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

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

I actually don't mind Estelle Parsons as Roseanne's mom in Roseanne.  I think her tendency to be shrill and screechy is funny within the context of the other characters.  I especially loved it when she had scenes with Nana Mary, Shelley Winters.

speedracer5, Well since you got a big kick out of Bonnie and Clyde I hope you caught Warren Beatty and Julie Christie in McCabe & Mrs. Miller one of the seminal Westerns at the end of the Golden Age of Westerns.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I recently saw Suddenly, Last Summer(1959). This movie was a trip. I thought it was overall pretty darn good. Loved the actors. Katherine Hepburn, Elizabeth Taylor and Montgomery Clift is a cast to die for. They didn’t disappoint. Since this was based on a Tennessee Williams play, and came out during the Hayes Code era, lots of the more intense subject matter was censored or toned down, mostly. But they still did pretty well with what they had. 8/10. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

I actually don't mind Estelle Parsons as Roseanne's mom in Roseanne.  I think her tendency to be shrill and screechy is funny within the context of the other characters.  I especially loved it when she had scenes with Nana Mary, Shelley Winters.

Can't say I was ever a fan of the ROSEANNE tv sitcom, or Roseanne either. So that's another show to avoid Parsons in.

With some actresses, being shrill can actually be an asset. Shelley Winters can be shrill in some of her films, but dang, for me she at least makes it work.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Casey06 said:

Hey, I recently saw Suddenly, Last Summer(1959). This movie was a trip. I thought it was overall pretty darn good. Loved the actors. Katherine Hepburn, Elizabeth Taylor and Montgomery Clift is a cast to die for. They didn’t disappoint. Since this was based on a Tennessee Williams play, and came out during the Hayes Code era, lots of the more intense subject matter was censored or toned down, mostly. But they still did pretty well with what they had. 8/10. 

I like SUDDENLY, LAST SUMMER too. As you said it had a great cast in it.

And it was the only time I ever saw Katharine play a 100 percent, truly rotten character.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bethluvsfilms said:

Saw it, and I can't say I was sold on her acting ability on that film either (though I thought Joanne Woodward was excellent).

It's possible she won due to both films, though one can only be nominated for one film in one year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Hibi said:

It's possible she won due to both films, though one can only be nominated for one film in one year.

Does that mean the Academy has to flip a coin to determine which movie the actor/actress would be nominated for gets mention?  ;)

Sepiatone

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

speedracer5, Well since you got a big kick out of Bonnie and Clyde I hope you caught Warren Beatty and Julie Christie in McCabe & Mrs. Miller one of the seminal Westerns at the end of the Golden Age of Westerns.

I didn't watch that last night (I watched a Don Ameche/Alice Faye/Carmen Miranda musical), but McCabe & Mrs. Miller sounds interesting, so I'll have to check that one out. It probably won't be too hard to locate.  It's probably on On-Demand.  Dish has really increased their TCM On-Demand offerings lately--there seem to be as many films on there as there are on TCM's Watch TCM app.

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

With some actresses, being shrill can actually be an asset. Shelley Winters can be shrill in some of her films, but dang, for me she at least makes it work.

At least Shelley is usually put out of her misery at some point in the film.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Casey06 said:

Hey, I recently saw Suddenly, Last Summer(1959). This movie was a trip. I thought it was overall pretty darn good. Loved the actors. Katherine Hepburn, Elizabeth Taylor and Montgomery Clift is a cast to die for. They didn’t disappoint. Since this was based on a Tennessee Williams play, and came out during the Hayes Code era, lots of the more intense subject matter was censored or toned down, mostly. But they still did pretty well with what they had. 8/10. 

This is a very weird film.  I've seen it multiple times though.  It's weird, but fascinating in a way.  My old dentist had TV glasses.  Once while getting some dental work done, I was watching TCM in the TV Glasses and this film was on.  Nothing like getting your teeth worked on while watching someone being threatened with a lobotomy!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hibi said:

It's possible she won due to both films, though one can only be nominated for one film in one year.

Rachel, Rachel didn't premiere until August of 68, and the Oscar ceremony where Parsons won for Bonnie & Clyde was held in April.

Parsons was nominated for Rachel, Rachel for the 68/69 Supporting Actress Oscar, but she lost to Ruth Gordon in Rosemary's Baby

BTW, I liked Parsons in Rachel, Rachel, more so than in B&C.

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

Rachel, Rachel didn't premiere until August of 68, and the Oscar ceremony where Parsons won for Bonnie & Clyde was held in April.

Parsons was nominated for Rachel, Rachel for the 68/69 Supporting Actress Oscar, but she lost to Ruth Gordon in Rosemary's Baby

BTW, I liked Parsons in Rachel, Rachel, more so then in B&C.

I'm surprised nobody mentioned Beah Richards in "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner" as the supporting actress who should have won that Oscar for 67.

 That's another movie I saw twice first run and I thought her scenes with Spencer Tracy were outstanding.

I think Estelle Parsons was the popular choice, but Beah Richards did the best work.

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

Rachel, Rachel didn't premiere until August of 68, and the Oscar ceremony where Parsons won for Bonnie & Clyde was held in April.

Parsons was nominated for Rachel, Rachel for the 68/69 Supporting Actress Oscar, but she lost to Ruth Gordon in Rosemary's Baby

BTW, I liked Parsons in Rachel, Rachel, more so then in B&C.

I see. I thought they were in the same year. Stand corrected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once Upon a Miracle (19670. Super quirky Eurpoean fairy tale with Sophia Loren as a Cinderella type and Omar Sharif as the prince. Film keeps getting eccetric with flying monks, witches, and leaping nuns. Also despite the alternate title, Cinderella Italian Style, it takes a lot of liberties with the fairy tale. Dolores Del Rio shows up, still glamourous as Sharif's mother. Still fun though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

At least Shelley is usually put out of her misery at some point in the film.

Yeah but in one case, her death in Poseidon Adventure managed to be sad. Probably my favorite role of her's.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

Yeah but in one case, her death in Poseidon Adventure managed to be sad. Probably my favorite role of her's.

I always loved her in that film too. Her character, Belle Rosen, was very brave and yes, her character's fate in there is heart-wrenching

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it’s not technically a classic film yet, but I rewatched one of my favorite movies, The Avengers(2012). I remember when this came out I was a freshman in high school and was so excited since I had seen all the other Marvel films before it. I saw it three times in theaters. Even after all these years and so many Marvel films later this one is still my favorite and I feel it is the best. Everything about it is solid to great. I smile every single time I see it and damn it, it’s all cinema to me (looking at you Marty). Maybe it’s nostalgia talking, and maybe it’s not “high art” but who really cares? I would easily say it’s one of my top ten favorites ever, right up there with Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Kane an Goodfellas. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

MR. SKEFFINGTON   there will be SPOILERS

Saw this the other night, part of TCM's tribute to Bette Davis as Star of the Month.

Now, first, let me clearly state, I love Bette Davis, she's one of my favourite classic actresses. And I have a feeling that a lot of people here like not only Bette, but Mr. Skeffington.  I'd never seen it before, always wanted to, so of course I watched it the other night.

And I really didn't like it. It's two and a half hours (which is long for any movie) of a not-very-interesting narrative about a vain silly woman who only realizes just how vain and silly she really is in the last ten minutes of the film. It feels to me as though they stretched out this somewhat thin story far longer than it need to be and should have been. 

For one thing, it gets off to a weak start...Why exactly does Claude Rains' character marry her?  He seems like an intelligent man; Fanny's supposedly breath-taking beauty seems to be the only reason. But, at least for me,  it is not made apparent enough, Job's (Rain's character) attraction  to Fanny . When he first meets her, he seems to barely look at her, and even when she later visits him in his stock market broker's office, he doesn't appear to be all that fascinated by her. Yet he orders her portrait to be painted for him. The next thing we know, they're married ! There's almost no "courtship". As though to make up for this, we're given a conversation between Fanny and Job, presumably just a week or two after their wedding, where they explain to each other why they decided to marry. This is all we ever get, and it's pretty unsubstantial.

I guess what I'm saying is, right from the start, I find Job's love for Fanny unconvincing. Claude Rains is a great actor, and a sympathetic one, yet at no point do I get any kind of insight into why he married Fanny or why he puts up with her vacuous flirtatious ways. I  don't care how spell-bindingly beautiful she is, his fascination with that would soon give way to disillusionment and boredom with such a superficial and self-obsessed person. But we get two and a half hours of Fanny flouncing around, demonstrating repeatedly how shallow and narcissistic she is, until of course, she becomes ill, her beauty, which is the only thing about herself she ever had and ever valued, is destroyed, and she realizes she has nothing else.

But she's not an interesting or sympathetic enough character to sustain my attention for a film this long; I just don't care, neither about her nor even about Job after a while. And the ending - SPOILER - in which poor Job returns to her, a broken man, blind, god knows what horrors he suffered from the Nazis ( a part of the story that is barely touched on) - sentimental though it may be, just leaves me feeling, "what? I spent two and a half hours feeling irritated with Fanny's ridiculous shallow character and slightly bored with the whole story, just to have the two of them walk into the sunset??"  I don't know what else I would have wanted; maybe at least the daughter could have stuck around, if only to be reunited with the father she loved so much.

I know many here will disagree with me about my assessment of this famous film, but truly, I cannot understand the popularity of Mr. Skeffington.  Just to reiterate, in case anyone missed it, I thought it was what I call a "much-ado-about-nothing" film; paper-thin plot, annoying main character, terrible make-up  in the final scenes (way over-done), and nothing much to think about, other than the fact that vain shallow selfish people will get their come-uppence eventually. I didn't need to watch Mr. Skeffington to appreciate that gem of wisdom.

Having said all that, I do normally love both Bette Davis and Claude Rains. But even their talented presences in Mr. Skeffington were not enough to salvage this lack-lustre drama.

Apologies to all my friends here who probably love the film.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy seeing Bette Davis play a role where she is cast against type. Fanny Skeffington is a great beauty, shallow, and not very bright. That is not how I would describe Bette Davis.

I am also extremely fond of the scene where the silly young man says to Fanny's daughter, "I shall call you Young Fanny," and to Davis, "And I shall call you . . . [she gives him a look that would make hell freeze over] and I haven't decided yet what I shall call you."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kingrat said:

I enjoy seeing Bette Davis play a role where she is cast against type. Fanny Skeffington is a great beauty, shallow, and not very bright. That is not how I would describe Bette Davis.

I am also extremely fond of the scene where the silly young man says to Fanny's daughter, "I shall call you Young Fanny," and to Davis, "And I shall call you . . . [she gives him a look that would make hell freeze over] and I haven't decided yet what I shall call you."

Ok, all that is true, but those points do not justify this uninteresting film. The sum of Mr. Skeffington is not greater than its parts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

For one thing, it gets off to a weak start...Why exactly does Claude Rains' character marry her? 

He should have married Mrs. Parkington instead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

Ok, all that is true, but those points do not justify this uninteresting film. The sum of Mr. Skeffington is not greater than its parts.

Maybe it can be enjoyed just for some of the parts. I saw this a long time ago and enjoyed it. But at the same time I might not have thought it as great. I just remember being entertained. Wasn't there some pretty good dialogue? The first scene with the three suitors? My sister, who is not a classic movie fan, agrees pretty much with you, she thought it was ridiculous. I remembering saying to her that some movies are not to be taken too seriously. I was trying to say something to her that would make some of the oldies more palatable to her. Cherry picking just the good parts can "save" a film. If there are enough of them. Maybe movies don't need to be "whole." What about the dinner scene in the restaurant, father and daughter? I remember being moved by that but maybe I'm being too sentimental. I guess overall I though it was interesting enough. Bette's character was not likable but Bette actress was still fun to watch. Maybe I was in the mood for it.  It was probably at least 15 years ago and the memory is dim. But yes, it was rather looooooong. But I distinctly remember being okay with it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

I know many here will disagree with me about my assessment of this famous film, but truly, I cannot understand the popularity of Mr. Skeffington.

I will not disagree with you Miss W, and I'm GLAD you wrote out your explanations. While I can understand and somewhat agree with many of your impressions, I love the movie every time I see it. Maybe it's Bette Davis' stilted portrayal along with Raines calm strength and all the "suitors" supporting performances that overcome the thin story.

Maybe some of us know vain, narcissistic people like Fanny and it's fun to see her get her comeuppance with her old bf "reunion" scene. Maybe I'm more forgiving of the silliness because I was brought up by parents who instilled in me: "your face is your fortune". Luckily, I learned earlier than Fanny how wrong that mindset is.

And NOTHING is funnier than a mature lady still dressing in the same edgy clothing/mini skirts/sequins/make up they've been wearing the past 30-40 years. I always say, "There goes Fanny!"

maxresdefault.jpg

  • Haha 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
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...