I Just Watched...

[spence]

Yeah, I saw this SOMETHING WILD a couple of yrs before (**1/2) pretty good & has absolutely nada in common with the same named & terrificly powerful 1986 SOMETHING WILD (***1/2) Melanie Griifith & Jeff Daniels were the leads,. but this one really, really put RAY LIOTTA on the map!  still arguably his finest hour of acting & that yr had a number of screen villians>HOPPER in BLUE VELVET-=(without peer & I'd say in The Lynchian Universe of superb & off the wall villians His Frank Booth is ahead of the pack, but he snagged his sole acting nomination that year for HOOSIERS instead?)!), *C. WALKEN in AT CLOSE RANGE, JAMES RUSSO in EXTREMITIES & If you count him as a true villain then TOM BERENGER  as Barnes in *PLATOON must rank up there!!!

[spence]

Rented on PPV a film I only barely heard about upon it's release & they are already talking possible 2018 *OSCAR contender for it. Now I somewhat knew why it's theatre audience was crowded too  "A QUIET PLACE" (***1/2-out of four)  Don't yet know how much this thriller made though  

 

It's title kinda' gives it away a bit, where a family must remain ultra quiet because monsters may hear them   I hare this phrase, but a thinking man's horror flick

[LsDoorMat]

2 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

SOMETHING WILD

(Not the 1986 one, which is not a remake of this 1961 film.)

Hoo, boy, I honestly don't know what to say about this one. It's one of those films I'd always heard about and always been curious to see. So now I have. I can cross it off my list, I have no desire to see it again.

EDIT:  There was one thing about Something Wild I liked a lot: It's set and filmed on location in New York City, and you get a real sense of what NYC was like then, especially the less glamourous areas of it. There are lots of scenes of actual New York brownstone apartments, bridges, parks, gritty streets with funny little stores, subway stations, things like that. The on-location NYC shooting was the best thing about this film. 

 

 

I agree with what you say. l actually saw this film for the first time on TV when I was about ten, so I didn't really understand what was going on, but I did remember it because it somewhat traumatized me. I saw it again for the second time on TCM a few years back. Actually, moving into a dangerous part of town, going into a weird guy's apartment, etc. is a known part of PTSD as it is experienced by rape victims. They often do risky things, repeatedly, looking for a different outcome than what happened in their rape. This was documented in the book "Lucky" by Alice Sebold who was raped by a complete stranger and deliberately moved to very sketchy parts of New York City years later.  She had no idea why she was doing this sort of thing at the time.  However, if this wasn't really known until 1990 by mental health professionals, I'd like to know if Jack Garfein had any insight into the behavior of rape victims when he made this film, or if he was just trying to be edgy.  I also wonder if the baby Baker's character was having was weirdo husband's or if it was the rapist's. It was not clear to me which was the case.

I will say this. It was refreshing to see rape handled as something that really traumatizes the victim and effects the choices that they make versus rape being portrayed as it is in "Anatomy of A Murder" just two years before where Lee Remick describes what happened to her as though she is describing how she had a one car accident that resulted in her running over a stop sign.

[kingrat]

MissWonderly, thank you for an excellent review of Something Wild, which I find as weird and disturbing as you do. Not a film I'd want to see again, though it does treat the subject of rape more honestly than most films of the time. I also agree that the location shots in New York are effective, though the streets are awfully deserted, even for 1961. Calvin, thanks for the additional perspective.

Rayban also has a good point about Carroll Baker being an effective sexpot in Sylvia, which, as he says, is not a particularly good film. Really good black & white cinematography, though. One of the imdb reviewers points out that briefly there was an attempt to turn George Maharis into a movie star, but none of the films hit big. Maharis was a good-looking guy, and perhaps in an earlier era he could have become a second-level leading man.

[scsu1975]

2 hours ago, calvinnme said:

Symphony Murder Mystery (1932) 6/10

I can understand why the inspector always brings the doc along with him on cases, because he'd never be able to solve these murders without him!

Inspector Carr (John Hamilton) gets a note from someone saying there will be a murder at the symphony that night. Just about that time the doctor (Donald Meeks) shows up and asks to tag along to the symphony while the police stand around waiting for the murder to happen. A cellist drops dead of a gunshot wound while performing, and later the only person to have a tangible motive is found dead in his locked office, apparently a suicide. The police - well, actually the doctor - takes it from there.

The cast is strong in this series of 20 minute murder mysteries WB put out in the early 30s. There isn't any time for side plots or melodrama, so the series comes off as having a workmanlike quality. The cast you will recognize as having good careers as character actors in the 30s and 40s, especially Donald Meeks and Douglass Dumbrille. And then there is John Hamilton who in the 50s is the cigar chomping editor of The Daily Planet in the Superman TV series.

Notice I said there was no time for melodrama, but the sole woman in the cast, Rita Lan, makes time for it. She is constantly looking terrified or burying her head in her hands and either looking like she needs a valium or some calamine lotion to treat what seems to be a powerful itch. She actually dropped a star off of my rating. Believably, this is her only role - credited or otherwise - mentioned on imdb.

I'd recommend all of these early talkie murder mysteries. They are fun if only for watching the chemistry between Meeks and Hamilton.

 

Source: TCM, the other night

If these events were to happen today, Hamilton would have to undergo sensitivity training. He continually calls Lan "sister," then, when orchestra conductor Dumbrille is being hauled away, Hamilton tells him he will still be a conductor ... of electricity. 

[misswonderly3]

1 hour ago, calvinnme said:

I agree with what you say. l actually saw this film for the first time on TV when I was about ten, so I didn't really understand what was going on, but I did remember it because it somewhat traumatized me. I saw it again for the second time on TCM a few years back. Actually, moving into a dangerous part of town, going into a weird guy's apartment, etc. is a known part of PTSD as it is experienced by rape victims. They often do risky things, repeatedly, looking for a different outcome than what happened in their rape. This was documented in the book "Lucky" by Alice Sebold who was raped by a complete stranger and deliberately moved to very sketchy parts of New York City years later.  She had no idea why she was doing this sort of thing at the time.  However, if this wasn't really known until 1990 by mental health professionals, I'd like to know if Jack Garfein had any insight into the behavior of rape victims when he made this film, or if he was just trying to be edgy.  I also wonder if the baby Baker's character was having was weirdo husband's or if it was the rapist's. It was not clear to me which was the case.

I will say this. It was refreshing to see rape handled as something that really traumatizes the victim and effects the choices that they make versus rape being portrayed as it is in "Anatomy of A Murder" just two years before where Lee Remick describes what happened to her as though she is describing how she had a one car accident that resulted in her running over a stop sign.

Thanks, Calvinme, for your comments, you make some good points.

First, it's too bad you saw Something Wild when you were ten. I, too, saw some disturbing films on tv when I was a kid - can't remember if my parents were around, or if it was after school or what, but even the best-intentioned parents couldn't always monitor everything their kid watched on tv all the time. That film is certainly one that a ten year old would not understand, but would be upset by, all the more so because they did not understand it.

Re: the post-traumatic syndrome of a rape victim deliberately seeking out similar dangerous situations, whether as some kind of catalyst or to have a better outcome, or for whatever indiscernible reason they may have: Yes, I've heard of that, and meant to mention it in my write-up. And it's certainly the only explanation that makes any kind of sense, as to Mary Ann's risky behaviour. It did occur to me that she was following some kind of self-destructive course of action because of psychological reasons too arcane and complex for me to comprehend. But I also feel that the viewer shouldn't have to try to guess so much as to her motivations. Now, I don't like films that spell everything out for the viewer, and movies that assume the audience is smart and can figure some things out for themselves are often very good films. But Something Wild gave us nothing - - we don't even have any idea what Mary Ann was like before she's raped. 

I have heard of that book you mention, "Lucky". I remember when it came out, I was working in a book store at the time. For some reason I thought they'd made a movie about it, but when I looked it up I could find no mention of any such film  (there is a movie called "Lucky" but it's not at all connected....)

I, too, wondered who the father of her baby was. How horrible if it's the rapist's . But I think we're supposed to think that it's Ralph Meeker's. Still, some of those early scenes after the rape, where she's feeling faint and ill and fatigued and nauseous -  all early pregnancy symptoms.  Hmm.

Anyway, you're right about how, whatever the film lacks, you have to credit Jack Garfein and the rest of the crew, including of course Miss Baker, for daring to make a movie about a rape victim. And for not trying to sexualize it in any way ( as you say, a bit too much of that in "Anatomy of a Murder".) At no point in Something Wild is Carroll Baker made to look sexy or glamourous. She looks consistently young, vulnerable, frightened , but never set up as a sexually alluring female filmed for "the male gaze".  Good for them on that angle.

[midwestan]

I saw "The Mask of Dimitrious" Friday night.  I've seen it about 4 or 5 times (all on TCM), and I still like it a lot.  Zachary Scott gives a fine performance as the title character as he leaves a trail of jaded and broken people from the Bosporus to the Seine.  The makeup crew did a good job on him too, from when we first 'meet' Dimitrious in Smyrna in 1922, to the final scene in Paris 16 years later.  Another aspect of the film I appreciated was putting the names of the public buildings involved with the story in English, but also in the languages native to the country where the different scenes were taking place (Turkish, Greek, Slavic).  What I thought was kind of corny though was the end scene where Dimitrious, who up to that point had been a calculating, indifferent, and sadistic rogue was reduced to a quivering plate of jello when Mr. Peters pulls a gun on him.  I also had a hard time buying the fact that Peter Lorre could out-muscle Zachary Scott.  But hey, it's the movies, where nerds end up winning out over the studs most of the time, right?

 

On Saturday, I watched "Baby Doll" for the first time.  The performances by Carroll Baker, Eli Wallach, Karl Malden, and Mildred Dunnock were all very good.  Unfortunately, it's a Tennessee Williams play, which means most of the characters are in need of considerable psychotherapy and the dialog is reduced to characters shouting at one another as fans at a high school football or basketball game would do.  I liked the performances, but not the story.  On the other hand, seeing so many Williams characters with so many flaws, tends to make me feel better about my own self.

[LawrenceA]

4 more from 1957:

Tokyo Twilight - Japanese drama from director Yasujiro Ozu that follows the travails of the Sugiyama family, including father Chishu Ryu and his two grown daughters, Setsuko Hara and Ineko Arima. Setsuko has left her alcoholic husband, and taken their toddler daughter to live with Chishu, who is concerned by the secretive behavior of other daughter Ineko. This was a bit darker than many of Ozu's other films, and it's rather long at 140+ minutes, but I thought it was very good, with moving performances, particularly from Ineko Arima. Recommended.   (8/10)

Une Parisienne - French bedroom farce with Brigitte Bardot as the daughter of the French president. She desperately wants to marry her father's chief minister (Henry Vidal), but when her father forces the union, she resents Vidal's lack of real affection, as well as his womanizing reputation. She decides to use visiting nobleman Charles Boyer to make her husband jealous. This is lightweight stuff, mildly amusing but not especially witty. The film's main selling point is Bardot, at the height of her allure, in various flattering outfits and stages of undress.   (6/10)

Untamed Youth - Exploitation fare that manages to be quite entertaining, if not always for the right reasons. Traveling sisters Lori Nelson and Mamie Van Doren get arrested on trumped up charges and sentenced to work on a cotton farm under slave-like conditions. Crooked boss John Russell abuses the workers and forces himself on the women. New machine operator Don Burnett tries to set things right. There's a lot of bad rock'n'roll musical numbers with Van Doren "singing", and a lot bad, quotable dialogue. Also featuring rock legend Eddie Cochran as "Bong". This is cheap trash, but it's fun.   (4/10, or 8/10 on the trash scale)

Zero Hour! - Notorious airline disaster drama with Dana Andrews as a former military flyer with PTSD forced to fly a passenger plane when the crew and most of the passengers get food poisoning. This movie served as the basis for 1980's comedy classic Airplane!, and so much of it is the same, only played straight, that this earlier film becomes unintentionally hilarious. Also featuring Linda Darnell and Sterling Hayden. Even without the later comedy connection, this would still be a vaguely silly, corny exercise in cinematic mediocrity, despite the capable cast.   (5/10)

[TomJH]

6 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

Zero Hour! - Notorious airline disaster drama with Dana Andrews as a former military flyer with PTSD forced to fly a passenger plane when the crew and most of the passengers get food poisoning. This movie served as the basis for 1980's comedy classic Airplane!, and so much of it is the same, only played straight, that this earlier film becomes unintentionally hilarious. Also featuring Linda Darnell and Sterling Hayden. Even without the later comedy connection, this would still be a vaguely silly, corny exercise in cinematic mediocrity, despite the capable cast.   (5/10)

Sterling Hayden's "Looks like I picked the wrong week to give up cigarettes" line would have had me laughing anyway, even without having seen Airplane beforehand. There was so much for Robert Stack's deadpan delivery to parody there (or was it Lloyd Bridges?).

Having said that I think that old pro Dana Andrews, whose career was not doing particularly well, gives it his all and gives a commendable performance in the cliche role of an airplane passenger, still scarred by his wartime experiences as a pilot, who is forced to take over the ship (we can still use that term for an aircraft, can't we?) when the pilot is disabled.

A plug here, too, for Arturo's favourite leading lady, Linda Darnell, still a beauty almost 20 years after her film debut

Impossible to watch this scene in Zero Hour without breaking up and thinking of Peter Graves.

[LornaHansonForbes]

15 hours ago, midwestan said:

 

On Saturday, I watched "Baby Doll" for the first time.  The performances by Carroll Baker, Eli Wallach, Karl Malden, and Mildred Dunnock were all very good.  Unfortunately, it's a Tennessee Williams play, which means most of the characters are in need of considerable psychotherapy and the dialog is reduced to characters shouting at one another as fans at a high school football or basketball game would do.  I liked the performances, but not the story.  On the other hand, seeing so many Williams characters with so many flaws, tends to make me feel better about my own self.

Personal failings aside, I think Kazan was a brilliant director who directed an admirable number of near-flawless films in his career; I admire the life and private writings of TENNESSEE WILLIAMS and think he was maybe the dramatist of the 20th Century; and I think CARROLL BAKER and MILDRED DUNNOCK both deserved their nominations and am very glad they got them....I also don't toss the word "hate" around a lot with relation to classic movies, as it just more often than not doesn't apply, I may dislike a film from before 1960, but I usually, don't "hate"....

All that considered, GOD, I HATE BABY DOLL sooooo much.

 

 

[LornaHansonForbes]

by cheerful coincidence i woke at at 4:14 am on Sunday morning and was thusly able to finally see

STAR 80 (1983)

I have to start by noting that BOB FOSSE choreographs the most amazing wet tee shirt contest ever filmed, it's all frenetic arms akimbo and MOVEMENT! i love it!!!! There is another scene of a male strip show and again- I REALLY WISH FOSSE HAD LIVED TO DO HIS OWN VERSION OF MAGIC MIKE.

I suppose you could question just why this film needed to be made: after all, we all know how it ends and there's not a whole lot of story; I suppose you could also question the tactfulness of making the main focus of the entire story the character of the abusive husband and rendering him as a pretty understandable, even pitiable, figure at times.

one thing that is, to me, INARGUABLE: this movie could not have been better directed.

FOSSE pours himself into this- he only directed, what? 5 films- of which I've seen CABARET and as much of SWEET CHARITY as I could stand; THAT MAN KNEW WHAT TO DO WITH A CAMERA.

I also don't know who edited this, but man did they ever do a bang-up job. like CABARET, there are numerous scenes where two characters are talking, and then their dialogue continues as voiceover over another scene- and the juxtaposition of images is jarring....hard to explain, but this was a METICULOUSLY composed film- also visually- just one Hell of a film, it captures the moment in time- 1980 as seen through the Vaseline-smeared lens of 1983- perfectly.

CARROLL BAKER is great in the five minutes or so of screen time she has; CLIFF ROBERTSON is great as Hugh Hefner- Hefner actually sued over how he was portrayed in this, which is ridiculous, because he doesn't come off badly AND i have a strong feeling his representation in this is ON. THE. MONEY.

MARIEL HEMINGWAY, who I only know from SUPERMAN IV is perfectly cast- just a blank slate; Bless Her Heart. The sort of gal who if you handed her a Rubik's cube would probably spend 45 minutes to an hour trying to figure out how to get it open.

ERIC ROBERTS is SENSATIONAL. A revelation...and yes, I am in part blinded by how DEAD SEXY he is, especially with the 40's film noir stache and wavy brown hair. he works some ELEGANZA fashions as well. but even beyond his obvious physical attributes- he takes what in the wrong hands or with the wrong approach would be a career-ending role and NAILS. THE. PART. (see also- Laurence Fishbourne in WHAT'S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT?)

I think they filmed parts of this at The Playboy Mansion...and in one party scene, we see someone who is CLEARLY supposed to be BILL COSBY.

Also, did you know that the Playboy Mansion has a chicken buffet??? I think I ALSO SAW THE BOBA FETT PINBALL MACHINE IN ONE SCENE!!!!

[LornaHansonForbes]

weird things are going on with TCM ON DEMAND. Several titles keep disappearing and reappearing, and at times it says that i "do not have permission" to watch them...even after i'VE started watching them earlier in the day, but whatevs...

there is a trio of PETER LORRE flicks that this applies to- FACE BEHIND THE MASK, THE COMEDY OF TERRORS (which is really delightful and which has disappeared before i could finish it) and ISLAND OF DOOMED MEN, which I was able to see in entirety)

the last is a pretty tame ISLAND OF LOST SOULS ripoff without the genetic mutations- although there is a (delightful) running plot point about a PET MONKEY THAT LORRE DESPISES ("GET THAT MONKEY AWAY FROM ME!!!! ARRRGHAH!!!!")

LORRE USES HIS REAL (JACKED UP) TEETH IN THIS ONE!!!! He is also restrained for the most part, which makes him even creepier. There are worse ways to kill time than this pic, but it's nowhere as good as MAD LOVE or BEAST WITH FIVE FINGERS or STRANGER ON THE THIRD FLOOR or any of Lorre's other early solo horror parts.

[speedracer5]

Pride of the Marines.  I watched this movie last night and loved it.  Normally, I'm not one for war movies and if I'd just gone by the description of the film presented on Dish, I probably would have never recorded it.  The Dish synopsis only mentions the WWII battle part of the film and doesn't mention the romance between Eleanor Parker and John Garfield at all. Nor does it mention Garfield's life after coming home from the war.  The main reason I recorded this film initially was that I'm a big fan of Garfield and Parker.

Like I said, I am not a big fan of war movies, typically.  If the film only features combat and other war "things," I get bored.  However, if there is a romance involved, or something else to break up the monotony of combat scenes, then I find them more interesting to watch.  I love the war films that feature a romance.  Not a cheesy rom-com type romance, but a genuine, intense romance.  While the romance may or may not end favorably, I like those types of wartime films.  Pride of the Marines very much fit the bill for me as far as wartime romance goes.

Pride of the Marines is apparently based on the true story of Al Schmid (Garfield) who falls in love with Ruth Hartley (Parker).  Their romance is heating up just as Pearl Harbor is bombed.  Al joins the Marines and makes Ruth promise to wait for him until he returns.  This is a pivotal moment in the film because up until now, Al has been depicted as the type of man who only looks out for himself.  He doesn't rely on anyone and doesn't want to be tied down to anything or anyone.  He even says at the beginning of the film that he'll never marry, because he doesn't want to lose his independence. 

Al goes off to Guadalcanal where he's part of the machine gun crew.  Part of his crew is Lee Diamond (Dane Clark).  The machine gun crew is is hiding in a some sort of makeshift bunker, waiting for the enemy (Japanese) to make their move.  They do. Al & Co. fire. 200+ enemy soldiers perish.  After one crew member is killed, Lee is shot in the shoulder, it's all up to Al to be the hero.  He is, but takes an enemy grenade to the face in the process. Lee and Al are shipped off to the Navy hospital in San Diego to recover.

At the hospital, Al learns that he's lost most of his eyesight after the grenade incident (though, miraculously, his face is completely intact).  Throughout the rest of the film, Al struggles with the idea that he might be permanently blind for the rest of his life.  He is hesitant to see Ruth again because he doesn't want to be a burden.  He tries to remain stoic and prideful throughout much of the film.  Not only because he doesn't want to admit that he's blind, but he also doesn't want to admit that he may need to rely on others to help him in his day to day tasks.

It takes the interference of the Navy nurse (Rosemary DeCamp), Ruth, and Lee to try to break down the forcefield Al has put up. 

I absolutely loved this film and would watch it again.  This is also the third film featuring Tom D'Andrea that I've seen in the last couple of weeks.  Ever since I watched Dark Passage on Noir Alley, D'Andrea has been in almost everything I've watched! Then he had to be paired up with Dane Clark.  I always got D'Andrea and Clark mixed up.  At least with them being in the same film, it was easier to compare and contrast their voices and facial features.

Then there's John Garfield.  His performance was excellent, per usual.  He brings such a realism to his performances that is absent when watching others.  It isn't obvious that Garfield is acting.  He always just seems like a regular guy.  He's a little rough around the edges, but still charming and you want to root for him.  And for my superficial comment, he's pretty hunky too.

[scsu1975]

1 hour ago, speedracer5 said:

 

Pride of the Marines is apparently based on the true story of Al Schmid (Garfield) who falls in love with Ruth Hartley (Parker).  Their romance is heating up just as Pearl Harbor is bombed.  Al joins the Marines and makes Ruth promise to wait for him until he returns.  This is a pivotal moment in the film because up until now, Al has been depicted as the type of man who only looks out for himself.  He doesn't rely on anyone and doesn't want to be tied down to anything or anyone.  He even says at the beginning of the film that he'll never marry, because he doesn't want to lose his independence. 

 

This film apparently went through several title changes before being released. Al Schmid, War Hero; Al Schmid, Marine Hero; Sergeant Schmid, Marine; and This Love of Ours are a few I dug up.

Schmid was credited with killing over 200 Japanese soldiers and was awarded the Navy Cross. He lost one eye and was left with about 5% version in his remaining eye.

Garfield was well-cast for this role. Some early reports mentioned Ida Lupino as his possible co-star.

[Hibi]

On 8/26/2018 at 12:29 AM, Swithin said:

The Pajama Game is a fine musical and fine film. Like Damn Yankees, the other big Adler/Ross musical, they did indeed cast some of the Broadway cast, though not as many as Damn Yankees. Janis Paige,  the original Babe, who was replaced by Doris Day, will be 96 in a few weeks.

I'm a fan of Thelma Pelish, who played Mae. 

 

From what I've read, Day was the only Hollywood casting in Pajama Game. Did you mean Game had more original cast members or Yankees?

[Swithin]

19 minutes ago, Hibi said:

From what I've read, Day was the only Hollywood casting in Pajama Game. Did you mean Game had more original cast members or Yankees?

I believe Yankees had a few more. They replaced Stephen Douglass with Tab Hunter, but much of the rest of the cast in major roles -- Gwen Verdon, Shannon Bolin, Jean Stapleton, Rae Allen, Ray Walston, Nathaniel Frey, Russ Brown, Robert Shafer, James Komack -- went from Broadway to Hollywood.

Pajama Game replaced Paige with Day; Of the original Broadway cast in major roles, the film had John Raitt, Carol Haney, Thelma Pelish, Reta Shaw, and Eddie Foy, Jr.  Rae Allen (Poopsie) was replaced in the film by Barbara Nichols; Stanley Prager (Prez) was replaced by Jack Straw. So still a good percentage, but I don't think quite as many as Yankees.

My counts may be off a little, but you can get the accurate stats by comparing IBDB entries for the original casts to the IMDB entries for the films.

[misswonderly3]

I love The Pajama Game. It's my favourite Doris Day movie. And, come to think of it, it's also one of my favourite musicals. I 've never understood why it isn't more well-known. As far as I know, TCM has never aired it - - is this some kind of rights issue?

The Pajama Game is everything a musical should be: lively, fun, romantic, with great songs and exuberant dance numbers. I recommend it whole-heartedly to anyone who likes good musicals.

Here's just a taste of the kind of entertainment you get in this delightful film:

 

[Hibi]

16 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

I love The Pajama Game. It's my favourite Doris Day movie. And, come to think of it, it's also one of my favourite musicals. I 've never understood why it isn't more well-known. As far as I know, TCM has never aired it - - is this some kind of rights issue?

The Pajama Game is everything a musical should be: lively, fun, romantic, with great songs and exuberant dance numbers. I recommend it whole-heartedly to anyone who likes good musicals.

Here's just a taste of the kind of entertainment you get in this delightful film:

 

I think it was aired many years ago. Dunno why it's a problem now. I doubt it's been shown in 20 years. I've only seen it once so it p-sses me off!

[Hibi]

18 minutes ago, Swithin said:

I believe Yankees had a few more. They replaced Stephen Douglass with Tab Hunter, but much of the rest of the cast in major roles -- Gwen Verdon, Shannon Bolin, Jean Stapleton, Rae Allen, Ray Walston, Nathaniel Frey, Russ Brown, Robert Shafer, James Komack -- went from Broadway to Hollywood.

Pajama Game replaced Paige with Day; Of the original Broadway cast in major roles, the film had John Raitt, Carol Haney, Thelma Pelish, Reta Shaw, and Eddie Foy, Jr.  Rae Allen (Poopsie) was replaced in the film by Barbara Nichols; Stanley Prager (Prez) was replaced by Jack Straw. So still a good percentage, but I don't think quite as many as Yankees.

My counts may be off a little, but you can get the accurate stats by comparing IBDB entries for the original casts to the IMDB entries for the films.

Isnt that important. I thought I read somewhere the entire Broadway cast was imported except for Day.

[Swithin]

 

9 minutes ago, Hibi said:

Isnt that important. I thought I read somewhere the entire Broadway cast was imported except for Day.

I wish Gwen Verdon made more movies. For example, she would have been great re-creating her role as Charity in the film of Sweet Charity.

[Hibi]

Yes, and her husband (or ex. unsure if they were still married) directed it.

[LawrenceA]

After trying the new format for the last several days, which type of reviews should I continue with?

A - The longer, individual reviews that are more detailed and posted after watching each movie.

B - The single bulk post that has multiple, very short reviews, posted once daily.

C - I don't care because I don't read any of that garbage, anyway.

D - **** off already, nerd.

[laffite]

7 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

A - The longer, individual reviews that are more detailed and posted after watching each movie.

This one.

 

[FilmSnob]

+1

[TomJH]

1 hour ago, LawrenceA said:

After trying the new format for the last several days, which type of reviews should I continue with?

A - The longer, individual reviews that are more detailed and posted after watching each movie.

B - The single bulk post that has multiple, very short reviews, posted once daily.

C - I don't care because I don't read any of that garbage, anyway.

D - **** off already, nerd.

You should write whatever you're most comfortable with, Lawrence.

In answer to your question, though, I'd pick A.