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

Recommended Posts

Last night we went to see The Man Who Knew Infinity, about the Indian mathematician S. Ramanujan who went to Cambridge in 1914 to study with (and educate) the mathematician G.S. Hardy. Dev Patel as Ramanujan and Jeremy Irons as Hardy are excellent, as you might expect, as is Toby Jones as Littlewood, another mathematician. Ramanujan had to leave behind his family in India, including a young wife and a strong-willed mother.

 

If this sounds like your kind of film, you will probably like it, for it is well-made. I'm pleased that there is interest in making films about people like Turing, Hawking, and Ramanujan.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night we went to see The Man Who Knew Infinity, about the Indian mathematician S. Ramanujan who went to Cambridge in 1914 to study with (and educate) the mathematician G.S. Hardy.

Actually, it's G.H. Hardy.

May I ask in what state you saw the film? It doesn't seem to be playing near me, and I would love to see it. I have the book on which the film is based.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it's G.H. Hardy.

May I ask in what state you saw the film? It doesn't seem to be playing near me, and I would love to see it. I have the book on which the film is based.

 

I believe Kingrat is located in California/LA area, iirc. I was surprised to see that The Man Who Knew Infinity was still playing, since it only garnered a limited theatrical release, and that was back in early April. I did read some good reviews for it, though.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

May I ask in what state you saw the film?

I can't speak for Mr. Rat, but hopefully he was high as a kite. That's usually the best state in which to fully enjoy a cinematic experience- especially one that involves math.

 

PS- I see there's a ballot initiative in California to Legalize It. Expect me on your doorstep in a day if it goes through.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't speak for Mr. Rat, but hopefully he was high as a kite. That's usually the best state in which to fully enjoy a cinematic experience- especially one that involves math.

 

PS- I see there's a ballot initiative in California to Legalize It. Expect me on your doorstep in a day if it goes through.

I have not indulged in any illegal substances even during "Fantasia", Lorna.

 

Should I go see this film about the mathematician or not?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not indulged in any illegal substances even during "Fantasia", Lorna.

 

Should I go see this film about the mathematician or not?

 

oh you'd have to ask Kingrat, I dunno what it's all about and I did not see it.

 

I DO WISH though that they'd have a TCM Cannibis Club- to offset those damned stupid TCM Wine club promos.  They could talk about what strains to pair with what films...maybe even have Osborne and Ravi Shankar cohost.

 

(you know Bob burns.)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

oh you'd have to ask Kingrat, I dunno what it's all about and I did not see it.

 

I DO WISH though that they'd have a TCM Cannibis Club- to offset those damned stupid TCM Wine club promos.  They could talk about what strains to pair with what films...maybe even have Osborne and Ravi Shankar cohost.

 

(you know Bob burns.)

I'm more into cannibal movies than cannabis ones, dear Lorna.

 

Saw Bob Weir last nite on "Watch What Happens" with Andy Cohen, and he looked like he was in a perpetual coma. No facial reactions to anything, like he had been Botoxed to death.

 

Scary, a bit like his brain was fried like those two eggs on the commercial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it's G.H. Hardy.

May I ask in what state you saw the film? It doesn't seem to be playing near me, and I would love to see it. I have the book on which the film is based.

Yes, I'm in Southern California. Hope you can find it near you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Fall of The House of Usher" (1980)-- A short film directed by Jan Svankmajer. 

 

Thanks to SansFin for mentioning the film "The Castle of Otranto" in the "Controversial Films" thread.

 

 I ended up watching this short film because I couldn't see why the director of a film of Horace Walpole's 1764 Gothic novel "The Castle of Otranto" would be exiled.  Google directed me to Wiki, which just said he was exiled(?) for "subversive content", which I guess is shorthand for "Anything a government doesn't like".  I went to YouTube to try to find 1977's film of  TcoO--no luck.  I Did find this Poe adaptation with English subtitles.

 

Film is all images; there's no cast, just a narrator.  Film relies on stop-motion animation for some of its' best effects.  Others, such as the first look inside the house, are effectively nightmarish by themselves.  I watched twice: once to get all the subtitles, again for the images.

 

Good film.   3/4.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw Bob Weir last nite on "Watch What Happens" with Andy Cohen, and he looked like he was in a perpetual coma. No facial reactions to anything, like he had been Botoxed to death.Scary, a bit like his brain was fried like those two eggs on the commercial.

Yeah, weed alone won't do that to you.

 

That's a combination of acid, cocaine, mescaline, horse tranquilizers, breathing in the fumes from Jerry for all those years and probably some Botox too.

 

Ps: he probably huffed brake cleaner too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After Hamlet last night, Annette asks an interesting question, why was Hamlet so cavalier about the stabbing of Polonius, especially since Hamlet seem such a noble guy, the protagonist. I remember from studies long ago that Shakespeare quite often eschewed depiction even main characters with black and white, but with shades of gray. Hamlet may have somewhat jaded after all what with all that happened prior. And of course it was only Polonius, a babbling, meddling old fool. In some productions Polonius is played over-the-top like a cartoon character and can be quite amusing. But he always not much liked and is hardly sympathetic. It's a moment when the audience is glad to seem laying low so they might not be so hard on Hamlet, ha. Interesting too is that Hamlet might very have been mad by that time, at least sporadically. Hamlet tells Horatio and the two night watches that from then on (after talking to ghost/father) that he would "put on an antic disposition" but whose to say he didn't cross the threshold for real. In the last scene with Leartes he asks for forgiveness for having been mad. Would he mock Leartes with a bald faced lie (which would demean his character in our eyes) or was he perhaps really mad at times. Quite possibly, yes.

 

I had seen this version before and had rejected it for what I know were stupid reasons. I didn't like the blond hair, some of the great speeches were voice over, much of them were too softly spoken, other nonsense. I was trying to make it a stage production with declamatory speeches. The nunnery speech is often angry from beginning to end but I like the way Olivier started calmly which gave him somewhere to go when at the end he really let her have it. Poor Ophelia. Was that Jean Simmons, I haven't even looked. I want to see if she ever had experience with Shakespeare. I thought she was very good. The Hamlet-Mother scene is magic on the eyes and ears. Beautifully done.

 

I wasn't planning to watch but I tuned in and said okay I'll watch this much and then ... you see, I had some activities planned for the evening. I finally had to scrap them as the movie took me over.

 

So much to say, but I'll leave off...

 

Anyone?

 

== 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

[in re: HAMLET (1948]

 

I had seen this version before and had rejected it for what I know were stupid reasons. I didn't like the blond hair, some of the great speeches were voice over, much of them were too softly spoken, other nonsense. I was trying to make it a stage production with declamatory speeches. The nunnery speech is often angry from beginning to end but I like the way Olivier started calmly which gave him somewhere to go when at the end he really let her have it. Poor Ophelia. Was that Jean Simmons, I haven't even looked. I want to see if she ever had experience with Shakespeare. I thought she was very good. The Hamlet-Mother scene is magic on the eyes and ears. Beautifully done.

 

I wasn't planning to watch but I tuned in and said okay I'll watch this much and then ... you see, I had some activities planned for the evening. I finally had to scrap them as the movie took me over.

 

 

Actually, I think your first impression was right.

 

Olivier's HAMLET is okay- but to me, no great shakes.

 

Aside from the interesting opening, which honestly he ripped off from CITIZEN KANE, there's not a lot going on that's "filmic"- besides the narration- and for the most part I am not a fan of voice-over narration, I think it's sloppy storytelling technique except for some rare instances (ie film noirs, Billy Wilder films.)

 

I think Larry took the "PERCHANCE TO DREAM" thing literally, and the whole production seems like they started every day's shoot by chugging a bottle of Robotussin- it's languid, it's soft, it's got an air about it that could be described as "lazy"- that shot of Ophelia drifting down the river really sums up the whole tone of the film.

 

worse still is the fact that the movie reinforces the notion that actors should (for the most part) not direct themselves, because every time i see any of it, i come away with the impression that Larry is constantly CENTER STAGE, and all the other actors keep to the background- this thing is ALL about HIM- and aside from Jean Simmon's Oscar-nominated role as Ophelia, it really seems like they all knew this was LARRY'S SHOW and they needed to just stay in the background. 

 

And he's too old for the part and that Dwayne Hickman hair is awful.

 

in re: Simmons, yep- that was Jean. They ran a fabulous interstitial with her over the last week wherein she talked about how she had very little experience with Shakespeare before doing the film, how Olivier berated her for laughing at her rushes, how she nearly froze to death doing the river scene and how- at the time of filming- she had just had her teeth filed because she "looked like Bugs Bunny."

 

it's a great interview. before seeing it, I did not think I could possibly love Jean Simmons more.

 

I was wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since they insisted on trying to cram "The Bard" down our disinterested throats in school, I've never developed too much an interest in Shakespeare.  Over the years I gravitated to "A Midsummer's Night Dream" and perhaps "The Taming Of The Shrew" , but couldn't get much into Hamlet or many others.

 

And also felt no obligation to tune in to the broadcast of both or either because I've an interest in "classic" movies.

 

 

Sepiatone

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Night Strangler" (1973)--Better than average television movie, a sequel to 1972's "The Night Stalker".  Starring Darren McGavin, Simon Oakland, and Jo Ann Pflug.

 

Movie is about a strangler who strikes every 21 years.  Kolchak (McGavin) is determined to stop him, with the help of Louise Harper (Pflug).  The police are determined to keep events explained by non-supernatural means.

 

McGavin and Oakland are amusing as warring reporter and newspaper editor.  Wally Cox as a helpful researcher is funny.  Margaret Hamilton as a eccentric college professor is condescendingly weird.  Richard Anderson is appropriately odd in his role.

 

The depiction of Underground Seattle is creepy and well done.

 

Movie is hurt by too much talk, overly dark photography, and so-so acting skills of some of the cast.

 

Movie was terrifying when I saw it as a preteen; it's still better than average, with a few genuine scares.  2.7/4

 

Saw film on YouTube.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The depiction of Underground Seattle is creepy and well done.

Have you seen Cinderella Liberty? That's from around the same time, and, if memory serves, is set in Seattle.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Fedya--It's been so long since I saw "Cinderella Liberty" (1974) that I barely remember any of it--it's another movie I need to rewatch.

 

I can't really say as I have on opinion on her one way or the other, but- man alive- is there any other still-living actress who seems more...I don't want to say "forgotten", but it's apt....than Marsha Mason?

 

She evaporated after ONLY WHEN I LAUGH, which sharply divided audiences altho it earned her Oscar nod number four.

 

Since then it's been a flatline for her career-wise.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I think your first impression was right.

 

Olivier's HAMLET is okay- but to me, no great shakes.

 

worse still is the fact that the movie reinforces the notion that actors should (for the most part) not direct themselves, because every time i see any of it, i come away with the impression that Larry is constantly CENTER STAGE, and all the other actors keep to the background- this thing is ALL about HIM- and aside from Jean Simmon's Oscar-nominated role as Ophelia, it really seems like they all knew this was LARRY'S SHOW and they needed to just stay in the background. 

 

And he's too old for the part and that Dwayne Hickman hair is awful.

 

Love the Dwayne Hickman hair comment. To me, Hamlet is much weaker and less interesting in every way than Henry V and Richard III, both of which Olivier directs very well. He also gives marvelous performances of those title roles, too. I don't really get why the critics of the time and the Academy voters were so impressed by the film and by Olivier's performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the Dwayne Hickman hair comment. To me, Hamlet is much weaker and less interesting in every way than Henry V and Richard III, both of which Olivier directs very well. He also gives marvelous performances of those title roles, too. I don't really get why the critics of the time and the Academy voters were so impressed by the film and by Olivier's performance.

 

 

to give credit where credit is due, I stole that comparison from Danny Peary, who made the observation in his excellent book ALTERNATE OSCARS.

 

(But it's so true.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't really say as I have on opinion on her one way or the other, but- man alive- is there any other still-living actress who seems more...I don't want to say "forgotten", but it's apt....than Marsha Mason?

It's always Marsha! Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not my first time ever watching CABARET, but it is the first time where the "Tomorrow Belongs to Me" scene genuinely terrified me and sent chills down my spine.

 

I can't believe people ever criticize that moment for being "idyllic."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I think your first impression was right.

 

Olivier's HAMLET is okay- but to me, no great shakes.

 

Aside from the interesting opening, which honestly he ripped off from CITIZEN KANE, there's not a lot going on that's "filmic"- besides the narration- and for the most part I am not a fan of voice-over narration, I think it's sloppy storytelling technique except for some rare instances (ie film noirs, Billy Wilder films.)

 

I think Larry took the "PERCHANCE TO DREAM" thing literally, and the whole production seems like they started every day's shoot by chugging a bottle of Robotussin- it's languid, it's soft, it's got an air about it that could be described as "lazy"- that shot of Ophelia drifting down the river really sums up the whole tone of the film.

 

worse still is the fact that the movie reinforces the notion that actors should (for the most part) not direct themselves, because every time i see any of it, i come away with the impression that Larry is constantly CENTER STAGE, and all the other actors keep to the background- this thing is ALL about HIM- and aside from Jean Simmon's Oscar-nominated role as Ophelia, it really seems like they all knew this was LARRY'S SHOW and they needed to just stay in the background. 

 

And he's too old for the part and that Dwayne Hickman hair is awful.

 

in re: Simmons, yep- that was Jean. They ran a fabulous interstitial with her over the last week wherein she talked about how she had very little experience with Shakespeare before doing the film, how Olivier berated her for laughing at her rushes, how she nearly froze to death doing the river scene and how- at the time of filming- she had just had her teeth filed because she "looked like Bugs Bunny."

 

it's a great interview. before seeing it, I did not think I could possibly love Jean Simmons more.

 

I was wrong.

 

Pauline Kael said the same thing---it's all about him!---speaking of Richard III, per Laurence. It can be said likewise about Hamlet. But let's remember something, both are huge roles. They are center stage. They are supposed to dominate. As far as staying in the background, the supporting players can't really do anything that is not set down for them by Shakespeare. Laurence wouldn't have anything do about that. The King gets his big speech at the beginning and then his praying scene at the end. Leartes gets his scenes. And as you mentioned nothing was cut from Ophelia's part, getting that Mad Scene.  FYI-Richard III has more words to speak than any other Shakespeare character with Hamlet coming in second. Hamlet has seven soliloquies in the play, at least two were omitted and the others were truncated. Only the to-be-or-not-to-be was complete. And the absence of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern might have been included if he really wanted to ham it up since Hamlet sees through them and is provided with opportunities of wit and repartee as he runs circles around them (Of course time constraints probably the reason for their absence).

 

Just to play the devil's advocate for a moment, it's possible that anything written for the stage is going to have filmic problems. (I'm not challenging here, I agree). But we know the inevitability of Hamlet having had to be adapted for the screen. The somnolent tone was to some degree quite intentional, they were making a movie, all the strident declamations and expansive gesture quite necessary for the stage were not necessary here. the contemplative nature of the filmed story to some degree matching the contemplative and introspective nature of the main character. Having parts of Hamlet's soliloquies voiced over rather than actually spoken is a decision that one might easily make for the screen (though I still don't like it).

 

But even if so much seems displeasing to a viewer, there is always the language to fall back on. That cannot be disappointing, not with a "screen writer" like Shakespeare ;) That's where I was at this latest viewing. I was spellbound by the poetry of it all even though I've heard it so often, Hamlet being the play I am most familiar with. I felt it remarkable that the language was so lucid to the modern audience and yet splendidly Shakespearian at the same time. (The Comedies are more difficult IMO) Many of my prior hang-ups with this version seem to fall away with this latest viewing, so tuned in was I to the "dialogue."

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street" (1982)--Starring Angela Lansbury and George Hearn, score by Stephen Sondheim. Was a filmed stage performance.

 

Fantastic musical--Sung almost all the way through, with some recitative and spoken word mixed in.

 

George Hearn was close to perfect as Todd.  Angela Lansbury was magnificent; her Mrs. Lovett is music hall burlesque, carried as far as it can go.

 

Score demands more than one hearing to catch all the subtleties.

 

Hell of a show.  This is the one to catch, where the score is fully sung.  Hopefully, the next time this is shown, I won't have to stay up all night to see it.

 

TCM, thanks for showing this. 4/4

 

From "A Little Priest"

 

"Have some politician

put it on a bun

can never tell if it may run"

  • Like 1
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
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...