I Just Watched...

[Tikisoo]

OK so I'm on a Charles Martin Smith kick after spotting him in Disney's awful NO DEPOSIT NO RETURN '76. I then sought out STONE OF DESTINY, previously mentioned in this thread. Next I revisited his famous breakout role in AMERICAN GRAFFITI '73.

American Graffiti was the first movie I went to with my friends as a teen & we all loved it. I've seen it through the years and always enjoyed it. This time around it was kind of boring, nothing much happens really if you already know the story. MacKenzie Phillips, Candy Clark & Charles M Smith were really the big standouts.

So then I took out 1983's NEVER CRY WOLF from the library. I remember seeing this once a long time ago and was delightfully surprised. This is the story of a scientist named Tyler (Smith) being dropped off, alone, in the Canadian Arctic to study wolves. It certainly starts with drama; the rickety plane & daredevil crazy pilot (Brian Dennehy) flying deeper and deeper into desolate wilderness. As someone who flies small planes, I found this to be a little over-exaggerated for dramatic effect.

But here's this guy left alone with none of the correct provisions trying to just get through the night when an Inuit comes by on a dog sled. Language barrier aside, he offers to take Tyler to his campsite. The relationship of the Inuit to the land becomes the real part of the story as Tyler learns how to cope. Well, it gets easier once spring arrives.

The story is memorable, touching and beautiful, due to many lingering shots of the immense mountains & scenery. While there are several tense moments, anyone who is into wilderness camping or survivalist will thoroughly enjoy this movie. And there are a few funny moments too -most notable the scene where he's napping fully naked (Yay!) and awakened by a caribou stampede.

It's always mentioned "A Carroll Ballard Film" maybe to disassociate it from Disney?  Ballard as the director is important because it has the same sensibilities, look & feel of his earlier movie THE BLACK STALLION '79. Ballard also later directed FLY AWAY HOME '96, a movie I also liked very much.

 

[TomJH]

10 hours ago, TomJH said:

Dance, Fools, Dance (1931)

 

I forgot to mention that there is a gangland slaying in Dance Fools Dance in which seven hoods are mowed down by a rival gang in a garage. We don't see it on screen but hear about it. Gable's character is behind it. It is clearly based on the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, courtesy Mr. Capone, which had filled the nation's headlines two years before this film's released.

[CinemaInternational]

7 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

OK so I'm on a Charles Martin Smith kick after spotting him in Disney's awful NO DEPOSIT NO RETURN '76. I then sought out STONE OF DESTINY, previously mentioned in this thread. Next I revisited his famous breakout role in AMERICAN GRAFFITI '73.

American Graffiti was the first movie I went to with my friends as a teen & we all loved it. I've seen it through the years and always enjoyed it. This time around it was kind of boring, nothing much happens really if you already know the story. MacKenzie Phillips, Candy Clark & Charles M Smith were really the big standouts.

So then I took out 1983's NEVER CRY WOLF from the library. I remember seeing this once a long time ago and was delightfully surprised. This is the story of a scientist named Tyler (Smith) being dropped off, alone, in the Canadian Arctic to study wolves. It certainly starts with drama; the rickety plane & daredevil crazy pilot (Brian Dennehy) flying deeper and deeper into desolate wilderness. As someone who flies small planes, I found this to be a little over-exaggerated for dramatic effect.

But here's this guy left alone with none of the correct provisions trying to just get through the night when an Inuit comes by on a dog sled. Language barrier aside, he offers to take Tyler to his campsite. The relationship of the Inuit to the land becomes the real part of the story as Tyler learns how to cope. Well, it gets easier once spring arrives.

The story is memorable, touching and beautiful, due to many lingering shots of the immense mountains & scenery. While there are several tense moments, anyone who is into wilderness camping or survivalist will thoroughly enjoy this movie. And there are a few funny moments too -most notable the scene where he's napping fully naked (Yay!) and awakened by a caribou stampede.

It's always mentioned "A Carroll Ballard Film" maybe to disassociate it from Disney?  Ballard as the director is important because it has the same sensibilities, look & feel of his earlier movie THE BLACK STALLION '79. Ballard also later directed FLY AWAY HOME '96, a movie I also liked very much.

 

It's definitely a strong film, very unusual for Disney. Great photography and a haunting musical score. Also one of the more radical PG films out there. There is actually a frame or two with an extreme close-up of Martin's penïs, and its pretty astonishing that the film didn't get an R for that alone. Who ever thought Disney would go there?

[CinemaInternational]

This will be a bit unusual for me, but I feel that with a film like the following, I cannot discuss it without spoilers,  theological grappling and personal moral musings. 

They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (1969)

It is rare for me to be of two minds about a film, but this is one of those occasions. This has always been a film which eluded me until now. Every time I tried to borrow it from Netflix and Facets' DVD programs, it seemed like it was always out and in use. Now, Netflix DVD had it and I watched it.  I have long known about the tragic story and the fatalistic ending. I had read the 1935 novel on which it was based back in 2013, when I was a very different person than where I am now. The element that always troubled me about the book and the movie by extension is the act of euthanasia/suicide/murder that closes the story. I'm a Catholic, and while I am a far from perfect example of the faith or what is truly expected of me, I cannot endorse murder under any form. One can understand on a human level why the characters do what they do at the end of the story, as it is felt that there is no hope left, but it still the morally reprehensible path for them to take. I felt this way as well following 2004's Million Dollar Baby years ago as well. Both that and this film have the same conflict going on in my mind: is it enough to just comment on the many good elements and to send it off with some degree of praise, or should I dismiss it entirely on moral grounds? The answer is really somewhere in between.

What is good in this film are the performances. The whole cast is absolutely perfect for their roles: Jane Fonda as a hard-bitten, self-destructive woman (although less so than the character in the book), Michael Sarrazin as her solemn, somewhat naïve dancing partner, Gig Young as the oily MC, Susannah York as another contestant whose mind cracks under the pressure,  Red Buttons as a middle aged dancer with a heart condition, Bruce Dern and Bonnie Bedelia as an earnest young couple. It's a formidable lineup, not a weak link in sight. It is beautifully directed, always absorbing, with authentic period detail.  And the story is heartbreaking. And it has aged better in a styalistic way than almost any other late 60s film, and is another daring offering from ABC's (yes, the television channel) all-too-short-lived theatrical wing which also brought the world The Killing of Sister George, Charley, Lovers and Other Strangers, Straw Dogs, Kotch, Cabaret, Nashville, The Taking of Pellham One Two Three, The Stepford Wives, Take the Money and Run, Sleuth, The Heartbreak Kid, and Junior Bonner.

But, in come the moral elements, and not just the euthanasia which is such a burden on an already depressing story. In the book, the dance marathon was exhausting, debilitating, but at the same time, fair on the level that when the whole thing was over, a couple (or couples in the book, since the contest was ended while multiple couples were still dancing) would get a prize to help them through the darkest days of the Depression. But the movie adds a level of  rasping late 60s cynicism to the already present 30s variety: in the film, the contest is rigged so that after all the work, the contestants would still leave penniless due to room and board fees. It changes the whole complexion and moral view of everything. The Jane Fonda character in the book said horrible things and she was somewhat weak; when she did what she did at the end, it felt as though it was her way of throwing in the towel because she could not go on. Here, Fonda projects  too much personal strength (too strong to seem weak), and when the truth is revealed about the competition, it seemingly confirms the character's world view that nothing works in the world and that we in the world have violated her. It's a very sick, quite depraved twist, and I don't feel it was necessary.

Am I glad I saw this? Yes, because cinematically and acting wise it is a great film, and weirdly more fresh faced and honest than some of the depressing films of the last few years. But I still really can't fully endorse it due to personal beliefs. So, I end with a more conflicted response to it than I have had for most films that I have seen.

[ElCid]

10 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

OK so I'm on a Charles Martin Smith kick after spotting him in Disney's awful NO DEPOSIT NO RETURN '76. I then sought out STONE OF DESTINY, previously mentioned in this thread. Next I revisited his famous breakout role in AMERICAN GRAFFITI '73.

American Graffiti was the first movie I went to with my friends as a teen & we all loved it. I've seen it through the years and always enjoyed it. This time around it was kind of boring, nothing much happens really if you already know the story. MacKenzie Phillips, Candy Clark & Charles M Smith were really the big standouts.

So then I took out 1983's NEVER CRY WOLF from the library. I remember seeing this once a long time ago and was delightfully surprised. This is the story of a scientist named Tyler (Smith) being dropped off, alone, in the Canadian Arctic to study wolves. It certainly starts with drama; the rickety plane & daredevil crazy pilot (Brian Dennehy) flying deeper and deeper into desolate wilderness. As someone who flies small planes, I found this to be a little over-exaggerated for dramatic effect.

But here's this guy left alone with none of the correct provisions trying to just get through the night when an Inuit comes by on a dog sled. Language barrier aside, he offers to take Tyler to his campsite. The relationship of the Inuit to the land becomes the real part of the story as Tyler learns how to cope. Well, it gets easier once spring arrives.

The story is memorable, touching and beautiful, due to many lingering shots of the immense mountains & scenery. While there are several tense moments, anyone who is into wilderness camping or survivalist will thoroughly enjoy this movie. And there are a few funny moments too -most notable the scene where he's napping fully naked (Yay!) and awakened by a caribou stampede.

It's always mentioned "A Carroll Ballard Film" maybe to disassociate it from Disney?  Ballard as the director is important because it has the same sensibilities, look & feel of his earlier movie THE BLACK STALLION '79. Ballard also later directed FLY AWAY HOME '96, a movie I also liked very much.

 

 

You need to catch him in The Hot Spot.

[King Rat]

4 hours ago, CinemaInternational said:

This will be a bit unusual for me, but I feel that with a film like the following, I cannot discuss it without spoilers,  theological grappling and personal moral musings. 

They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (1969)

It is rare for me to be of two minds about a film, but this is one of those occasions. This has always been a film which eluded me until now. Every time I tried to borrow it from Netflix and Facets' DVD programs, it seemed like it was always out and in use. Now, Netflix DVD had it and I watched it.  I have long known about the tragic story and the fatalistic ending. I had read the 1935 novel on which it was based back in 2013, when I was a very different person than where I am now. The element that always troubled me about the book and the movie by extension is the act of euthanasia/suicide/murder that closes the story. I'm a Catholic, and while I am a far from perfect example of the faith or what is truly expected of me, I cannot endorse murder under any form. One can understand on a human level why the characters do what they do at the end of the story, as it is felt that there is no hope left, but it still the morally reprehensible path for them to take. I felt this way as well following 2004's Million Dollar Baby years ago as well. Both that and this film have the same conflict going on in my mind: is it enough to just comment on the many good elements and to send it off with some degree of praise, or should I dismiss it entirely on moral grounds? The answer is really somewhere in between.

What is good in this film are the performances. The whole cast is absolutely perfect for their roles: Jane Fonda as a hard-bitten, self-destructive woman (although less so than the character in the book), Michael Sarrazin as her solemn, somewhat naïve dancing partner, Gig Young as the oily MC, Susannah York as another contestant whose mind cracks under the pressure,  Red Buttons as a middle aged dancer with a heart condition, Bruce Dern and Bonnie Bedelia as an earnest young couple. It's a formidable lineup, not a weak link in sight. It is beautifully directed, always absorbing, with authentic period detail.  And the story is heartbreaking. And it has aged better in a styalistic way than almost any other late 60s film, and is another daring offering from ABC's (yes, the television channel) all-too-short-lived theatrical wing which also brought the world The Killing of Sister George, Charley, Lovers and Other Strangers, Straw Dogs, Kotch, Cabaret, Nashville, The Taking of Pellham One Two Three, The Stepford Wives, Take the Money and Run, Sleuth, The Heartbreak Kid, and Junior Bonner.

But, in come the moral elements, and not just the euthanasia which is such a burden on an already depressing story. In the book, the dance marathon was exhausting, debilitating, but at the same time, fair on the level that when the whole thing was over, a couple (or couples in the book, since the contest was ended while multiple couples were still dancing) would get a prize to help them through the darkest days of the Depression. But the movie adds a level of  rasping late 60s cynicism to the already present 30s variety: in the film, the contest is rigged so that after all the work, the contestants would still leave penniless due to room and board fees. It changes the whole complexion and moral view of everything. The Jane Fonda character in the book said horrible things and she was somewhat weak; when she did what she did at the end, it felt as though it was her way of throwing in the towel because she could not go on. Here, Fonda projects  too much personal strength (too strong to seem weak), and when the truth is revealed about the competition, it seemingly confirms the character's world view that nothing works in the world and that we in the world have violated her. It's a very sick, quite depraved twist, and I don't feel it was necessary.

Am I glad I saw this? Yes, because cinematically and acting wise it is a great film, and weirdly more fresh faced and honest than some of the depressing films of the last few years. But I still really can't fully endorse it due to personal beliefs. So, I end with a more conflicted response to it than I have had for most films that I have seen.

Thank you for all of your thoughts about They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, which is probably the best film of its year. The ending is very problematic, and it is worth taking seriously. I don't think the actions of the Fonda and Sarrazin characters are endorsed by the film, and the sweetness Michael Sarrazin brings to the film makes our feelings about the ending even stronger. I also agree with you that Fonda seems too strong for what happens; she also needed to get rid of her finishing school accent. Nonetheless, it's one of her best performances. You're also on target about the late 60s cynicism; this affects a number of films of the period.

[Swithin]

2 hours ago, King Rat said:

Thank you for all of your thoughts about They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, which is probably the best film of its year. The ending is very problematic, and it is worth taking seriously. I don't think the actions of the Fonda and Sarrazin characters are endorsed by the film, and the sweetness Michael Sarrazin brings to the film makes our feelings about the ending even stronger. I also agree with you that Fonda seems too strong for what happens; she also needed to get rid of her finishing school accent. Nonetheless, it's one of her best performances. You're also on target about the late 60s cynicism; this affects a number of films of the period.

I saw the Royal Shakespeare Company's stage version of the film, in 1987. Absolutely brilliant, starring Imelda Staunton and Henry Goodman. Mermaid Theatre, London.

 

[Fading Fast]

Dear Heart form 1964 with Glenn Ford, Geraldine Page and Angela Lansbury

 

Dear Heart is an odd movie. It has some of the grit of The Apartment, as we see middle-aged businessman Glenn Ford have a quick affair with a blonde hotel candy-counter girl, even though Ford himself just got engaged. 

But it also has some romcom lightness as Ford, against his will, begins falling for kind-and-goofy Geraldine Page. Thrown into this mix is Ford getting to know his fiancee’s college-age son, where both are kinda looking for an instant father-son bond, but of course, that’s not how life works.

Ford is an executive who’s just been transferred to New York and is waiting for his fiancee, Angela Lansbury, to join him. The hotel he’s staying at is hosting a postmaster convention where the goal of most of the men and some of the women is to see whose bed they can wake up in the next morning. 

Just-engaged Ford meets sweet-and-ditzy Page whom he kind of likes, but doesn't really have time for as he’s already trying to balance his fiancee, her son (the son’s wacky “beatnick” girlfriend) and the fast-and-loose blonde he's banging.

But there’s something about Page. You know she’s spent her life being a kind of square peg trying to fit into life’s harsh round holes, but she keeps at it with an enthusiasm that veers into kookiness. She's the one who buys the touristy nicknacks, picks up a plant to “decorate” her hotel room so that it feels more homey and keeps Ford’s leftover sandwich with her as she knows he’ll get hungry later. 

Over the convention's few days, Ford's emotions bounce all over the place as he tries to convince himself he wants to get married, wants to be a father to a college-aged boy he’s just met and that he no longer wants to have affairs. Meanwhile, Page, seeing her fate in the older, single postmistresses who have clearly given up on finding love, fights off depression with a, sometimes, forced happiness.

All of Dear Heart's crosscurrents gives the movie an awkward balance that doesn't fully work as its transitions in tone and shifting degrees of levity are jarring. Also, the characters are somewhat inconsistent, but darn it if you aren't rooting for good things to happen for Page. 

When Ford's fiancee, Lansbury, shows up, it's decision time for Ford. Mainly by implication, Lansbury tells Ford it's okay if he continues to have affairs, she just wants him to be discreet. Her real reason for marrying him is to get out of her small town and to live an easy life as the wife of a successful executive. 

(Spoiler alert) Lansbury's jarring comments spark Ford to reconsider everything, especially when, later, he sees awkward but sincere Page carrying her stupid plant and souvenirs through the lobby as she's checking out. More in an emotional roll of the dice than out of strong conviction, Ford breaks off his engagement. Then, as he and Page walk away arm and arm at the end, we assume they'll get married. 

Dear Heart ends on that romcom note despite its circuitous path to a conclusion. It's hard to recommend this uneven and, often, nonsensical effort, but it has its good parts, including Page’s moving performance. Plus, it's pretty good time travel to early 1960s New York City, with some cool scenes in, sadly, what was then, soon-to-become-demolished Penn Station. 

 

 

[Tikisoo]

16 hours ago, CinemaInternational said:

This has always been a film which eluded me until now. Every time I tried to borrow it from Netflix and Facets' DVD programs, it seemed like it was always out and in use. Now, Netflix DVD had it and I watched it.

Haha, same. I had wanted to see it for years & found it at my library! Finally saw it a few years ago and remember being underwhelmed, like I had missed something.

16 hours ago, CinemaInternational said:

2004's Million Dollar Baby years ago as well. Both that and this film have the same conflict going on in my mind: is it enough to just comment on the many good elements and to send it off with some degree of praise, or should I dismiss it entirely on moral grounds? The answer is really somewhere in between.

OK, you've spurred me on to revisit.

I actually enjoy movies that show me others' moralities.  The stories usually don't change my mind, but just open it to see different points of view.

48 minutes ago, mkahn22 said:

Dear Heart ends on that romcom note despite its circuitous path to a conclusion. It's hard to recommend this uneven and, often, nonsensical effort, but it has its good parts, including Page’s moving performance.

Now THAT movie, I loved instantly, obviously more than you did. (thanks for spoiler alert-I don't like reading play by play reveals)

[TomJH]

Murder at the Vanities (1934)

Outrageous pre code backstage musical and murder mystery is really just an excuse to show off the female form as much as (semi-nude) possible.

Mitchell Leisen directed this Paramount production, most of it set during a performance of one of Earl Carroll's vanities shows where, as their promotion says, "Through These Portals Pass The Most Beautiful Girls In The World." There's not a lot of story but what there is involves a jealous stage performer, jilted by her former lover about to marry his leading lady, who now seeks revenge upon him.

Typical of these kind of films the leading man and woman are the dullest performers in it, Danish singer/actor Cal Brisson, he of the insipid smile and dimpled cheeks (he does have a good singing voice, though), and Kitty Carlisle, cast in the same kind of bland goody goody role that she would have the following year with the Marx Brothers at the opera.

Of far more interest is the rest of an above average cast: Jack Oakie as the harried stage manager whose "show must go on" motto continues despite the dead bodies being found backstage, Victor McLaglen as the blustery, loud mouthed detective who spends almost as much time ogling the chorus line cuties as he does trying to solve two murders, Gertrude Michael as the vengeful, conniving woman scorned show biz performer, along with the character actor likes of Jessie Ralph, Donald Meek and Charles Middleton (two years before becoming Ming the Merciless to Flash Gordon). Toby Wing also pops up, along with (don't blink and you'll miss her) Ann Sheridan and, apparently, somewhere amidst all the flashing legs and thighs, is Lucille Ball (I must have blinked).

But then there are the lavish musical numbers, none of them staged with the geometric artistry of Busby Berkeley over at Warner Brothers. Again, though, these numbers show off acres of female flesh. There's "Where Do They Come From?" a speculation on where the chorus girls originated with much female form on display. "Cocktails for Two," sung by Brisson, would become a popular standard.

There is also (in pre code Hollywood only) "Sweet Marijuana," sing by Gertrude Michael with a background of giant cactus plants, each one topped by a topless girl covering her breasts with her hands and arms and (ready for this one?) "The Rape of Rhapsody." This one starts as a stately piano rendition of Lizst's Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2, eventually accompanied by an all white orchestra. They will be supplanted by Duke Ellington at the piano and a black orchestra, along with a chorus line of black cuties, doing a very enthusiastic jazzy rendition of the same. With alternating camera angles on the dancers, it may well be the musical highlight of the film. Bizarrely, though, the original conductor (who's white) returns and, with a prop tommy gun, mows down all the black performers to gales of laughter from the (presumably) all white audience watching. What? Really? I leave it up to you what racist undertones may lie here.

As for the killer (well, one of two killers, actually) I suspect I'm not alone in spotting the culprit in advance. Even then, though, the film ends with a lengthy confession scene in closeup and the kind of reaction we see from others to that confession would only come in a pre code film.

A bizarre musical presentation of pulchritude mixed with murder, the film is often tasteless but lavishly presented and, for the most part, fun. Oakie and McLaglen, their characters with no great love for one another, bounce off each other nicely, compensating for the dullness of the film's two romantic leads. Besides, where else are you going to see a Hollywood studio system film which has a musical tribute to the wacky weed?

Murder at the Vanities can be found as one of six films released by Universal on DVD  in the Pre-Code Hollywood Collection.

2.5 out of 4

 

[Swithin]

6 hours ago, TomJH said:

 

Typical of these kind of films the leading man and woman are the dullest performers in it, Danish singer/actor Carl Brisson, he of the insipid smile and dimpled cheeks (he does have a good singing voice, though), and Kitty Carlisle, cast in the same kind of bland goody goody role that she would have the following year with the Marx Brothers at the opera.

 

Carl Brisson was Rosalind Russell's father-in-law.

[BagelOnAPlateOfOnionRolls]

I was looking for a tried-and-true favorite after a stressful week so I watched Pete’s Dragon (1977). I’ve seen this Walt Disney movie many times. It’s a mostly live action musical with some animated elements (specifically the dragon of the title) in the style of Mary Poppins. It’s ranks as one of my top five live action Disney features.

The movie, set in early twentieth century Maine, opens with the orphan Pete seemingly floating in air as he flees the hillbilly Gogan family who had bought him for $50 plus fifty cents legal fee. (Yes, you have to suspend disbelief that there are hillbillies in Maine!) It’s soon apparent (to the viewers) that an invisible creature is aiding Pete in his escape, and we later learn that the creature is a green dragon named Elliott.  Pete and Elliott end up in the town of Passamaquoddy, where Pete is taken in by the town’s lighthouse keeper (Mickey Rooney) and his daughter Nora (Helen Reddy).

The songs in the movie were written by the Oscar-winning team of Al Kasha and Joel Hirschhorn (they previously won Best Original Song Oscars for "The Morning After" from The Poseidon Adventure and “We May Never Love Like This Again" from The Towering Inferno.) “Candle On The Water,” sung in Pete’s Dragon by Helen Reddy in her distinctive style, was nominated for an Oscar, but it did not win. In the movie, Helen Reddy’s character sings the song from the lighthouse balcony to her fiancé, a sailor who’s been missing at sea for over a year.  The song has a beautiful melody with lyrics about the power of hope. My favorite song from Pete’s Dragon, though, is “The Happiest Home In These Hills,” which is the first song in the movie. Sung by the Gogans, it establishes their comic menace as they plead for the runaway Pete to return, promising him “cake and gingerbread,” when they actually plan to “snag him, gag him, drag him through town.” It’s one of my favorite Disney villain songs.

My favorite character in the movie is Ma Gogan. Shelley Winters is wonderful in the role, fully committing to the abrasive hillbilly character. Her teeth! I always look forward to her singing “These tears ought to show you I care” in “The Happiest Home in These Hills” and to her falling into the mud.

 

[Tikisoo]

22 hours ago, TomJH said:

A bizarre musical presentation of pulchritude mixed with murder, the film is often tasteless but lavishly presented and, for the most part, fun.

A pretty good description of my life....well, except the murder part.

7 hours ago, BagelOnAPlateOfOnionRolls said:

Yes, you have to suspend disbelief that there are hillbillies in Maine!

There ARE, they are referred to by their neighbors as Maine-iacs. Why do you think Stephen King sets his stories there?

Thanks for the reminders....I have both Pete's Dragon & Murder At The Vanities on DVD. Revisit!

[Fading Fast]

The Secret Bride from 1934 with Warren William, Barbara Stanwyck, Grant Mitchell and Glenda Farrell

 

At an hour in length, The Secret Bride is another 1930s wash-rinse-repeat movie (with A stars) that is pretty much the forerunner of the 1960s/1970s TV crime drama.

 

A district attorney, Warren William, elopes with the governor's daughter, Barbara Stanwyck, but before they can announce their marriage, the governor is accused of taking a bribe from a businessman he pardoned.

 

William and Stanwyck quickly decide to keep their marriage a secret as, otherwise, William would have to recuse himself from the investigation of his, now, father-in-law. Today, of course, we'd argue he should recuse himself immediately, but in this 1934 movie, good intentions trump everything else.   

 

That's the "secret bride" angle, which, other than sounding good in the title, is not very important to the story: a story of a basic political frame-up that makes the governor look guilty, but - and you'll guess this early on - he isn't.

 

The rest of the movie is a crime-drama mystery as William, with an informal assist from Stanwyck, tries to find exculpating evidence for the governor even as the incriminating evidence against him mounts. 

 

The political corruption story was a very popular 1930s plot. In The Secret Bride, as in most Warner Bros. efforts of that era, there are a lot of twists, deceptions, suicides, murders and police forensics (there's a neat state-of-the-art ballistics testing scene). 

 

Just like today, publicly, we are all against conflicts of interest and playing fast and loose with the law. Yet when we see the good guys do it in a movie because they have to for justice to prevail, as William and Stanwyck do here, we're usually quite supportive. 

 

(Spoiler alert) Also common in these 1930s crime-drama mysteries, all looks bleakest until a last minute deus ex machina saves the day. In The Secret Bride, the improbable solution comes in the form of Grant Mitchell, the nervous and diffident private secretary to the pardoned man. He provides exonerating evidence at the governor's impeachment hearing. 

 

No one watched Mannix or The F.B.I. each week in the 1960s and 1970s to really, truly be surprised by the plot; one watched those shows to see a familiar story with actors one liked. 

 

Warren William and Barbara Stanwyck were some of the 1930s actors the public liked to watch. In particular, William was his own brand in the early to mid 1930s playing roguish good and bad guys whom the public just enjoyed seeing on the screen.

 

Today, old movies like The Secret Bride are no better or worse than watching a rerun of a Mannix or The F.B.I. episode, with for us today, the added fun of time travel to the cars, clothes, architecture and norms of the 1930s. 

 

 

 

 

[TomJH]

20 minutes ago, TikiSoo said:

A pretty good description of my life....well, except the murder part.

!

You must post us some home photos sometime, TikoSoo. 😉

[CinemaInternational]

This was a day of subverted expectations with a 90s film and a 2000s title. My preconceived notions on how I would respond ended up getting flipped.

Damage (1992)

A disappointing adaptation of a shocking, sensational, masterful novel about the evils and extreme  fall-out of an obsessive extramarital affair. What was gripping, haunting, taut, and horrifying on the page is often staid and slow on the big screen, even with explicit sex scenes in tow . Outside of excellent supporting turns from Miranda Richardson and Leslie Caron, the film does not get to its real potential until the final act, and by then its too late to save the film from much of the torpor that proceeded it. it's handsomely done, but the emotional fire that drove the book is sadly diffused. 5/10 for the film; 9.5 out of 10 for the book.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007)

I had been holding off for a long time due to all the throat slittings, fearing it would be too gory for me (and it is a gory film, just not as graphic as I thought it would be). I liked it much more than I thought I would, in fact its among the very strongest films of  the 2000s. True,  Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter are not trained singers, but they pull off their roles with panache and they do a pretty good job singing; the supporting cast is strong; the songs are exceptional, more proof of how great Sondheim was. (The lyrics are so nimble). Yes, it is not what is pictured on the stage, but this is the only screen adaptation of a Sondheim musical to get the master's approval, so that is good enough for me. 9.5/10

[LornaHansonForbes]

On 2/18/2022 at 4:01 PM, CinemaInternational said:

 

They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (1969)....I had read the 1935 novel on which it was based back in 2013, when I was a very different person than where I am now. The element that always troubled me about the book and the movie by extension is the act of euthanasia/suicide/murder that closes the story......In the book, the dance marathon was exhausting, debilitating, but at the same time, fair on the level that when the whole thing was over, a couple (or couples in the book, since the contest was ended while multiple couples were still dancing) would get a prize to help them through the darkest days of the Depression.

I feel like "novel" is not the right term for THEY SHOOT HORSES, DON'T THEY? I don't even think "novella" is the mot juste, although some would I am sure. I wouldn't even call it a generously spaced and formatted short story- really, the ENTIRE BLANK PAGE that starts each "chapter" of its 88 pages got an increasingly prolonged series of eyerolls from me...

really, it's more of a good outline for a story; but, for whatever reason- the author doesn't go there (for me) and really tell it, the way NATHANIEL WEST managed to in the equally brief and similarly themed DAY OF THE LOCUST. 

sorry, as a general rule I am not into short stories and short novels and novellas. I like my stories to SPRAWL.

[EricJ]

On 2/18/2022 at 4:01 PM, CinemaInternational said:

This will be a bit unusual for me, but I feel that with a film like the following, I cannot discuss it without spoilers,  theological grappling and personal moral musings. 

They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (1969)

and when the truth is revealed about the competition, it seemingly confirms the character's world view that nothing works in the world and that we in the world have violated her. It's a very sick, quite depraved twist, and I don't feel it was necessary.

Am I glad I saw this? Yes, because cinematically and acting wise it is a great film, and weirdly more fresh faced and honest than some of the depressing films of the last few years. But I still really can't fully endorse it due to personal beliefs. So, I end with a more conflicted response to it than I have had for most films that I have seen.

The truth was often the real-life case, which is why the book was such a depressing account of it--A lot of 30's deconstruction during the late-60's and mid-70's, putting it together with the The Day of the Locust (1975) movie.

My first reaction was whether Gig Young's Oscar-nominated dance host was still in the 70's public memory when "Happy Days" did their parody episode of dance contests, with Ron Howard's Richie annoying everyone with "Yowza, yowza, yowza!", which was more responsible for cementing that phrase into pop culture.

[Aritosthenes]

Currently Watching (subjectively) One of the Most Inventive, Funny Films known to human kind: The Great Race.

On hbo-max for anyone interested. Though no clue for how long.

[Aritosthenes]

On 2/20/2022 at 10:51 PM, BagelOnAPlateOfOnionRolls said:

I was looking for a tried-and-true favorite after a stressful week so I watched Pete’s Dragon (1977). I’ve seen this Walt Disney movie many times. It’s a mostly live action musical with some animated elements (specifically the dragon of the title) in the style of Mary Poppins. It’s ranks as one of my top five live action Disney features.

The movie, set in early twentieth century Maine, opens with the orphan Pete seemingly floating in air as he flees the hillbilly Gogan family who had bought him for $50 plus fifty cents legal fee. (Yes, you have to suspend disbelief that there are hillbillies in Maine!) It’s soon apparent (to the viewers) that an invisible creature is aiding Pete in his escape, and we later learn that the creature is a green dragon named Elliott.  Pete and Elliott end up in the town of Passamaquoddy, where Pete is taken in by the town’s lighthouse keeper (Mickey Rooney) and his daughter Nora (Helen Reddy).

The songs in the movie were written by the Oscar-winning team of Al Kasha and Joel Hirschhorn (they previously won Best Original Song Oscars for "The Morning After" from The Poseidon Adventure and “We May Never Love Like This Again" from The Towering Inferno.) “Candle On The Water,” sung in Pete’s Dragon by Helen Reddy in her distinctive style, was nominated for an Oscar, but it did not win. In the movie, Helen Reddy’s character sings the song from the lighthouse balcony to her fiancé, a sailor who’s been missing at sea for over a year.  The song has a beautiful melody with lyrics about the power of hope. My favorite song from Pete’s Dragon, though, is “The Happiest Home In These Hills,” which is the first song in the movie. Sung by the Gogans, it establishes their comic menace as they plead for the runaway Pete to return, promising him “cake and gingerbread,” when they actually plan to “snag him, gag him, drag him through town.” It’s one of my favorite Disney villain songs.

My favorite character in the movie is Ma Gogan. Shelley Winters is wonderful in the role, fully committing to the abrasive hillbilly character. Her teeth! I always look forward to her singing “These tears ought to show you I care” in “The Happiest Home in These Hills” and to her falling into the mud.

 

If Interested, I'd HIGHLY Recommend Lowery's Vision/Retelling of this film.

10/10. 

[Det Jim McLeod]

High Sierra (1941) TCM On Demand 8/10

An ex con (Humphrey Bogart) wants to pull one last heist but has trouble with some of his cohorts.

First time viewing for me, this was a gripping crime film with an incredible cast of character actors. Bogart finally graduated from his supporting villain parts, like the cold blooded ones in films like Three On A Match (1932), The Petrified Forest (1934), The Roaring Twenties (1939) , here his tough guy character has a heart. I especially liked the two females he comes in contact with. Ida Lupino (top billed) is a gun moll who Bogart does not want around at first and Joan Leslie is a crippled girl that he wants to help get an operation. He is crushed when Leslie is not as grateful as he hoped. Henry Travers plays Leslie's kindly grandfather, most remember him as Clarence The Angel in It's A Wonderful Life (1946), but I am constantly amazed at how many other classics he was in-The Invisible Man (1933), Mrs. Miniver (1942), Shadow Of A Doubt (1943), Bells Of St. Mary's (1945). Others are Arthur Kennedy (eager young crook), Cornel Wilde (shifty inside man). Henry Hull (underworld doctor), Donald MacBride (ailing gangster).

[hamradio]

"Abraham Lincoln" (2022) 3 part mini series on the history Channel.

One of the best made for TV movies I've seen in a long time.  Actor Graham Sibley portrayed him excellently.  

https://deadline.com/2022/01/history-channel-abraham-lincoln-documentary-presidents-day-1234917679/

 

 

Movie is strongly recommended.

 

SPOILER ALERT

No vampires were harm throughout it's presentation.

 

The private joke Abe told about the old dress and the old woman was a riot.

Partial excerpt (quote)  

Lincoln...Man kissed the old dress.  Old woman said, you like old things....kiss my a**, it's 15 years older. 

[Det Jim McLeod]

How The West Was Won (1963) TCM -7/10

The taming of the Old West seen the eyes of a family over several decades.

First time viewing for me, while it is not the definitive Western story, it is entertaining. Shot in Cinerama, which is a bit distracting since you can't have any close ups higher than waist high. I got used to it after awhile since the panoramic shots are impressive. The story is split in 5 different segments. 

The first two segments "The Rivers" and "The Plains" directed by Henry Hathaway are pretty good. Karl Malden and Agnes Moorehead are couple from the East who go West with daughters Carroll Baker and Debbie Reynolds. Reynolds has one of the biggest parts as she appears in 3 of the 5 segments. James Stewart is a fur trapper who falls in love with Baker. My favorite part here is when he and the family are attacked by pirates led by Walter Brennan. This is one of the villainous parts he had, as in The Westerner (1940) and My Darling Clementine (1946).

The next segment is "The Civil War" directed by John Ford. Surprisingly this is the weakest one, it is very short and feels rushed. Raymond Massey plays Abraham Lincoln once again, but fans of his portrayal will be disappointed since he is on screen for a few seconds and has no lines. John Wayne has a quick bit as Gen. Sherman. George Peppard has a big part as Baker and Stewart's grown son who joins the Union, he appears in the last two segments as well.

"The Railroad" directed by George Marshall shows Peppard, still in the Army guarding the rails and grows disillusioned with the treatment of the American Indians. There is an impressive buffalo stampede.

The final one is "The Outlaws" with Hathaway directing again. I liked this one the best, it shows Peppard is now a Marshall being threatened by villain Eli Wallach. Peppard is now joined by his now elderly aunt Reynolds. There is a thrilling shootout on a train.

[TomJH]

Dillinger (1945)

Monogram had a hit with this gangster drama based on the life of America's public enemy number one who had been making national headlines just 11 years before. Lawrence Tierney, in a star making turn, is appropriately cast in the title role delivering a more than credible performance, though the screenplay and Tierney present Dillinger as more brutal and cold blooded than was the real outlaw.

Rather surprisingly that screenplay received an Academy Award nomination for best original screenplay, the first Oscar nomination of any kind for a studio known for its quickie "B" products. This film has bigger production values than a lot of other Monograms, though the story, not surprisingly, is a mix of fact and fiction. Dillinger's daring real life escape from jail with the use of a gun carved out of wood is included in the film, not surprisingly. (There is still some historical debate as to whether or not the gun used was fake).

Certainly Dillinger's gang in this film is an impressive one for film buffs familiar with character actor tough guys: Marc Lawrence, Eduardo Ciannelli and Elisha Cook Jr.. Also among them is an older Edmund Lowe as "Specs," the original gang leader before being displaced (in more ways than one) by Tierney's ambitious Dillinger.

Cast as Dillinger's girl in the film is Anne Jeffreys, one of the most beautiful actresses of the movies whose film career, unfortunately, was largely relegated to a lot of minor "B" products, though she would later enjoy a degree of success in television. Jeffreys' character is badly underwritten. Dillinger first meets her when he robs her at a movie ticket booth. Obviously attracted to bad boys she soon starts seeing him but, initially, he tries to shield her from knowing about his crimes. It's not long, though, before Jeffreys sees the outlaw performing ruthless, cold blooded acts without her batting an eye. Yet, at the film's conclusion, she will be the infamous "woman in red" taking Dillinger to that fateful movie theatre in Chicago. (Strangely, the screenplay gives no indication that she had communicated with the FBI beforehand).

Tierney's performance and the cast in general make it an entertaining show.

2.5 out of 4

Dillinger (1973)

This time it's director John Milius who brings a literally explosive account of the '30s outlaw to the screen. Again, history is seriously compromised in this Hollywood treatment but there is plenty of gunfire and exciting shoot ups to keep an audience entertained. Film "biographies" like this, as well as the 1945 version, really like to up the death count attributed to a Dillinger they portray as pretty gun happy, as opposed to the real life bandit who was only charged with homicide on one occasion.

Warren Oates delivers a flavourful performance as Dillinger, while Ben Johnson is excellent as Melvin Purvis, the FBI agent on his trail. Since this film has to stick to some kind of history there's a sense of inevitability regarding the outcome. One great line uttered by Oates' Dillinger is when he says, "I might not live forever but I'd be a damn fool if I didn't try." Cloris Leachman briefly plays Anna Sage, the "woman in red." As the film progresses it spends at least as much screen time showing Purvis's operations as it does Dillinger's activities.

The action scenes, combined with the fine portrayals by the film's two leads, makes this more violent version of Dillinger (even if not particularly violent by modern screen standards) a good show.

2.5 out of 4

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

[hamradio]

I purchased the Smilebox version of "How The West Was Won" a couple of years ago.