

Mamma Roma (1962) Wasn't looking forward to this as the two Pasolini films I'd previously watched I was either disgusted by or thought was just plain bad directing/storytelling (Salo and Teorema), but i was pleasantly surprised with this early film of his and actually liked it quite a lot.

I Knew Her Well (1965) Hadn't heard of this film before but i ended up really liking this one too.  The ending felt a bit rushed and i was surprised by it as felt like the character's actions weren't warranted but still enjoyed it.  And Stefania Sandrelli was quite a looker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Odd-man-out-poster.jpg

Odd Man Out, 1947  1 hr. 56 min.  Directed by Carol Reed  Screenplay by R.C. Sherriff
Starring James Mason, Kathleen Ryan, Robert Newton
BAFTA Best British Film of 1947.   Favorite of James Mason and widely regarded as his best performance.  Not sure if it's the most exciting film ever made (per the poster), but it's pretty darn exciting.

James plays Johnny McQueen, an IRA chief recently released from prison in Northern Ireland. The film never uses the term IRA, just "Organization" and makes clear in the opening it's considered an illegal organization, something I assume Reed had to agree to.  Nevertheless, it's a sympathetic portrayal of Johnny despite his involvement early on in a robbery gone wrong and shooting death of a man in his attempt to get away.   He does, but at a heavy price.  From the first act the action and suspense don't let up until the end.  Robert Newton doesn't show up until late in the film, in a memorable part as a portrait artist. 

I'd love to see this on the big screen, and will buy the DVD. You can see from the photos on IMDB how gorgeous it would be.  In the meantime, the print on You Tube is free and isn't too bad.  I still loved every minute. 9.5/10

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, TomJH said:

The Passage (1979)

Director J. Lee Thompson's magic touch for high adventure when he made The Guns of Navarone abandoned him when he helmed this WW2 tale of Basque sheep herder Anthony Quinn (one of the Navarone stars) hired to help a scientist valuable to the Allied side try to escape the Germans by guiding him and his family through a mountain range.

DVD Talk

This film never really captures fire, though it works intermittently as superficial entertainment. It's a shame to see good actors like James Mason as the scientist and Patricia Neal as his long suffering wife largely wasted as performers here. Malcolm McDowall seems to be enjoying himself as the cartoon psychopathic S.S. officer who will let nothing stop him in his pursuit of the scientist. McDowall is so over-the-top that he may provide the production with a few unintentional laughs for some but as the film progresses and his bloody outrages mount it becomes impossible to take his character seriously. There is a sadism to his scenes depicting his cat-and-mouse games with anyone unfortunate to be a hostage of him that gives the film a nasty edge at times. Fortunately the violence is not too graphic, at least compared to some other films.

The Passage (1979 film) - Alchetron, the free social encyclopedia

The film was partially filmed on location in the Pyrenees, its mountainous locales one of the film's main virtues. But it's not enough.

The Passage (1979) – Mike's Take On the Movies ………. Rediscovering Cinema's  Past

2 out of 4

 

Considering the amount of talent in this film, we the viewers should have gotten a better film than what we see in here. I hate seeing a good cast being let down by a really awful script.

I agree with your diagnosis of McDowell's character. The guy was simply Alex DeLarge as a Nazi.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sliver (1993) -- 6/10

MV5BYWM4NTI2N2MtMWY2Mi00YzUwLTg4MDEtOWRj

Paramount Pictures had high hopes for Sliver. The late 80s and early 90s had featured many erotic thrillers that had received plenty of ticket sales, and this one reunited the star and scriptwriter (Sharon Stone and Joe Ezsterhas) of one of the most infamous and successful ones, 1992's Basic Instinct. It was based on a book by Ira Levin, author of Rosemary's Baby, The Stepford Wives, and Deathtrap. The press feverishly reported on the filmmakers' wrangles with the MPAA as the film was given an NC-17, before it was cut back to an R. Producer Robert Evans, head of Paramount in the early 70s who had known many lean years in the 80s, thought that the film was his ticket back to the big time. And then the film opened to withering notices and lackluster business. The ending, reshot at the last minute, with a different killer than in the original script, was laughed off the screen. It was ultimately up for 7 Razzies, though it "won" none of them.

So, 28 years on, what can be found in the aftermath of high hopes and ultimate catastrophe? It ultimately turns out that the film is a middling affair. It is not as horrible as everyone said it was in 1993, and has some intriguing elements, but its not really worth the time to watch it either. The scenes that got the MPAA up in arms (for the record, I saw the NC-17 cut since that was what HBO was showing) are extremely lurid....and tasteless, overextended, and unnecessary, although the filmmakers undoubtedly deployed them to paper over the film's lack of drive in the middle and also to attract headlines and sell tickets. And frankly, the story, if it had been fully executed correctly, could have been a draw even if those scenes were excised. But the main issue is that outside of those dreary, unnecessary, predictable, vulgar, and degrading sex scenes, the middle of the film is lowkey which is a bit of a problem for a film that has a murder mystery , voyeurism, and betrayal at its center.

The story, such as it is, has Sharon Stone as a book editor age 35 who, after a messy divorce, takes a new apartment in a luxury Manhattan highrise (the Sliver of the title). What she does not know, although the audience does, is that the previous tenant of her apartment was pushed off the balcony to her death, that the place has a torridly high murder rate, and that the landlord, young twentysomething William Baldwin with whom she starts a torrid affair, is a voyeur who watches all the security camera footage from all the rooms of all the apartments for his personal pleasure. She is also pursued by another man, writer Tom Berenger, even though she has little interest in him, and strikes up brief friendships with two ill-fated tenants, Polly Walker and Keene Curtis. The central problem is though is that one of these two men that are after her is the killer that haunts the building. But given that both of their behavior is decidedly off (Baldwin casually views even the most explicit video footage or her, and Beringer helps himself into her apartment when she's away) which one is it? Frankly, though based on Levin's book, its more an inversion of Ezterhas' Basic Instinct script. Sharon Stone has basically become Michael Douglas, Baldwin has the Sharon Stone part, and Berenger has the Jeanne Tripplehorn role. If you have seen Basic Instinct, or at least know what happens, and you know that the killer's identity was changed on this film, you can pretty well know who did it even before you watch it. There are also plot holes, and it is never fully clear after the ending was changed if one death early in the film was a murder or an accident.

That leaves just specifics to get down to. Sharon Stone is in my eyes an intriguing screen presence. She has true old-fashioned golden-age era elegance, and also has enormous charisma, which helps here. William Baldwin pretty much gets all of his best moments in the last act, Berenger has some punch, Colleen Camp is very funny in a brief but extremely welcome comic relief turn as Stone's co-worker/best friend, Walker and Curtis make big impressions in limited time, CCH Pounder is crisp as the policewoman on the murder cases, and even if the roles are brief blips that are unnecessary to the plot of the film, it was nice to see Martin Landau (as Stone's boss) and Nina Foch (as a real estate agent) again. The reshot ending, though very abrupt, fits the film better than the over the top one involving Stone and Baldwin flying into the mouth of a volcano that was originally filmed. The writing has some crass howlers of lines and situations, but at least it doesn't pretend to be anything more than pulp. There is an arresting chanting musical piece by Enigma that plays at the beginning and end of the film. The cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond and production design by Paul Sylbert are sublime. Even if the material couldn't measure up, Robert Evans made this trashy story look pretty classy at times. Phillip Noyce the director hired on the film after Roman Polanski passed on it, manages some unsettling moments in the building that bring to mind scenes in Rosemary's Baby. The film also seems somewhat prophetic on the whole voyeuristic angle as the ethics of lurking anonymously over the lives of others is a bigger more pressing and relevant issue than it was in 1993. Sliver is unable to get past real sloppiness of story, a miscasting, and an overly lascivious and debaucherous nature, but it does try its best to shoulder past two of those things. Its not enough, but at least there is an effort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw the Sharron Stone film Scissors (1991),  which came out right before Basic Instincts (1992),  followed by Silver (1993).

I have only seen Basic Instincts.

I agree with you about Stone's screen persona;   she is indeed watchable.     Scissors wasn't a very good movie and it appears Silvers is only OK as well.

Too bad producers couldn't find the right fit for Stone during the 90s when she had that IT quality I'm looking for in a lead actress.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@KATIE_G:  Have you seen the 1982 appearance by John Candy on "The Billy Crystal Hour" that was uploaded to YouTube?  Candy plays 'Orson Welles' -- and quite well, I think.  It's only 3m 22secs and it's funny.  Candy appears with a giant cigar and an even larger ego! 

→ And then there's the 'voice only' commercial recording of ORSON WELLES in the studio under the YouTube heading of "OBSCURE AUDIO 2:  ORSON WELLES OUTTAKES - FROZEN PEAS". 

You haven't lived until you've heard this audio of Orson 'dealing' with the British recording-studio staff!  PEAS!  AN' MORE PEAS! 

"IN JULY . . . IT'S POINTLESS!  IT'S MEANINGLESS!!".  :)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. We watched CASINO ROYALE last night. It was good, but it got me thinking about the Bond franchise. I've seen most of the movies and liked them all for the most part. As I'm starting to read more and more since retiring, I realized I've never read any of Ian Fleming's novels. I did a little research and learned Fleming created Bond in 1953. Casino Royale was the first novel. The movies began in 1963 and DR NO was actually the sixth novel although it was the first movie with Sean Connery as Bond.  Somehow the movie makers did not pay attention to the sequence of Fleming's books. I've read that Fleming thought Connery was all wrong for the part, but relented after viewing the film. Anyway, this brings me to today when there are discussions as to who should follow Daniel Craig in the role.  Apparently, many people wanted Idris Elba to be the next James Bond. Racial issues aside I don't want to see a black Bond just as I don't want to see a white Alex Cross (the detective from the James Patterson books and movies). Granted things were really different in the 50s and 60s which I believe was the best era for the character. Frankly, I thought and still think Daniel Craig was wrong for the role. I have enjoyed his movies, but Sean Connery was my favorite followed by Pierce Brosnan. Whomever they pick to portray Bond going forward I think it needs to be a Caucasian  British actor. Please understand I'm a liberal and Denzel Washington is my favorite actor right now. However, I don't want to see him playing Bond either. Your thoughts are encouraged. It's just my opinion and I might be wrong. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Katie_G said:

I just watched this commercial of James Mason selling Thunderbird Wine and thought it had to be a spoof. I love this! 
(Thunderbird is a cheap "fortified" wine, like Night Train, with an "unusual" taste, as James testifies. "Not quite like anything I've ever tasted."  he says with a straight face.  Yes, a potent concoction with a barnyard aroma, a cloying palate, and diesel finish. Empty bottles can be found under bridges and around railroad tracks).

 

 

Added bonus of Orson Welles drunk as a skunk in outtakes of HIS wine commercial.

 

 

Katie, I had never seen this James Mason commercial for Thunderbird Wine before, but I do remember its jingle, which went "Thunderbird will captivate you!"

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Professionals (1966)

One of the best westerns of the '60s, a wonderful combination of ruggedly staged action scenes, an intelligent screenplay, outstanding cinematography, partially shot in Mexico, Death Valley and Nevada, and a great cast of, yes, professional players.

Ralph Bellamy plays a millionaire who hires four specialists, the calm, collected former military man leader of the group (Lee Marvin), an explosives expert (Burt Lancaster), a seasoned horse expert (Robert Ryan) and an expert tracker who is also a great long bowman (Woody Strode) to rescue his wife who had been kidnapped by a Mexican bandit/revolutionary and held for ransom. The revolutionary's name is Jesus Raza. "Jesus," says the millionaire, "What a name for the bloodiest cutthroat in Mexico."

It's a particular joy to view the vigorous portrayals by Marvin and Lancaster playing roles they could have switched with one another. Marvin plays the slightly more compassionate, reasonable of the two while Lancaster is a mercenary taking on the job for the money. Burt is great fun to watch here in a very physical performance, running, shooting, jumping around rocks. His mercenary character, decidedly more ruthless than Marvin, has been called an extension of the soldier-of-fortune he had played in his other "Mexican Western" a dozen years before, Vera Cruz. Enjoyable as that film was, this one is much better,

The two actors also have great macho chemistry in this film which is interesting to note especially since there were reports of friction between them during the filming (Lancaster was incensed when Marvin turned up drunk at one point, with reports that his anger was so great there were concerns he might do physical harm to him). Neither Ryan nor Strode have roles as well written as those of the film's top two stars. Claudia Cardinale plays the kidnapped wife, while Jack Palance is the revolutionary in a small performance in which he makes the most of his limited screen time.

Classic Film and TV Café: Richard Brooks' The Professionals

One of the best scenes in the film occurs when Lancaster remains hidden in the mountains to hold off the revolutionaries pursuing them on horseback. Once a friend of Palance and follower of the revolutionary cause, he and Palance, while holding each other off with guns and knowing that one of them is probably going to die also have a back and forth conversation about the revolution that is distinguished by sharp, insightful dialogue. Palance, in his only dialogue exchange in the film, really shines here and more than holds his own with Lancaster.

Richard Brooks was nominated for Oscars for both his direction (one of the relatively few nominations for best directing for a film not nominated as Best Picture) and screenplay set in 1917 Mexico that keeps the viewer guessing what will happen next. Conrad Hall was also nominated for his spectacular colour photography of rock bound and desert terrains. This is an exceedingly good looking production.

And, to top it all off, Lee Marvin has a great closing line of dialogue.

In every sense of the word The Professionals is a winner that can be enjoyed with repeat viewings.

Cast Of The Professionals 1966, Jobs EcityWorks

3.5 out of 4

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TomJH said:

The Professionals (1966)

One of the best westerns of the '60s, a wonderful combination of ruggedly staged action scenes, an intelligent screenplay, outstanding cinematography, partially shot in Mexico, Death Valley and Nevada, and a great cast of, yes, professional players.

Ralph Bellamy plays a millionaire who hires four specialists, the calm, collected former military man leader of the group (Lee Marvin), an explosives expert (Burt Lancaster), a seasoned horse expert (Robert Ryan) and an expert tracker who is also a great long bowman (Woody Strode) to rescue his wife who had been kidnapped by a Mexican bandit/revolutionary and held for ransom. The revolutionary's name is Jesus Raza. "Jesus," says the millionaire, "What a name for the bloodiest cutthroat in Mexico."

It's a particular joy to view the vigorous portrayals by Marvin and Lancaster playing roles they could have switched with one another. Marvin plays the slightly more compassionate, reasonable of the two while Lancaster is a mercenary taking on the job for the money. Burt is great fun to watch here in a very physical performance, running, shooting, jumping around rocks. His mercenary character, decidedly more ruthless than Marvin, has been called an extension of the soldier-of-fortune he had played in his other "Mexican Western" a dozen years before, Vera Cruz. Enjoyable as that film was, this one is much better,

The two actors also have great macho chemistry in this film which is interesting to note especially since there were reports of friction between them during the filming (Lancaster was incensed when Marvin turned up drunk at one point, with reports that his anger was so great there were concerns he might do physical harm to him). Neither Ryan nor Strode have roles as well written as those of the film's top two stars. Claudia Cardinale plays the kidnapped wife, while Jack Palance is the revolutionary in a small performance in which he makes the most of his limited screen time.

Classic Film and TV Café: Richard Brooks' The Professionals

One of the best scenes in the film occurs when Lancaster remains hidden in the mountains to hold off the revolutionaries pursuing them on horseback. Once a friend of Palance and follower of the revolutionary cause, he and Palance, while holding each other off with guns and knowing that one of them is probably going to die also have a back and forth conversation about the revolution that is distinguished by sharp, insightful dialogue. Palance, in his only dialogue exchange in the film, really shines here and more than holds his own with Lancaster.

Richard Brooks was nominated for Oscars for both his direction (one of the relatively few nominations for best directing for a film not nominated as Best Picture) and screenplay set in 1917 Mexico that keeps the viewer guessing what will happen next. Conrad Hall was also nominated for his spectacular colour photography of rock bound and desert terrains. This is an exceedingly good looking production.

And, to top it all off, Lee Marvin has a great closing line of dialogue.

In every sense of the word The Professionals is a winner that can be enjoyed with repeat viewings.

Cast Of The Professionals 1966, Jobs EcityWorks

3.5 out of 4

It's a great movie.

It does make a wonderful change of pace seeing Lee Marvin (the mean, bullying, brutal Liberty Valance once upon a time) and Burt Lancaster (usually soft-spoken and reasonable in most of his roles) take on different personas in here. 

And I actually like Jack Palance much better here than in his most celebrated villainous role in SHANE.

While Robert Ryan and Woody Strode don't exactly steal the show, I thought they both did very well with what was given with them.

A very entertaining romp all the way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Hoganman1 said:

OK. We watched CASINO ROYALE last night. It was good, but it got me thinking about the Bond franchise. I've seen most of the movies and liked them all for the most part. As I'm starting to read more and more since retiring, I realized I've never read any of Ian Fleming's novels. I did a little research and learned Fleming created Bond in 1953. Casino Royale was the first novel. The movies began in 1963 and DR NO was actually the sixth novel although it was the first movie with Sean Connery as Bond.  Somehow the movie makers did not pay attention to the sequence of Fleming's books. I've read that Fleming thought Connery was all wrong for the part, but relented after viewing the film. Anyway, this brings me to today when there are discussions as to who should follow Daniel Craig in the role.  Apparently, many people wanted Idris Elba to be the next James Bond. Racial issues aside I don't want to see a black Bond just as I don't want to see a white Alex Cross (the detective from the James Patterson books and movies). Granted things were really different in the 50s and 60s which I believe was the best era for the character. Frankly, I thought and still think Daniel Craig was wrong for the role. I have enjoyed his movies, but Sean Connery was my favorite followed by Pierce Brosnan. Whomever they pick to portray Bond going forward I think it needs to be a Caucasian  British actor. Please understand I'm a liberal and Denzel Washington is my favorite actor right now. However, I don't want to see him playing Bond either. Your thoughts are encouraged. It's just my opinion and I might be wrong. 

I've been slowly working my way through the original 14 Bond novels- about to finish the 12th.  Fleming wanted David Niven to play Bond in Dr. No (Niven actually played Bond previously in the spoof take on Casino Royale, and looked somewhat like Fleming who Bond was inspired on some of his own life, but Fleming embraced Connery afterwards and made Bond Scottish in the books that came out after the movies came along.  Connery IS Bond and is a tough act to follow but Moore is my personal favorite.  Dalton and Lazenby deserved more chances in the role and both deserve more credit.  Brosnan is easily my least favorite and he never made a good Bond film.  the x-treme sports craze of the 90s did nothing to help the franchise.  The three worst Bond films all star Brosnan.   Craig was perfect for the grittier/darker, post 9-11 re-booted Bond.  Not sure where the franchise goes from here.  I say bring Craig back for another 2 films personally.  Or else take a break from the franchise and let it sit for a decade.

I don't like any of the choices i see being discussed as potential replacements. none have the right feel for Bond.  i say pick an actor who is relatively unknown.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two from yesterday:

Brighton Rock (1948) Enough has been said about this already on the Noir thread, but i'll just add that for a place like Brighton that has so many memorable locations, thought only a few obvious ones were utilized.  I'd have included much more.  thought it was an odd choice to have the film spend its first 20 minutes on a side character who would be killed off before the main characters come in, but it was a decent enough film.

Walk on the Wild Side (1962) I liked this one.  Lots of well known stars although admittedly i don't know much about Capucine or Laurence Harvey.  Fonda was good.  Her politics annoy me, but damn is she a good actress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5fingers.jpg..James_Mason-Danielle_Darrieux_in_Five_Fi

5 Fingers, 1952  1 hr. 42 min.   Directed by Joe Mankiewicz  Screenplay by Michael Wilson  Music by Bernard Hermann
Starring James Mason, Michael Rennie, Danielle Darrieux


This is a first-rate spy thriller that I never heard of.   A critical and commercial success, it was nominated for two Oscars, Best Director and Best Screenplay.

Based on a true story and filmed on location where it took place.

Sheridan Morley, in his James Mason biography says  "Here James was able to give one of his most polished and expertly suave performances, much helped by a Joe Mankiewicz production which ought to have been the envy of Hitchcock himself." 

James plays a valet to the British ambassador to Turkey during WWII, which gives him access to state secrets. Clever and motivated purely by money he becomes a spy for the Nazis code-named "Cicero", turning over his documents to a skeptical Franz von Papen, former German Chancellor who is now the German ambassador in Ankara.

There's also a beautiful but cash poor Countess involved, who James hopes to woo with his new found wealth. But whose side is she really on?  When the British send a counter-intelligence man to identify the spy, things really heat up, and it's all the more gripping because it's true. 8/10

Full movie. Crisp clear print and good sound quality

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Third Day (1965) Directed by Jack Smight who next directed Harper. Starring George Peppard, Elizabeth Ashley, Roddy McDowall, Arthur O'Connell, Herbert Marshall,  Robert Webber, Sally Kellerman and Arte Johnson.

This is a Transitional Noir but just barely. Amnesiac Peppard climbs up a river bank not remembering a thing. He starts walking down the road finally getting to a roadhouse where everybody seems to know him. Turns out he's rich runs the town's main employer a pottery manufacturer. Everybody hates him because he was not only a belligerent drunk when he is in his cups but was also on the verge of selling the company. His Lincoln went in the drink with the towns nymphomaniac (Kellerman).  She is still alive but barely. Her husband (Johnson) vows to kill Peppard if she dies. Peppard remembers none of this previous life. This is one of those upper class/high society Noirs where way too much time is spent in the opulent mansion and not enough time with the flashbacks with Kellerman. And those are laughably soggy rather than steamy. There is a bit of stylistic cinematography but not enough to really save it. Plays more like a dated Hollywood Code Noir than the Neo Noir's to come. 6/10

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@CIGARJOE:  I looked for "The Third Day" many years ago on homevideo, but it was never released by Warner on VHS.  Then I noticed several years back it had been issued on one of those MOD discs by Warner Archives so I bought one.  I noted the movie screens @ 2.40:1 on the disc; that's some fat W/S!  No wonder Warner didn't issue it on tape . . . that would've been some heavy duty panning-and-scanning to be done since Warner issued very few movies on tape in their original W/S theatrical presentations. 

I concur with your review at 6/10.  I think Leonard Maltin gave "The Third Day" **½ stars out of '****' for 'Worth Watching'/A Little Bit Above Average.   It's pretty good but not great. 

I can think of four amnesia movies that came out between 1965 and 1968:

THE THIRD DAY (1965) along with MIRAGE (1965), MISTER BUDDWING (1966) and JIGSAW (1968 - A sort of 'mod' remake of "Mirage"; apparently filmed for televsion by Universal but released to theaters instead).

These kind of amnesia plots remind of the Elvis Presley song:  I Forgot to Remember to Forget.

 

  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
"You mean to say that a native knows that you were wearing underpants? Good God, this is more serious than I thought!”
 
Carry On Up the Khyber (1968)
 
The 3rd Foot and Mouth Regiment, commanded by Sir Sidney Ruff-Diamond (Sid James), is responsible for the area around the Khyber Pass, in British India. The natives, governed by the Khasi of Kalabar, are terrified of the prestigious British army unit, who are said not to wear anything under their kilts. One timid soldier, Private Widdle (Charles Hawtrey), is prone to chill, and, going against the rules, wears underwear. As he is patrolling the Pass solo, he is approached by Bungit Din (Bernard Bresslaw), a fearsome Burpa. Widdle faints. Din uses his sword to lift the prone Widdle’s kilt and is shocked and amused to find that Widdle is wearing underwear. He takes the underwear to the Khasi, his leader (Kenneth Williams), who knows that now that the secret is out, the natives will no longer fear the Brits. 
 
This hilarious low-brow movie is one of the best of the divine Carry On series, though, these days, it would no doubt meet with disapproval from the woke brigade. The puns are brilliant, the characters sublimely inane, and the sexual innuendo omnipresent. I’ve seen this film many times, and I never tire of it.
 
In the end, the regiment lifts its skirts and scares the natives away.
 
Kenneth Williams to Sid James: "And how is our most gracious Majesty Queen Waterloo?"
 
s-l400.jpg
 
 
p41649_i_v8_aa.jpg
Kenneth Williams, Bernard Bresslaw
 
MV5BZGMyOGUwNTYtMmIzZS00YWU3LTk0NDUtMzFj
Sid James, Joan Sims
 
Carry-On-Up-the-Khyber-Charles-Hawtrey-F
Charles Hawtrey
 
angela-douglas-kenneth-williams-carry-on
 
3d149b4f2a7656375e249ba0dededf97.jpg
 
 
 
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Swithin said:
"You mean to say that a native knows that you were wearing underpants? Good God, this is more serious than I thought!”
 
Carry On Up the Khyber (1968)
 
This hilarious low-brow movie is one of the best of the divine Carry On series, though, these days, it would no doubt meet with disapproval from the woke brigade. The puns are brilliant, the characters sublimely inane, and the sexual innuendo omnipresent. I’ve seen this film many times, and I never tire of it.

"Mustaphaliiq!  Mustaphaliiq!"  😆

On the YouTube reactor-verse, the young fans have latched onto showoff requests for "Oo, it's October, you have to do Carry On Screaming!"  Probably because it's the only one that got US distribution, through Columbia, for being an easily-sold drive-in horror comedy, the only one that still randomly surfaces on Sony streaming channels, and hence the only one even most showoff fans even know exist.  (Even the ones who watched "Are You Being Served?" for years.)

For those who do know the rest of the series exists, Kyber is considered up in the Top 5 of the series, not least for that whole dinner scene at the end.  If it's got Kenneth Williams and Joan Sims, that's the minimum requirement for a good CO.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Universal Horror  1998   Photoplay Productions for Universal  Directed by Kevin Brownlow. Narrated by Kenneth Branagh.

 To be in the spirit of the month avery good 95 minutes  documentary done for tv and included in the Universal box set with interviews with Fay Wray, Sara Karloff, Forrest Ackerman and many others. This would be  good for a future October since many films repeats  every year.TCM shouLd license a good documentary made for tv like this one.I'am wondering how much money was spent on the 'new formula' ,it could have been used to license a lot of  films.They showed this one in 2002 for the last time Anyway, highly recommended.95 minutes. 7.5/10 

 

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
© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...