I Just Watched...

[LornaHansonForbes]

Have you seen Broadminded by any chance? Lugosi plays South American in this one, and is the foil for Joe E. Brown.

 

It's a bizarre little movie, with an opening scene that's either hilarious or disturbing depending upon your point of view, of a baby party in which all the spoiled rich adults dress up as babies, including Brown in a baby carriage.

 

!

 

No, I have neither seen nor heard of this movie before, and quite frankly, I somewhat doubt its existence.

Off to Wikipedia right now to verify.

 

Ps: !

 

EDIT: OMG. IT EXISTS!!!!!!!

 

MIND=BLOWN

[scsu1975]

Here is Lugosi as an American Indian in The Deerslayer from 1920:

[scsu1975]

A Tale of Two Cities (1911)

 

I bet you didn't know the Dickens classic was filmed this early. Well ... it clearly should not have been.

This 21-minute production (available on youtube) is a prime example of why a tv show like "Fractured Flickers" had hilarious material from which to choose. Apparently all of Paris looks the same, as evidenced by the set painting that appears in several scenes. Florence Turner, as Lucie, faints at the drop of a hat and spends most of her screen time unconscious.  Leo Delaney, as Darnay, is a little on the plump side and acts a bit too effeminate. Maurice Costello, as Carton, shows a smidgeon of talent, but he acts a bit too effeminate. So why are these guys after Lucie?

 

The print was too blurred to identify other cast members, although I was able to spot Norma Talmadge playing a condemned woman in the final scenes.  Apparently Mabel Normand and Helen Gardner were also in this, but I didn't spot them ... unless they were disguised as Delaney and Costello.

[speedracer5]

Last night,  I saw the new Star Wars movie, Star Wars: The Force Awakens.  Full disclosure, I am not the biggest 'Star Wars' fan.  Frankly, I find the movies somewhat boring, though I do like R2D2, C3PO and Darth Vader.  I will also admit that I've only seen the first (fourth?) Star Wars.  The original one that was made in 1977.  I was not aware of all the characters that had died between the first (fourth?) film and the third (6th?).  Don't worry though, between my husband and my sister, all the storylines were filled in.  

 

Despite what others have claimed, the millennials did not ruin the Star Wars franchise.  The director who was also named as a culprit in ruining Star Trek (another series that frankly doesn't do much for me, but I would give the original TV series a try) is a Gen-Xer, so don't even try to blame the millennials for dissatisfaction in the series.  I think the last set of prequels screams "money grab" to me, but  the Star Wars fanatics may disagree with me.  

 

Anyway.  I don't see myself needing to watch this new film again, not because I didn't think it was good, but only because I'm not a big science fiction / fantasy aficionado.  I saw it and understood it and now I can move on.  I mostly went because my husband and sister wanted to go.  

 

What I did like about the film:

 

1) I like that they maintained the original 1970s aesthetic.  I liked that they didn't make it a CGI fest.  That was fun.

 

2) The new character, Rey.  I liked that the film is featuring a female hero.  A strong female hero who fights, pilots spaceships and does everything that the men in these films typically do.  She's not a weak character.  Kudos to Star Wars for not making the film a huge testosterone fest.

 

3) Seeing the original Star Wars characters.  Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill were fun to see.  I also liked seeing Chewbacca, C3PO and R2D2. 

 

4) BB8.  This droid was adorable and I wish that he and R2D2 would pair up and make a spin off Star Wars droid movie. 

 

5) The light saber battles are pretty cool.

 

What I didn't like about the film:

 

It was depressing.  I won't say why because it'd be a MAJOR spoiler for those who haven't seen it yet.   

[LonesomePolecat]

 

 

What I didn't like about the film:

 

It was depressing.  I won't say why because it'd be a MAJOR spoiler for those who haven't seen it yet.   

Just had to say I saw this movie opening weekend to avoid spoilers (always do that with movies I know I'm going to see), and when I walked out of it and passed the long lines of people waiting to see it for the first time, I had great fun making up spoilers just to mess with them. "Wow, can you believe Chewy was the new Emperor?" "I loved when Yoda came back to life." "It was crazy when Princess Leia did that nude scene!", etc. Then to watch people's faces as they believed me.

[LonesomePolecat]

Oh and I just watched another great Fred MacMurray screwball comedy that was on my DVR from this month called AN INNOCENT AFFAIR. Loved it too, especially the beginning when everything was unfolding.

 

And right now I'm watching THE KING'S SPEECH again. Love this movie, for some reason. Probably because it's intelligent.

[film lover 293]

Oscar Wildes'"Salome" (1923)--Found this silent on page 36 of results for "1953 films"; it's result number four on that page.  Result boasts"clean titles", or some such nonsense.  Anyway, click on it and there will be two other prints of the film, without "clean titles" showing at the side.  I then clicked on one of the versions with "unclean" titles and got a version also subtitled in Spanish.  Don't know what the fuss was about--subtitles are fine, no profanity.  Film is the legendary disaster that starred Natacha Rambova and Nazimova.  Everything is implied, however subtly or overtly, visually.  Rambova's most memorable for a hairdo that, according to the camera angle, looks like popcorn, cotton balls, or Christmas ornaments stuck on her head.  Film is just over 70 minutes long.  There are some beautiful Art Deco shots among the silliness onscreen.  Film is wonderfully funny: just don't expect a "good" film.  Print I saw was a 2001 restoration by the Library of Congress and Lobster.

[Bogie56]

I missed Dracula, Prince of Darkness (1966) upon its initial release.  No vhs or dvd in those days.  I had to settle for reading the novelization.  I finally caught up with the film in the early seventies on television.  Seeing it again last night I was struck by the voluminous amount of blood in the film for that time.  Any gruesome teen would have thought that pretty cool back then.

[EugeniaH]

The other night, for the first time, I saw "Sweet Smell of Success" in its entirety (I know, I'm a little late to the party).  I wasn't disappointed, with the storyline and the scenes of 1950s New York and the star turn from most of the cast...

 

A question about Burt Lancaster's role: Does anyone think Lancaster could have played J.J. Hunsecker with just a little more "life", to make him seem a little more multi-dimensional?  Or is he right to show his character "closed in", wearing a mask, as a man with a lot of secrets he needs to keep bottled up (as with the information he knows about others, or as to use his behavior to menace and control his sister, or as not to reveal to others how he might really feel about his sister?  Definitely, their relationship is certainly "different"...)

[film lover 293]

EugeniaH--I've read Lancaster modeled his portrayal on Walter Winchell.  Hunsecker is certainly a snake,& I thought Lancaster got that across very well.  To be more lifelike would be more, human;which I don't think Lancaster wanted.  JMO.

[LornaHansonForbes]

The other night, for the first time, I saw "Sweet Smell of Success" in its entirety (I know, I'm a little late to the party).  I wasn't disappointed, with the storyline and the scenes of 1950s New York and the star turn from most of the cast...

 

A question about Burt Lancaster's role: Does anyone think Lancaster could have played J.J. Hunsecker with just a little more "life", to make him seem a little more multi-dimensional?  Or is he right to show his character "closed in", wearing a mask, as a man with a lot of secrets he needs to keep bottled up (as with the information he knows about others, or as to use his behavior to menace and control his sister, or as to not reveal to others how he might really feel about his sister?  Definitely, their relationship is certainly "different"...)

 

I seem to recall reading that the storyline about "Hunsecker" and his sister was actually a straight-from-reality mirror on the relationship Walter Winchell had with his own sister, whom he was very protective of.

 

it is possible I am remembering this detail wrong, as I do have a foggy memory.

 

in re: Lancaster's performance and SWEET SMELL in general: there are two things I like about SWEET SMELL: Tony Curtis (who is EXCELLENT) and the lighting. Other than that, quite frankly, I think it sucks out loud- but I have real issues with CLIFFORD ODETS- who wrote it and was something of an Aaron Sorkin** of his day. Also Lancaster's performance in the film is a near career-worst that validates all the criticisms that he could be a real ham who may as well end every line with jazz hands in a constant attempt to one-up all his fellow cast members.

 

 

 

** and by this, I mean he was a writer who never misses

an attempt to dazzle you with his self-perceived brilliance or

short-change a genuine emotional, honest moment

by launching into a didactic spiel aimed from the top of

The Mount at the poor, simplistic masses.

[EugeniaH]

I seem to recall reading that the storyline about "Hunsecker" and his sister was actually a straight-from-reality mirror on the relationship Walter Winchell had with his own sister, whom he was very protective of.

 

it is possible I am remembering this detail wrong, as I do have a foggy memory.

 

in re: Lancaster's performance and SWEET SMELL in general: there are two things I like about SWEET SMELL: Tony Curtis (who is EXCELLENT) and the lighting. Other than that, quite frankly, I think it sucks out loud- but I have real issues with CLIFFORD ODETS- who wrote it and was something of an Aaron Sorkin** of his day. Also Lancaster's performance in the film is a near career-worst that validates all the criticisms that he could be a real ham who may as well end every line with jazz hands in a constant attempt to one-up all his fellow cast members.

 

 

 

** and by this, I mean he was a writer who never misses

an attempt to dazzle you with his self-perceived brilliance or

short-change a genuine emotional, honest moment

by launching into a didactic spiel aimed from the top of

The Mount at the poor, simplistic masses.

 

LOL.

 

It's true that Hunsecker was written with Winchell in mind, who held court in a restaurant and had people groveling at his feet (maybe similar to Louella and Hedda, but I digress).  Well, be it Winchell or Hunsecker, the relationship with the sister is creepy.

 

I agree that Curtis is excellent, and I also loved the lighting.  In one way, Curtis and Lancaster played well off one another because they were such different characters.  I remember the scene in the restaurant where Curtis was sitting next to Lancaster as Lancaster was talking with the politician, insulting Curtis in his restrained way, and Curtis laughing nervously and reacting...  They are both slimeballs in different ways.

 

Yeah, maybe Lancaster is hammy in his role...  I don't know.  Do others agree?

 

I don't have an issue with Odets (I loved "Clash by Night"), but I haven't kept track of what films he's written for...

[LornaHansonForbes]

I don't have an issue with Odets (I loved "Clash by Night"), but I haven't kept track of what films he's written for...

 

Wow, so you're the one.

 

j/k (kind of, I know I'm not the only one who doesn't care for CLASH)

 

Odets also wrote GOLDEN BOY (1939)- which numerous people on the forums do not like and which is a really, really, reaaaaaaally awful film, every time it comes on (which thankfully isn't often) someone starts a "what the hell did I just watch?"-type thread about it. It is hot garbage.

 

He directed and wrote NONE BUT THE LONELY HEART, which I also hate.

 

He directed HUMORESQUE- which is gorgeously shot, directed and acted- but has some of the clunkiest, most absurd dialogue and situations of any film I can think of.

 

He wrote THE BIG KNIFE- which may actually be my least favorite film from the classic era, and just a buffet of bad acting and pointless diatribes, a film that attacks Hollywood for constantly destroying the "message" of his work- which is ironic AS HELL since Hollywood had- up to that point- commissioned any number of projects by Odets that were just dripping with Bolshevik sentiments. 

 

I could go on for a while about Odets.....his films are just joyless, talky, didactic and without a single genuine moment.

 

ps- I forgot THE COUNTRY GIRL. God do I hate that movie.

[film lover 293]

A quick summary of original screenplays by Odets (the few I've seen--he had 12, I think.

 

"None But The Lonely Heart" (1944)--Cary Grant and Ethel Barrymore are heartbreaking in this.  Film is its' own social commentary.

 

"Humoresque" (1946)--Essentially, a Joan Crawford vehicle with high production values.  Everyone Talks, and talks, and talks.

 

"Deadline at Dawn" (1946)--Good little film noir with Susan Hayward that isn't derailed by the cabdrivers' philosophizing.

 

"Rhapsody in Blue" (1946)--Good performance by Robert Alda as Gershwin.  I concentrated on the music, missed the philosophy.

 

"Clash By Night" (1952)--Barbara Stanwyck is Fantastic in this.

 

"Sweet Smell of Success (1957)--excellent film.

 

There are others, but I haven't seen them.

[LornaHansonForbes]

A quick summary of original screenplays by Odets (the few I've seen--he had 12, I think.

 

"None But The Lonely Heart" (1944)--Cary Grant and Ethel Barrymore are heartbreaking in this.  Film is its' own social commentary.

 

"Humoresque" (1946)--Essentially, a Joan Crawford vehicle with high production values.  Everyone Talks, and talks, and talks.

 

"Deadline at Dawn" (1946)--Good little film noir with Susan Hayward that isn't derailed by the cabdrivers' philosophizing.

 

"Rhapsody in Blue" (1946)--Good performance by Robert Alda as Gershwin.  I concentrated on the music, missed the philosophy.

 

"Clash By Night" (1952)--Barbara Stanwyck is Fantastic in this.

 

"Sweet Smell of Success (1957)--excellent film.

 

There's others, but I haven't seen them.

 

seriously, consider yourself lucky if you've missed GOLDEN BOY and THE BIG KNIFE.

 

I actually own HUMORESQUE on DVD, because it has one of the best moments in any forties film ever: a 5-6 minute scene at the finale (thankfully) WITHOUT ANY DIALOGUE that is just Jean Negulescu (the director), CRAWFORD (in her finest moment), the score to TRISTAN AND ISOLDE, and a beach. 

 

HUMORESQUE is an intriguing (and rare) case of a total  **** script that was directed, shot, and acted perfectly.

[EugeniaH]

Wow, so you're the one.

 

j/k (kind of, I know I'm not the only one who doesn't care for CLASH)

 

Odets also wrote GOLDEN BOY (1939)- which numerous people on the forums do not like and which is a really, really, reaaaaaaally awful film, every time it comes on (which thankfully isn't often) someone starts a "what the hell did I just watch?"-type thread about it. It is hot garbage.

 

Lol! 

 

Okay, looking at this list, I hate "Golden Boy".  Just because it has Stanwyck doesn't give this movie a free pass.

[film lover 293]

LornaHansonForbes--"Deadline at Dawn" (1946) is the best overall of the bunch I listed.  An overlooked noir.  Darn good film (doesn't quite merit the expletive).

[LornaHansonForbes]

Lol! 

 

Okay, looking at this list, I hate "Golden Boy".  Just because it has Stanwyck doesn't give this movie a free pass.

 

Watching Stanwyck in GOLDEN BOY is like watching someone running around the TITANIC trying to plug the holes with duct tape.

[LornaHansonForbes]

LornaHansonForbes--"Deadline at Dawn" (1946) is the best overall of the bunch I listed.  An overlooked noir.  Darn good film (doesn't quite merit the expletive).

 

yeah...i've seen it.

s'allright...but...eh.

however, compared to GOLDEN BOY it is a *** damned masterpiece.

(expletive merited.)

[Fedya]

I actually own HUMORESQUE on DVD, because it has one of the best moments in any forties film ever: a 5-6 minute scene at the finale (thankfully) WITHOUT ANY DIALOGUE that is just Jean Negulescu (the director), CRAWFORD (in her finest moment), the score to TRISTAN AND ISOLDE, and a beach.

Negulesco and Crawford were, of course, doing the Burt Lancaster/Deborah Kerr beach scene from From Here to Eternity several years before Lancaster and Kerr.

[Fedya]

Watching Stanwyck in GOLDEN BOY is like watching someone running around the TITANIC trying to plug the holes with duct tape.

Would that someone be Clifton Webb?

[NickAndNora34]

Mel Brooks' History of the World Part 1 and Silent Movie. Both of these movies are simply fantastic. Honestly, I never really knew who Mel Brooks truly was until last year... But his work is very funny, and he alludes to several other pop culture items. History of the World, Part 1 is probably one of my new favorite film. Don't watch it with kids, but it's quite humorous.

[CaveGirl]

You have quite a lot of ground to cover to check out Mel's complete oeuvre, ya know, Nick and Nora.

 

He did accomplish quite a lot as the 20th century's only 2,000 year old man.

 

 

[cigarjoe]

Night Moves (1975) geographically spans from the classic haunts of Hammett, Chandler, and Ross Mcdonald, i.e., California, LA, Hollywood, to the aqua and coral pastels of John D. MacDonald's South Florida and it's Gulf Coast Keys. There is also a short stopover to a New Mexico film location.

 

Directed by Arthur Penn. Written by Alan Sharp, with cinematography by Bruce Surtees. The film stars Gene Hackman, Jennifer Warren, Susan Clark, Edward Binns, Harris Yulin, Kenneth Mars, Janet Ward, Anthony Costello, John Crawford, and it also has some outstanding early career appearances by James Woods and Melanie Griffith.

 

 

The story reboots the classic hardboiled detective story up to the contemporary 1970's.  Harry Moseby (Hackman) runs Moseby Confidential a one man detective agency, a business that seems to putter along on vapors. He drives a 1967 Ford Mustang. Instead of being the usual ex WWI, WWII, Korean or Vietnam Vet, Moseby is an ex Oakland Raider football player, who has apparently invested some of his NFL contract doe into a PI dream.

 

Moseby is a Sam Spade, Philip Marlowe "knight of the streets" wannabe but rather than hard boiled, Harry is soft boiled at best, he is not tough or mean, he's more easygoing and disarming,  Harry is also a bit tarnished and maybe bit afraid. He is the hero, competent and dedicated, but even as his personal world dissolves around him he is still as Chandler said "a man of honor—by instinct, by inevitability, without thought of it, and certainly without saying it. He must be the best man in his world and a good enough man for any world."

[TomJH]

Mel Brooks' History of the World Part 1 and Silent Movie. Both of these movies are simply fantastic. Honestly, I never really knew who Mel Brooks truly was until last year... But his work is very funny, and he alludes to several other pop culture items. History of the World, Part 1 is probably one of my new favorite film. Don't watch it with kids, but it's quite humorous.

 

And don't forget a key historical truth that Mel taught us with History . . .

 

 

History of the World, Part One is one of my favourite Brooks films, with, among many attributes, a marvelous Madeline Kahn, as Brooks happily trounces history, ranging from cave man times to the Roman Empire to the French Revolution. Not only do we get Brooks' musical tribute to the Inquisition (surely on a par with the legendary "Springtime for Hitler" in hilarious bad taste), but the spectacle and unique ability of Gregory Hines to unravel a three and a half foot tongue when sexually stimulated. This, at times, delightfully vulgar comedy makes me wish there had been a Part Two.