Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
speedracer5

I Just Watched...

Recommended Posts

Tip-Off Girls  (1938)  -  6/10

220px-Tip-Off_Girls_poster.jpg

B crime thriller with Lloyd Nolan and Roscoe Karns as undercover cops trying to bust up a truck hijacking ring run by J. Carrol Naish. Also featuring top billed Mary Carlisle as a secretary with a secret, Buster Crabbe, Evelyn Brent, Benny Baker, and Anthony Quinn. This hour-long programmer has some amusing one-liners and a good cast.

Source: internet

Tip_Off_Girls_photo__04344.1517092500.12

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Woman's Face  (1938)  -  7/10

womansface1.jpg?w=525

Swedish melodrama with Ingrid Bergman as a horribly scarred woman left bitter and angry due to her condition. She's part of a blackmail ring, but when a plastic surgeon offers to fix her face, she takes it as a chance to start over. However, her past may come back to haunt her. Most people around here will be familiar with the 1941 remake starring Joan Crawford, and they changed little from this original take. Bergman is very good.

Source: The Criterion Channel

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, EricJ said:

Well, we've had Bugs Bunny cartoons inspired by the Bowery Boys:

WRE91xw.gif

ONE OF THE LEGIT FUNNIEST MOMENTS IN BUGS HISTORY:

Coooome back here you Rab....it.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

A Woman's Face  (1938)  -  7/10

womansface1.jpg?w=525

Swedish melodrama with Ingrid Bergman as a horribly scarred woman left bitter and angry due to her condition. She's part of a blackmail ring, but when a plastic surgeon offers to fix her face, she takes it as a chance to start over. However, her past may come back to haunt her. Most people around here will be familiar with the 1941 remake starring Joan Crawford, and they changed little from this original take. Bergman is very good.

Source: The Criterion Channel

The Bergman version is better imo. MGM glammed up the remake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hibi said:

The Bergman version is better imo. MGM glammed up the remake.

Bergman is always preferable to Crawford, imo, so yes, I liked the original better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mikado  (1939)  -  5/10

kenny.jpg

British Technicolor adaptation of the Gilbert & Sullivan stage classic, directed by Victor Schertzinger. A minstrel (Kenny Baker) is secretly the son of the Mikado, or ruler, and he falls in love with a young woman (Jean Colin) who is already unhappily engaged. Also featuring Martyn Green, Sydney Granville, John Barclay, Gregory Stroud, Constance Willis, Elizabeth Paynter, and Kathleen Naylor. Opera (operetta? I don't know the difference, nor really care) + British "comedic" interpretations of Japanese culture + an all-British cast playing all-Japanese characters = a painful experience for me. With cutesy character names like Nanki-Poo, Ko-Ko, Pish-Tush, and Yum-Yum, which sound nothing like Japanese names except to the most ignorant, and broad, hammy performances, this was a really terrible movie for me. I accentuate the personal opinion, as I realize that this is a beloved work to generations of theatergoers, and other viewers will most certainly find more joy in this than I did, thus the more neutral 5/10 rating, rather than the 2/10 I would like to have given it.

Source: The Criterion Channel

mikado.jpg

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only One Night  (1939)  -  6/10

220px-Only_One_Night_(1939_film).jpg

Swedish drama with Edvin Adolphson as Valdemar, a small-time carnival operator who learns that he's the bastard son of a wealthy society leader (Olof Sandborg). The old man invites Valdemar to live on his estate, in hopes that he will prove a romantic match for the old man's ward Eva Beckman (Ingrid Bergman). However, Valdemar's "low" past makes it difficult to adjust to high society. Also featuring Aino Taube, Erik Berglund, Marianne Lofgren, and Magnus Kesster. This largely unremarkable melodrama from director Gustaf Molander features Bergman in a largely supporting role, one she took only to secure the lead in A Woman's Face. Adolphson is the focus of the story, and while he acquits himself well enough, the film only perks up when either Bergman or Taube (playing Valdemar's carnival mistress) are on screen.

Source: The Criterion Channel

MV5BYmQxNGM4NzAtYWZlNy00MmFkLTgwOGUtYzgw

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

Bergman is always preferable to Crawford, imo, so yes, I liked the original better.

I haven't seen the Bergman but I thought Crawford was not bad in the film. Comparisons are inevitable but not always tasteful. I would agree with your comment in general but Crawford can be enjoyed on her own merits. (I know you know this). There is something mutually exclusive with these two actresses (their roots in film are disparate and their usual personas do not coincide), it's almost unfair to pit them against each other. But you can't argue with opinions and yours is certainly a valid one, though I could not help but wince.

////

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, laffite said:

I haven't seen the Bergman but I thought Crawford was not bad in the film. Comparisons are inevitable but not always tasteful. I would agree with your comment in general but Crawford can be enjoyed on her own merits. (I know you know this). There is something mutually exclusive with these two actresses (their roots in film are disparate and their usual personas do not coincide), it's almost unfair to pit them against each other. But you can't argue with opinions and yours is certainly a valid one, though I could not help but wince.

////

I understand your sentiment, and I really didn't mean to disparage Crawford as much as elevate Bergman. 

I wasn't very versed in Crawford's work until the last couple of years. I had seen many of the most famous films, like Mildred PiercePossessedGrand Hotel, and Sudden Fear, as well as some of her later exploitation work, but few of the dozens of other films she appeared in, particularly during her first peak stardom in the 30's. Now though, I've seen 70 of her films, including everything from 1931 to 1970. I appreciate her more now than I did, as I wasn't particularly a fan, but now I have more sympathy for her as a person, and appreciation of her as a personality and an actress. I won't count her among the greatest actresses, but she was adequate, and could be very good given the material, and the support of good co-stars and strong directors. Unfortunately, she didn't get a lot of that in her career, something that seemed to be true for a lot of the more forceful actresses later in their career, be it Bette Davis, Barbara Stanwyck, or Susan Hayward.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hibi said:

The Bergman version is better imo. MGM glammed up the remake.

I agree.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

ONE OF THE LEGIT FUNNIEST MOMENTS IN BUGS HISTORY:

Coooome back here you Rab....it.

 

 

:o

Had NO idea Bugs was a BED WETTER!   :huh: :blink:

Sepiatone

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Golden Gloves  (1940)  -  6/10

220px-Golden_Gloves_FilmPoster.jpeg

Boxing drama with fighter Richard Denning teaming up with newsman Robert Paige to try and start a legitimate boxing association free from the corruption of racketeers like J. Carrol Naish. Also featuring Jeanne Cagney, William Frawley, Edward Brophy, Abner Biberman, Byron Foulger, and Robert Ryan in his debut. This was a minor B picture directed by Edward Dmytryk with some gusto. The fighters themselves are mainly a bunch of teenagers who look like extras from a Bowery Boys flick. Ryan plays a tough boxing competitor who faces off with Denning. Ryan reportedly hurt Denning enough during filming to send him to the hospital. 

Source: internet

golden-gloves-robert-ryan-in-training-on

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LawrenceA said:

I understand your sentiment, and I really didn't mean to disparage Crawford as much as elevate Bergman. 

I wasn't very versed in Crawford's work until the last couple of years. I had seen many of the most famous films, like Mildred PiercePossessedGrand Hotel, and Sudden Fear, as well as some of her later exploitation work, but few of the dozens of other films she appeared in, particularly during her first peak stardom in the 30's. Now though, I've seen 70 of her films, including everything from 1931 to 1970. I appreciate her more now than I did, as I wasn't particularly a fan, but now I have more sympathy for her as a person, and appreciation of her as a personality and an actress. I won't count her among the greatest actresses, but she was adequate, and could be very good given the material, and the support of good co-stars and strong directors. Unfortunately, she didn't get a lot of that in her career, something that seemed to be true for a lot of the more forceful actresses later in their career, be it Bette Davis, Barbara Stanwyck, or Susan Hayward.

I was late to Joan as well. She was SOTM in January 2014 and after watching a number of her films I appreciated her more than ever before. I would replace "adequate" with "competent" and perhaps even more than that. I respect her commitment to character that is relatively un-showy considering her immense preoccupation of being the "Greatest Star." We see photos of her with scads of fan mail while looking with pride at the camera, her ego is so fragile she can't make it the Oscars in 1945 for fear that Bette might win, yet when she is being Mildred Pierce on screen there is no trace whatever of "look at me, I am a star" which IS something you get with Bette IMO. The latter is much more self-consciously aware of her star status, even in those moments on film when she is on screen, at least in some roles. (Not everyone will agree with this but this is just something that I seem to notice, true or not). And don't get me wrong, I love Bette. I have always held Bette above Joan but now they are much closer to each other in my estimation. And this may surprise, but I seem more drawn to her later stuff (middle to late period?), the years 1945-1953 are wonderful years, from Mildred Pierce to Sudden Fear. For all her rah-rah I am he greatest star etc etc. she was the consummate professional on screen and somehow that impresses upon me more than with some of the others. She is so incredibly locked in to her characters and absolutely convincing, for me anyway.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trio of films. One brand new, one with 20 years under its belt, and one from the 60s. Surpirsingly, the one from the 60s is the one that failed to come off.

Yesterday (2019) is a good-natured treat. It is rare to find so soothing a film nowadays, one that makes you feel glad for being alive. Danny Boyle directed it, but this is his equivalent almost of David Lynch's The Straight Story, save a few little stylistic flourishes (such as letters of cities and songs racing across the screen, and a scene showing the effects of internet fandom), he plays it very low key here, and lets Richard Curtis's script take center stage. There are definite reverberations of the same wistful air of Curtis's About Time, and some of the early scenes hearken back to the quirky friends of Four Weddings and a Funeral and Notting Hill. There are several scenes, especially in the later half, that require great delicacy of touch, and the film supplies that effortlessly. And of course there are the covers of the Beatles songs, still vital, always appreciated. Hirmish Patel and Lily James are the leads are likable (especially her, she nails down several emotional scenes very well); among the other players, Kate McKinnon makes the most impact as the film's villainess, a raspingly cynical, greedy music agent who goes through scenes with savage putdowns and her worship of money. In short, the film is a joy. (Warning to Lawrence though, given what he said about the cast of Cats: James Cordern makes about a 90 second cameo in what turns out to be Patel's nightmare. Since its only a dream sequence, it is expendable) Source: Movie Theatre

Dick (1999) is definitely a goofy film, but quite amusing. The what if speculation suggests that the Watergate informant, Deep Throat (still unknown at the time of the film's release in 1999) was actually a pair of dizzy teenage girls (Kirsten Dunst and Michelle Williams) who were once dog walkers for the president (Dan Hedaya, looking and sounding quite a bit like the actual man). There are way too many double entendre lines regarding the president's nickname, but the film is disarming in its deliciously spacy answers to the 18 and a half minute break on the tapes, John Dean's change of heart, the end of the Vietnam War, the aversion of nuclear war with the USSR, and the missing CREEP list. It's stupid, but sly at the same time, kind of like having your cake and eating it too. Also love the use of Carly Simon's "You're So Vain" at the end. One drawback: nowhere near enough of Teri Garr. Source: Showtime

Night Must Fall (1964) though, that one fell flat. Trouble sets in in just the first few minutes when it is made fully clear to the audience of the mayhem that Albert Finney's character is up to. It never recovers from that. It takes all the suspense out of the 1937 original, and without that delayed air of uncertainty, it proves fatal to the film. The character's psychosis is too close to the surface this time, negating the belivability of the plot, and the film's many flashy, arty, provocative sequences damage it all the more. A huge letdown, especially since I loved the 1937 version. Source: TCM

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, laffite said:

I was late to Joan as well. She was SOTM in January 2014 and after watching a number of her films I appreciated her more than ever before. I would replace "adequate" with "competent" and perhaps even more than that. I respect her commitment to character that is relatively un-showy considering her immense preoccupation of being the "Greatest Star." We see photos of her with scads of fan mail while looking with pride at the camera, her ego is so fragile she can't make it the Oscars in 1945 for fear that Bette might win, yet when she is being Mildred Pierce on screen there is no trace whatever of "look at me, I am a star" which IS something you get with Bette IMO. The latter is much more self-consciously aware of her star status, even in those moments on film when she is on screen, at least in some roles. (Not everyone will agree with this but this is just something that I seem to notice, true or not). And don't get me wrong, I love Bette. I have always held Bette above Joan but now they are much closer to each other in my estimation. And this may surprise, but I seem more drawn to her later stuff (middle to late period?), the years 1945-1953 are wonderful years, from professional on screen and somehow that impresses upon me more than with some of the others.Mildred Pierce to Sudden Fear. For all her rah-rah I am he greatest star etc etc. she was the consummate professional on screen and somehow that impresses upon me more than with some of the others. She is so incredibly locked in to her characters and absolutely convincing, for me anyway.

I couldn't agree more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Red Desert" - Michelangelo Antonioni - 1965 -

starring Monica Vitti, Richard Harris , Carlo Chionetti, Valerio Bartoleschi -

it was Antonioni's first film in color -

and it is a visually dazzling canvas -

a young married woman is falling apart in an industrial environment that seems both alien and threatening -

her husband is not exactly sympathetic -

his friend tries to reach her with little success -

her son is seeming to mimic his mother's condition -

the atmosphere is oppressive -

she just can't seem to function -

neither can her son -

the visual and sound and color design of this film is staggering -

it's oppressive -

and there is no escape -

it is one of the screen's most prestigious achievements -

and perhaps Antonioni's greatest film -

and a great companion piece to "Zabriskie Point" -

  Red+Desert+11.jpg

Zabriskie-Point-4.jpg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, rayban said:

"Red Desert" - Michelangelo Antonioni - 1964 -

it is one of the screen's most prestigious achievements -

 

I must have seen a different version! :lol:

I mean that with all due love and respect, rayban. I didn't care for Red Desert at all, and consider it the least of the 6 Antonioni films that I've seen thus far.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

I must have seen a different version! :lol:

I guess so.

There's no point in arguing.

Either you love it or you hate it .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Les Visiteurs du Soir aka The Devil's Envoys  (1942)  -  7/10

220px-Visiteursdusoir.jpg

French fantasy/romance from director Marcel Carne. In the 15th century, two wandering minstrels (Alain Cuny and Arletty) arrive at the court of Baron Hugues (Fernand Ledoux), whose daughter Anne (Marie Dea) is set to marry Baron Renaud (Marcel Herrand). The two minstrels set out to cause mischief by seducing both Anne and Renaud, setting the latter at odds with the former's father. The arrival of the Devil himself (Jules Berry) further complicates matters. 

This was the biggest hit of Occupied France, as many viewers saw it as an allegory with the minstrels standing in for the occupying Nazis, with Hitler as the Devil. Director Carne claimed that was erroneous, and no parallels were intended. Regardless, this is an entertaining film with good production values, excellent filmmaking, and compelling performances, especially from Arletty and Berry. The film extras are said to include Alain Resnais and Simone Signoret.

Source: The Criterion Channel

les-visiteurs-du-soir.jpg

visiteurs-du-soir-2.jpg

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rayban said:

I guess so.

There's no point in arguing.

Either you love it or you hate it .

I hope you saw the addendum I added to my prior post. I didn't mean to insult your opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

I hope you saw the addendum I added to my prior post. I didn't mean to insult your opinion.

I did, Antonioni is - divisive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rayban said:

I did, Antonioni is - divisive.

I very much like L'Avventura, followed by Zabriskie Point (yes, I'm another of the few who actually like it!), and Il Grido

I was less enthused, but still liked, L'eclisse and La Notte. Then The PassengerBlowup, and Red Desert.

I had forgotten about two of them until I looked up his filmography!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

Les Visiteurs du Soir aka The Devil's Envoys  (1942)  -  7/10

 

I like this movie very much for a reason which most people will think odd: I see different symbolism in it each time I watch it and I discount most of the symbolism which I believed it had the previous time I watched it. It is nearly as if they created sixty-four slightly different versions and showed them randomly so that people would argue about the presence or lack of certain meaningful elements. These arguments would generate publicity which would be beneficial to the box office.

I have no proof that they did this but it was a standard of the era to produce different endings for different regions and so it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a well-funded director and a technically insane writer might have conspired to create confusion. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LawrenceA said:

I was less enthused, but still liked, L'eclisse and La Notte. Then The PassengerBlowup, and Red Desert.

La Notte was a real snore fest. His worst film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


© 2019 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
×
×
  • Create New...