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

I Just Watched...


speedracer5
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 1/31/2022 at 9:44 PM, SansFin said:

I am quite happy to say that: Firefly (2002–2003) is available now on: TubiTV!

 

The setting is that cowboys, the Chinese and soulless bureaucrats colonized space. It is very dark and very funny. 

I would never recommend that any person who is not a lover of science fiction begin by watching the first episode. It is very dark and somewhat convoluted and has far less humor than most other episodes. 

I would like to think that some who do not care for most science fiction will at least give this series a try by watching the episode: Our Mrs. Reynolds. It is a romp and has minimal science fiction for a series set on a tramp spaceship smuggling goods from planet to planet.

Ron Glass plays one of the most delightful characters. He is a Shepherd which is a sort of combination monk, missionary and vicar. He is conflicted about living on a ship crewed by criminals. His ability to rise to an occasion is demonstrated when they are preparing to rescue the pilot and the captain.  Zoë walks up to him as he is checking a weapon:  Zoë: "Preacher, don't the Bible have some pretty specific things to say about killin'?" Shepherd Book: "Quite specific. It is, however, somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps." Only Ron Glass could deliver that line with such aplomb.

Summer Glau was a ballerina before moving on to acting. She is here a brain-addled waif of incredible grace and fluidity of movement. She reminds me that sharks also do not have bones.

9.4/10

I really liked Firefly. Never pulled a decent sized audience though. Quality science fiction in general has been a hard sell on tv  for a long time. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

Agree- Ron Glass was packed with talent. I loved him in everything I'd ever seen him in. I still quote his line (with his menacing inflection) from ALL IN THE FAMILY;  "Black is beautiful, baby"

latest?cb=20130904095104

TXfilmfan said: These are not spontaneous experiences by any means. 

Correct. Realize these are people who think this will be their big break into celebrity, their adorableness will be discovered! Note I did not say "talent" because apparently, people want to become "celebrities" or "famous" or insidious "influencers" rather than actually having a talent & entertaining others.

Ron Glass was a standout on Barney Miller too. So good at portraying a man with many frustrations. Very funny actor on a very funny show.

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

4 minutes ago, Grumpytoad said:

I really liked Firefly. Never pulled a decent sized audience though. Quality science fiction in general has been a hard sell on tv  for a long time. 

I feel that: Firefly shows clearly the problem which the genre faces: literate science fiction is a very specialized niche market while cheap and cheerful attracts hordes of viewers. Joss Whedon focused on high quality while the programming executives at Fox knew what would attract advertisers. That conflict hastened the demise of what would have been a marginal exercise at best.

Watching Ron Glass is a delight at all times. The slight menace he puts into the phrase: "A special helll" will forever bring a smile to me no matter how many times I watch it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/24/2022 at 4:41 PM, sewhite2000 said:

1/5 Night at the Opera (MGM, 1935)
Source: TCM

When I saw the lineup for the fifth when doing my list of January titles a few months ago, I guessed the theme of the night was "comedy geniuses", which didn't turn out to be inaccurate, but the actual stated theme of the night was Al Hirschfield and the stars he admired and used in his drawings (the Hirschfield doc wasn't yet listed on the schedule back in November - I made the best guess I could!) I believe this was the Marx Brothers' first film at MGM after starting their movie careers at Paramount. I recall watching some of Peter Bogdonavich's documentary on Buster Keaton a few years ago, and I thought Leonard Maltin as one the doc's talking heads not doing TCM (who fairly routinely give him guest hosting or co-hosting duties) any favors by elaborating to some degree on the fact that most of the great comedy stars ended up at MGM at some point in the '30s, and that the studo pretty much ended up ruining all of them, though in some cases it may have taken a couple of movies (think he said the Marx Brothers were one of those cases). Maltin was making a point relevant to one of the documentary's themes about how Keaton's time at MGM ultimately led to a lot of unhappiness for him, but I can't imagine TCM execs were too crazy about a documentary asserting that most of the product from the studio that provides TCM with probably half their content kinda sucks. Anyway, it was apparently Irving Thalberg who recognized the genius of the Marx Brothers and pounced on them when they became available, so one more notch on the Boy Genius' belt. This was also the first Marx Brothers film without Zeppo, I think, and having seen Duck Soup and maybe one other of their Paramount films, I think I can safely say he wasn't terribly missed.

Hardcore fans of the Marx Brothers have historically been unhappy with their output after the studio switch, and the things MGM decided to emphasize. At Paramount, they tended to mock romantic conventions, but Opera is the first of several films where one of their goals is to try to get the young couple together, and in the process, they become supporting characters in their own movie in the scenes that focus on the leading couple. Also, the charge is the comedy at MGM just wasn't as satirical or surreal, though I would say the famous crowded ship's cabin scene definitely tampers a bit with reality.

The film opens in an unnamed European country that's apparently supposed to be Italy, the country most celebrated for opera, of course. I'm reading on IMDB that the studio didn't want to offend Mussolini, who disliked the Italian stereotypes, some years before Italy and the US were at war (I've also read that Hitler cherished prints of Hollywood films and would have private screenings of them). So, an opening number that identifies Italy by name got cut, and the film begins rather abruptly. The arrogant tenor Rodolfo (Walter King) is chasing after his leading lady Rosa (Kitty Carlisle). She's in love with Ricardo (Allan Jones), who's stuck in the chorus like Ruby Keeler in one of her making-a-musical movies with Dick Powell, and just wants to show the world his talent. Meanhile, Groucho, playing a man named Otis P. Driftwood, convinces the wealthy widow Mrs. Claypool (frequent Marx Brothers foil Margaret Dumont) to invest $200,000 in the New York Opera Co. The company's managing director Gottlieb (Sig Ruman) wants to use the cash to entice Rodolfo to cross the Atlantic and join his company, and Rodolfo intends to bring Rosa with him where he can continue pursuing her. Shortly before the boat departs, Ricardo reunites with his friend and ostensible manager Fiorello (Chico Marx) and his former dresser Tomasso (Harpo Marx), and the trio decide to stowaway aboard the ship. Also prior to departure, Driftwood ecounters Fiorello and ends up buying Ricardo's contract in one of the movie's funnier scenes ("That's a sanity clause" ... "You can't fool me. There aint' no Sanity Clause!"), mistakenly believing Fiorello represents Rodolfo. All the Marx Brothers are working on Ricardo's behalf, trying to get him the lead tenor part and wed to Rosa. This requires them to keep manuevering one step ahead of a variety of authority figures who want to haul them in for a variety of reasons - stowing away, impersonating a trio of world-famous bearded (Russian?) aviators (don't ask) and just generally causing havoc as they try to get Ricardo in the spotlight during Rodolfo's New York debut. Their most dogged pursuer is a police sergeant played by Robert Emmett O'Connor, whom I didn't know by name when I watched the movie, but I certainly recognized his face from years of TCM viewing. He must have been a contract player at MGM for quite a while - you can see him in everything from the Maisie to the Dr. Gillespie to the Andy Hardy to the Lassie movies as well as The Human ComedyThey Were Expenable and The Harvey Girls. 

As the title suggests, there's a lot of singing in this film. It was conventional thinking at the time apparently that musical numbers gave a film wider appeal, and I find it interesting to view shifting attitudes over time, as there's another thread on these boards specifically discussing the new West Side Story but also Dear Evan Hansen and some others and wondering if movie musicals are going to work anymore. So, in addition to the showcase pieces for Chico and Harpo on piano and harp, respectively, we get Jones and Carlisle singing love songs to one another, both operatic pieces and more contemporary romantic ballads. Similar thinking got numbers inserted in the movies of Abbott & Costello, Laurel & Hardy and W.C. Fields. The songs here are pretty pointless, but the movie is still hilarious in spite of them.

The brothers themselves are very reliable. Groucho is his usual quick-witted self ("Nine dollars and fifty cents? It's an outrage!" he declares when told the price of dinner, then turning to his female companion, "If I were you, I wouldn't pay it!").  Chico is smart or dumb as called for by the scene. The bits he does with Groucho, like the contract reviewing scene, as far as I know from my limited Marx Brothers knowledge, were well rehearsed from their live act, but they still play as funny if you're watching them for the first time in movie form. Harpo is a gifted silent actor and no doubt would have excelled in that era - all wide-eyed innocence yet playfully mischevious, expressive in all the best possible ways. Jones and Carlisle are generically bland. When I squinted, I could kind of half-imagine Zeppo in the Jones role, although I don't know that he ever would have been cast as a romantic lead. There's a promotional piece on TCM in which Carlisle recounts having been distressed at not hearing her own singing voice in playbacks. Every time I try to focus on what she's saying, it's over before I can commit that much brain power, so I don't know the whole story, but sounds like the Marx Brothers saw to it that her actual voice was used. Dumont has the wit and comic timing to keep pace with Groucho and is underappreciated as his comic foil/target of his "affections".

While I'm sure the Marx Brothers wrote a lot of their own material, the screenplay is credited to George S. Kaufman. He wrote the play on which Frank Capra's You Can't Take It with You is based, and he made apparently large but uncredited contributions to A Day at the Races. Directed by Sam Wood, who also did Goodbye, Mr. Chips and Kitty Foyle.

Total Films Seen This Year: 11

A Night at the Opera (1935) - IMDb

 

 

 

The first Marx Brothers I saw. Brilliant. One of the few movies I've watched more than four times.

Horse Feathers is the only other one I've seen. A couple of good gags but otherwise kind of bored me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Det Jim McLeod said:

This set in the 1970s and feels like it was made in that decade. Which is why I liked it so much. There is no conventional plot, we just follow the characters into what ever they decide to do at the time. There are many hints to certain actors and movies of the time that only film buffs will notice.

It sounds like the movie just tries to pull nostalgic strings instead of presenting a well written, solid story. I don't care for movies that spend the lion's share of effort on nostalgia props/music/costuming and less attention on a script/story that will emotionally engage the viewer. 

For example: Forest Gump is a FAIL for it's awful script & execution while Once Upon A Time In Hollywood presents a better balance of story/production elements.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quai Des Orfèvres from 1947
 
 
What an outstanding movie. Nobody can weave a love-triangle, a detective story and existential angst together in one film better than the French.
 
You really don't want to know too many details about Quai Des Orfèvres' plot ahead of time, as watching it unfold is part of the joy. It's well constructed and paced, with only a few holes. 
 
Suzy Delair is a singer/performer with a jealous husband/accompanist, Bernard Blier. Delair is an innocent, but enthusiastic flirt trying to advance her career, in part, by flattering influential men, which drives her milquetoast-looking husband, Blier, insane with jealousy. 
 
One night, Delair is at the home of a lecherous producer trying to get a film contract for herself when she takes offense at his unwanted advances. She cracks him over the head with a bottle of champagne, believes she's killed him and runs from the scene.
 
Unaware of that event, jealous husband Blier shows up later that night to confront the producer only to find him dead, so he runs from the house too. Lastly, Blier and Delair's friend, Simone Renant, after Delair tells her what she did, goes to the producer's house that same evening to retrieve a fur wrap Delair left behind and to obscure any incriminating-of-Delair evidence.
 
Renant is Blier's long-time friend, but she's also carrying an unrequited and somewhat hidden torch for Delair - God love the French. None of it is gratuitous; it's just real life. 
 
From here, the plot is basically a crime drama as Louis Jouvet, a put upon, cranky, smart and bedraggled-looking police inspector, slowly and methodically drives what is now a high-profile murder investigation. Not helping Jouvet are his boss' demands for unrealistically fast results, while the press **** at Jouvet's heels.
 
The heart and soul in Quai Des Orfèvres, though, is not the very engaging investigation, but the personal relationships. 
 
It's the mutual but misaligned love Delair and Blier have for each other. He can't see her flirtations are meaningless and she can't see how hurtful they are to him. They have a love many married couples would envy, but its gears keep grinding. 
 
It's also the poignant and unrequited love Renant has for Delair, so much so, at one point, she tries to take the fall for Delair to keep her out of prison. That's some seriously unrequited love at work. 
 
Finally, it is inspector Jouvet's love for his young son - we only know he came back from the colonies with him, but without the boy's mother. Jouvet is tender with the boy as we see him worry about his test grades or if he is warm enough when sleeping. 
 
That the boy is black and Jouvet white is refreshingly unimportant to everyone. The relationship itself allows us to see Jouvet in a fuller and more-forgiving light when he, as he does often, browbeats a suspect.
 
The other beauty of Quai Des Orfèvres is its little nuances such as how, in a poor post-war France, it's quite common for people to wear their overcoats inside because, one assumes, there was, often, little heat. 
 
Or it's the scary peek into French justice in the 1940s as we see the police conduct an aggressive investigation, but with warrants and lawyers for the suspects nowhere in sight.
 
It's also the well-paced and dense dialogue that includes several funny asides, which sound refreshingly like how people really speak. Yes, it's a movie, but after watching Quai Des Orfèvres you also feel like you've just spent time in 1947 France.
 
Lastly (minor spoiler alert), it's Blier, in moment of existential angst, attempting suicide in his jail cell from a combination of love for his wife (he wants to protect her) and lacking the will to go on without her. She might drive him blind with jealous rage, but she is also his reason for living. 
 
Quai Des Orfèvres is one of those rare movie gems film buffs live for. We all know the "top-ten" or, even, "top-hundred films of all time" and we all have our personal "undiscovered" favorites that we watch over and over. Yet finding that wonderful movie you've never seen nor heard about (at least I hadn't heard about this one) is the exact moment a film buff waits, sometimes, years for. 
 
Beautifully restored Quai Des Orfèvres is a cinematic treat: a love story **** crime story that is so real its intricate and well-constructed plot is less important than the humanity director Henri-Georges Clouzot so perfectly lims for us in this masterpiece.
 
 
 
   
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

It sounds like the movie just tries to pull nostalgic strings instead of presenting a well written, solid story. I don't care for movies that spend the lion's share of effort on nostalgia props/music/costuming and less attention on a script/story that will emotionally engage the viewer. 

For example: Forest Gump is a FAIL for it's awful script & execution while Once Upon A Time In Hollywood presents a better balance of story/production elements.

It's not so much the costuming and props that make the movie great, it is the way the characters just go through their life and the encounters they have with other people. Some films that it reminded me of were Scarecrow (1973) and The Last Detail (1973), where we just observe the characters on their journey. Do you like those films?

I agree on Forest Gump not  being that great, although I enjoyed it more than you. Once Upon A Time In Hollywood is my favorite movie of the 21st century so far.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

Yes, I was a hardcore MICHELLE PFEIFFER STAN, had been since BATMAN RETURNS. 
 

I made it a point to be there for her on opening day.

Unfortunately, Wolf was the beginning of her career decline, but she had a pretty extraordinary run there from Ladyhawke through Age of Innocence. One good film after another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

Unfortunately, Wolf was the beginning of her career decline, but she had a pretty extraordinary run there from Ladyhawke through Age of Innocence. One good film after another.

HOW DARE YOU????!!!! THERE WAS NO MICHELLE PFEIFFER CAREER DECLINE!!!! SHE IS AN AGELESS ETERNAL ANGEL WHO PRESIDES OVER US ALL!!!!

-KIDDING! I totally know what you mean.

I actually wrote a paper for AP ENGLISH in high school in 1994 wherein I argued that MICHELLE PFEIFFER should have won THE BEST ACTRESS OSCAR in 1992 for BATMAN RETURNS.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

HOW DARE YOU????!!!! THERE WAS NO MICHELLE PFEIFFER CAREER DECLINE!!!! SHE IS AN AGELESS ETERNAL ANGEL WHO PRESIDES OVER US ALL!!!!

-KIDDING! I totally know what you mean.

I actually wrote a paper for AP ENGLISH in high school in 1994 wherein I argued that MICHELLE PFEIFFER should have won THE BEST ACTRESS OSCAR in 1992 for BATMAN RETURNS.

That's a very popular opinion nowadays that she should have won the Oscar for being Catwoman. It would have been a very good win.

As for her post-Wolf movies, I did think One Fine Day was an effective throwback to screwball comedies and that A Thousand Acres was a great showcase... for Jessica Lange. I did like the musical remake of Hairspray (know that you didn't though), and Cheri in 2009 was a good part for her.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found some prints of two rare films online today. The one for The Blue Veil was not good visually and had shaky sound, yet the warmth  of Jane Wyman's performance still came through. Joan Blondell received her only Oscar nomination for it but her role was on the small side. The print of White Banners (1938) is much better. It too is a touching film, and I love that it is set in a small midwest town, something i can relate to easily.....

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Grumpytoad said:

The first Marx Brothers I saw. Brilliant. One of the few movies I've watched more than four times.

Horse Feathers is the only other one I've seen. A couple of good gags but otherwise kind of bored me.

There are only two more "essential" Marxes:  Animal Crackers has all the classic lines (although it's trapped in one of their early stage plays), but Duck Soup is the silliest.

 

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

On 1/31/2022 at 12:53 AM, speedracer5 said:

I refuse to watch reaction videos (or really most people’s “look at me” videos) because I am not convinced that those are their genuine reactions. I don’t know about everyone else, but since I usually watch movies alone, my reactions are not vocalized. Then there are things I wonder about (e.g. money, so I’ll bring up the inflation calculator); but I do that quietly and pause the movie. I feel like people who are making a point to record their reactions will just think of things to say to try and be funny or outrageous. I feel like these videos are disingenuous. The only way they’d seem more realistic is if the person didn’t know they were being filmed.  And even then I wouldn’t watch, because I don’t care. 

Yes, the "reactors" in those videos are giving a performance.  It would not surprise me if some of the "first time  watching" videos are later "takes"--- if the  "reactor" was not pleased with their first "genuine" reaction.

I  have more respect for people who upload analysis videos ----  where they discuss what they think is exceptional about an acting or a singing performance. With these kinds of videos there's  no pretense of a "first" reaction.  The people in the videos are discussing a performance they have seen or heard many times so any enthusiasm they display  seems like less of a show than what we see in the "first time reaction" videos.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HoldenIsHere said:

Yes, the "reactors" in those videos are giving a performance.  It would not surprise me if some of the "first time  watching" videos are later "takes"--- if the  "reactor" was not pleased with their first "genuine" reaction.

No, we've seen a few....genuine reactions.  Probably one of the "stars" of the Reactor-verse at the moment is Ashleigh Burton, and while there are very few movies she hasn't loved on first view, for the ones she hasn't, the reactions are pretty difficult to fake:    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASH39dHFx-0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, CinemaInternational said:

Found some prints of two rare films online today. The one for The Blue Veil was not good visually and had shaky sound, yet the warmth  of Jane Wyman's performance still came through. Joan Blondell received her only Oscar nomination for it but her role was on the small side. The print of White Banners (1938) is much better. It too is a touching film, and I love that it is set in a small midwest town, something i can relate to easily.....

Glad you got to see The Blue Veil, very difficult to find, and White Banners. I also liked The Blue Veil. Where else could you find Charles Laughton and Vivian Vance as a couple? I also liked Agnes Moorehead's performance as a rich woman who deftly breaks up Jane Wyman's romance because it isn't convenient for Agnes. It's nice that Joan Blondell got an Oscar nomination, but she has larger and better parts in other films.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, HoldenIsHere said:

Yes, the "reactors" in those videos are giving a performance.  It would not surprise me if some of the "first time  watching" videos are later "takes"--- if the  "reactor" was not pleased with their first "genuine" reaction.

I  have more respect for people who upload analysis videos ----  where they discuss what they think is exceptional about an acting or a singing performance. With these kinds of videos there's  no pretense of a "first" reaction.  The people in the videos are discussing a performance they have seen or heard many times so any enthusiasm they display  seems like less of a show than what we see in the "first time reaction" videos.

I have to admit though, there are certain reaction video ideas that I am down for.

Like I would enjoy watching a REACTION VIDEO OF A BUNCH OF JESUIT NUNS WATCHING "KEN RUSSELL'S THE DEVILS" FOR THE FIRST TIME! or, say A GROUP OF EVANGELICAL YOUTH MINISTERS REACT TO SEEING LUCINO VISCONTI'S "THE DAMNED" FOR THE FIRST TIME!!!" or, best of all, ALYSSA EDWARDS REACTION VIDEO TO SEEING "THE LEGEND OF LYLAH CLARE" FOR THE FIRST TIME!"

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, CinemaInternational said:

That's a very popular opinion nowadays that she should have won the Oscar for being Catwoman. It would have been a very good win.

As for her post-Wolf movies, I did think One Fine Day was an effective throwback to screwball comedies and that A Thousand Acres was a great showcase... for Jessica Lange. I did like the musical remake of Hairspray (know that you didn't though), and Cheri in 2009 was a good part for her.

it really would have..,although 1992 was an infamously bad year for women's roles, I think it was a bad year for conventional women's roles, but commercial films actually had some fun parts.

I still recall the paper, which I styled to match the format of an entry in DANNY PEARY'S book ALTERNATE OSCARS (which, if you have not read it, GET A COPY NOW). I'm sure that this is going to get some real derision, but I thought the winner should have been PFEIFFER for BATMAN RETURNS with the other four "worthy" nominees being GOLDIE HAWN and MERYL STREEP for DEATH BECOMES HER, SUSAN SARANDON for LORENZO'S OIL and SHARON STONE in BASIC INSTINCT.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few comments:

Re: Michelle - She could have won for The Fabulous Baker Boys (as could Jeff Bridges)

Remember when Louise Fletcher won Best Actress for what was really a supporting role?

Diane Keaton was Oscar worthy in Looking for Mr. Goodbar (although her role in Annie Hall is iconic).

Same with Julie Andrews - The Americanization of Emily (by Paddy Chayevsky) was more complex than Mary Poppins.

As for My Fair Lady's Audrey vs.  Julie's Mary Poppin, it is a draw.  The woman who deserved an Oscar for playing Eliza in Pygmalion (sp?) opposite Leslie Howard (better than Harrison in my opinion) is Wendy Hiller.  She was a great actress (whom, thanks to Burt Lancaster, finally receive a supporting Oscar for another great movie, Separate Tables.

You can't compare today's Oscars and other awards shows to yesterday because there are too many award shows out there and movies should be watched in legitimate theaters, not via some streaming, etc. service.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

it really would have..,although 1992 was an infamously bad year for women's roles, I think it was a bad year for conventional women's roles, but commercial films actually had some fun parts.

I still recall the paper, which I styled to match the format of an entry in DANNY PEARY'S book ALTERNATE OSCARS (which, if you have not read it, GET A COPY NOW). I'm sure that this is going to get some real derision, but I thought the winner should have been PFEIFFER for BATMAN RETURNS with the other four "worthy" nominees being GOLDIE HAWN and MERYL STREEP for DEATH BECOMES HER, SUSAN SARANDON for LORENZO'S OIL and SHARON STONE in BASIC INSTINCT.)

 

No  problem with that lineup. In fact they would all have made good nominees. (And I just found a Used copy of Alternate Oscars, thank you for the link)

If listing performances that popped for actresses in 1992 (not necessarily an endorsement for the films they were in though), they would be:

Fairuza Balk/Gas Food Lodging
Kim Basinger/Final Anaylsis
Geena Davis/ both A League of Their Own and Hero
Catherine Deneuve/Indochine
Mia Farrow/Husbands and Wives
Whoopi Goldberg/Sister Act
Goldie Hawn/ the trio: Death Becomes Her, CrissCross and Housesitter (which actually made Andrew Sarris's top 10 list for English Language films of 1992, amazingly enough)
Whitney Huston/The Bodyguard
Julie Kavner/This is My Life
Jennifer Jason Leigh/Single White Female
Shirley MacLaine/Used People
Samantha Mathis/This is My Life
Mary McDonnell/Passion Fish
Michelle Pfeiffer/for both Love Field and Batman Returns
Sharon Stone/Basic Instinct
Susan Sarandon/Lorenzo's Oil
Madeleine Stowe/The Last of the Mohicans
Meryl Streep/Death Becomes Her
Tilda Swinton/Orlando (1992 in the UK; 1993 in the US)
Emma Thompson/Howards End
Uma Thurman/Jennifer 8
Sigourney Weaver/Alien³
Alfre Woodard/Passion Fish

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

No  problem with that lineup. In fact they would all have made good nominees. (And I just found a Used copy of Alternate Oscars, thank you for the link)

If listing performances that popped for actresses in 1992 (not necessarily an endorsement for the films they were in though), they would be:

Fairuza Balk/Gas Food Lodging
Kim Basinger/Final Anaylsis
Geena Davis/ both A League of Their Own and Hero
Catherine Deneuve/Indochine
Mia Farrow/Husbands and Wives
Whoopi Goldberg/Sister Act
Goldie Hawn/ the trio: Death Becomes Her, CrissCross and Housesitter (which actually made Andrew Sarris's top 10 list for English Language films of 1992, amazingly enough)
Whitney Huston/The Bodyguard
Julie Kavner/This is My Life
Jennifer Jason Leigh/Single White Female
Shirley MacLaine/Used People
Samantha Mathis/This is My Life
Mary McDonnell/Passion Fish
Michelle Pfeiffer/for both Love Field and Batman Returns
Sharon Stone/Basic Instinct
Susan Sarandon/Lorenzo's Oil
Madeleine Stowe/The Last of the Mohicans
Meryl Streep/Death Becomes Her
Tilda Swinton/Orlando (1992 in the UK; 1993 in the US)
Emma Thompson/Howards End
Uma Thurman/Jennifer 8
Sigourney Weaver/Alien³
Alfre Woodard/Passion Fish

and don't forget a certain MISS RACHEL MARRON for her STUNNING DEBUT QUEEN OF THE NIGHT:

(LET'S SEE EMMA THOMPSON DO THAT!!!

..Seriously. I mean it. I would LIVE to see EMMA THOMPSON perform QUEEN OF THE NIGHT.)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

and don't forget a certain MISS RACHEL MARRON for her STUNNING DEBUT QUEEN OF THE NIGHT:

(LET'S SEE EMMA THOMPSON DO THAT!!!

..Seriously. I mean it. I would LIVE to see EMMA THOMPSON perform QUEEN OF THE NIGHT.)

I know the reviews for The bodyguard were not strong in 1992, but its a really fun noir tinged romance. I liked it. And the soundtrack is wonderful. Only quibble: I wish they had followed Libby Gellman-Waxcner's suggestion and make the stalker either Sally Kirkland or Marsha Mason, both hunting for an Oscar, rather than the man they did go with.....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CinemaInternational said:

I know the reviews for The bodyguard were not strong in 1992, but its a really fun noir tinged romance. I liked it. And the soundtrack is wonderful. Only quibble: I wish they had followed Libby Gellman-Waxcner's suggestion and make the stalker either Sally Kirkland or Marsha Mason, both hunting for an Oscar, rather than the man they did go with.....

I guarantee you, nine out of ten people who've seen the movie forgot that dude. he was an ODD casting choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

I know the reviews for The bodyguard were not strong in 1992, but its a really fun noir tinged romance. I liked it. And the soundtrack is wonderful. Only quibble: I wish they had followed Libby Gellman-Waxcner's suggestion and make the stalker either Sally Kirkland or Marsha Mason, both hunting for an Oscar, rather than the man they did go with.....

also also, I recall miss Gelman-Waxner bemoaning that we don't see more of QUEEN OF THE NIGHT in THE BODYGUARD, and suggesting it is probably a lot like the SATAN'S ALLEY number in STAYING ALIVE.

Link to comment
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
 Share

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