Jump to content

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

I Just Watched...

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

I know what you mean. That's what made the passings of people like Shirley Temple, Doris Day, Maureen O'Hara, Lauren Bacall, mickey Rooney, Debbie Reynolds, all the more painful. There really are very few left who started under the studio system which ended in the mid-1950s (and admittedly I'm a bit astonished that Kirk Douglas and Olivia De Havilland, but especially Kirk) are still with us. Aside from them, who else? These, I guess, but it's not a very long list in the grand scheme of things

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_actors_from_the_Golden_Age_of_Hollywood

Oh no! 

The passings that made me especially sad were Debbie Reynolds and Doris Day.  Shirley seemed really sad only because I'm used to seeing her as a child, for some reason I didn't believe that she was in her 80s--even though duh, she made movies in the 30s, of course, she'd be in her 80s by now. Lauren Bacall made me extra sad because she was always so vivacious when I'd see her on TV. I really wanted to visit Doris Day's hotel in Carmel, CA.  I mean I suppose I still can, but I was hoping that I would somehow see her if I visited. 

I remember in middle school when Gene Kelly died, I was so sad.  My BFF then (and still BFF now) also loved Gene Kelly, so we rented I think Singin' in the Rain and The Pirate and held our own vigil for him.  That is really my go-to these days when my fave celebs pass, I hold a movie/television show tribute to them.  I was also really sad when Katharine Hepburn, Ann Miller and Donald O'Connor passed away.  I'm only glad that I was just a few months short of 5, and not cognizant of Lucille Ball's existence when she passed.  If she'd passed away only a few years later, I would have been devastated. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

I know what you mean. That's what made the passings of people like Shirley Temple, Doris Day, Maureen O'Hara, Lauren Bacall, mickey Rooney, Debbie Reynolds, all the more painful. There really are very few left who started under the studio system which ended in the mid-1950s (and admittedly I'm a bit astonished that Kirk Douglas and Olivia De Havilland, but especially Kirk) are still with us. Aside from them, who else? These, I guess, but it's not a very long list in the grand scheme of things

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_living_actors_from_the_Golden_Age_of_Hollywood

I think about that, and the changing nature of classic film viewership. When TCM began, and when AMC was in its classic-film mode, many of the performers and filmmakers were still alive. However, more importantly I think, many people who had seen those films in the theaters during their initial release (1930's and 1940's, or even earlier) were still around. As the population ages and dies off, the viewership of those films changes from nostalgia and reminiscence into historical curiosity and film appreciation, which brings a different, much smaller, group of viewers. I think there will always be classic film fans, but their numbers will continue to shrink in the ever-more-crowded entertainment landscape of the future.

End of BS spiel. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


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

I think about that, and the changing nature of classic film viewership. When TCM began, and when AMC was in its classic-film mode, many of the performers and filmmakers were still alive. However, more importantly I think, many people who had seen those films in the theaters during their initial release (1930's and 1940's, or even earlier) were still around. As the population ages and dies off, the viewership of those films changes from nostalgia and reminiscence into historical curiosity and film appreciation, which brings a different, much smaller, group of viewers. I think there will always be classic film fans, but their numbers will continue to shrink in the ever-more-crowded entertainment landscape of the future.

End of BS spiel. 

I would agree with this.  Classic film is more of a niche interest these days rather than mainstream.  As someone who has always had cable television, and grew up in the mid-to-late 80s, 90s, and early 00s, I can say that classic films were never on regular television--except for films like The Wizard of Oz that aired annually on network television.  My PBS (or OPB for Oregon Public Broadcasting) never showed classic films. To see classic movies, I had to watch channels specifically catered to classic film like AMC and TCM (which I only had for a few years when it first started, then it moved to a higher tier cable package that my parents wouldn't buy. Lol). Otherwise, if I wanted to see a classic movie, I had to rent it from the video store. I didn't grow up with classic movies being shown as regular movies.  But the 80s/90s movies aired on network and cable channels all the time. 

In between my night-time soaps viewing of the 90s, I was a regular viewer of Nick at Nite.  During the 90s, a majority of the classic television stars were still alive.  People like Mary Tyler Moore and Valerie Harper would appear in special programming.  Casey Kasem hosted a New Years Day countdown of the greatest television episodes of all time with people from the shows participating.  In the last 10-15 years or so, I've had to read about one classic television star after another passing away.  I was devastated when Mary Tyler Moore passed.  Mary Richards was one of my idols growing up.  I still haven't gotten over it, really.  I was also so sad when Florence Henderson died. 

In many ways classic television is like classic film, it too appeals to a niche audience. 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LawrenceA said:

I think about that, and the changing nature of classic film viewership. When TCM began, and when AMC was in its classic-film mode, many of the performers and filmmakers were still alive. However, more importantly I think, many people who had seen those films in the theaters during their initial release (1930's and 1940's, or even earlier) were still around. As the population ages and dies off, the viewership of those films changes from nostalgia and reminiscence into historical curiosity and film appreciation, which brings a different, much smaller, group of viewers. I think there will always be classic film fans, but their numbers will continue to shrink in the ever-more-crowded entertainment landscape of the future.

End of BS spiel. 

I think you're right, sorry as I am to say that. It's hard, even in film themed communities to try to muster up enthusiasm for films not currently "in the moment". The internet has become a double edged sword, it certainly brings people together, but most sites are no help in looking for the past, what with the newest and hottest movie news up front. The worst moment was a few days ago when I was on a movie page, and there was a 19 year old film fan, who said not only could some of his classmates recognize the names of classic film stars, they had never heard of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, released only this July!

Share this post


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

In many ways classic television is like classic film, it too appeals to a niche audience. 

Yes, retro TV seems to be more prevalent than retro movies. I've read that MeTV has risen in ratings to be among the top ten channels on occasion. I'm not sure what TCM's viewer numbers are (that's been a contentious subject for a long time, and especially recently given Comcast's comments regarding TCM's very low viewership numbers), but other retro stations similar to MeTV have gone almost exclusively to retro TV rather than sticking to older films that they started out predominantly showing. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

I think you're right, sorry as I am to say that. It's hard, even in film themed communities to try to muster up enthusiasm for films not currently "in the moment". The internet has become a double edged sword, it certainly brings people together, but most sites are no help in looking for the past, what with the newest and hottest movie news up front. The worst moment was a few days ago when I was on a movie page, and there was a 19 year old film fan, who said not only could some of his classmates recognize the names of classic film stars, they had never heard of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, released only this July!

The internet/social media has fostered this "hype build-up leading to opening-weekend, then forget it" mentality that seems to have overtaken most current filmgoers. The material being released doesn't do a lot to foster long-term discussion either.

Share this post


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

Yes, retro TV seems to be more prevalent than retro movies. I've read that MeTV has risen in ratings to be among the top ten channels on occasion. I'm not sure what TCM's viewer numbers are (that's been a contentious subject for a long time, and especially recently given Comcast's comments regarding TCM's very low viewership numbers), but other retro stations similar to MeTV have gone almost exclusively to retro TV rather than sticking to older films that they started out predominantly showing. 

While Nick at Nite technically still exists, it is a shell of its former self.  I would love it if Nickelodeon were to resurrect the 90s Nick at Nite.  With the success of Me-TV, I think it would do really well.  It has to be the 90s Nick at Nite though--that was an awesome channel back in the day. I loved the vintage-inspired graphics and jingles. 

When I switched from Comcast to Dish, years ago, I lost my access to Me-Tv and Antenna TV--that to me, was the biggest bummer; but worth it because I loathed Comcast so much.  I was so excited a couple years ago when Dish picked up Me-Tv! While I don't watch it as avidly as I did Nick at Nite,  I do watch on occasion.  I just wish that they wouldn't show so many western shows. Every time I check the schedule, it's western shows. 

The only problem with Me-TV are the commercials. So many commercials. I tend to watch Hulu a lot, and it has many of the same shows that are on Me-Tv--and there are no commercials. 

Share this post


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

The internet/social media has fostered this "hype build-up leading to opening-weekend, then forget it" mentality that seems to have overtaken most current filmgoers. The material being released doesn't do a lot to foster long-term discussion either.

It seems to that even big blockbusters are only in the theater for a month, if that.  I remember when Titanic came out, that movie was literally in the theater (at least in Salem, OR) for a year! 

Remember how when you saw a movie in the theater that you loved, it would take 6-12 months for the VHS to come out?  Nowadays, the movie is out on streaming within a month.  Sometimes the film is still showing in the theater and it's already available online. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LawrenceA said:

The material being released doesn't do a lot to foster long-term discussion either.

That even goes for praised films. i remember seeing a discussion one day that I was in a very bad mood last year over who they thought would take Best Actor at the Oscars in February (everyone was still in denial over Bohemian Rhapsody). The options were Christian Bale in Vice and Bradley Cooper in A Star is Born. I typed peevedly "Who cares? Nobody will be talking about either film by this time next year". And its true. It's a feeling of throwaway entertainment anymore. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

That even goes for praised films. i remember seeing a discussion one day that I was in a very bad mood last year over who they thought would take Best Actor at the Oscars in February (everyone was still in denial over Bohemian Rhapsody). The options were Christian Bale in Vice and Bradley Cooper in A Star is Born. I typed peevedly "Who cares? Nobody will be talking about either film by this time next year". And its true. It's a feeling of throwaway entertainment anymore. 

I think a lot of that is the glut of options available. There are more films, TV shows, music and games at people's fingertips than ever before. There are not enough hours in a day to enjoy them all. Much the same way cable TV fragmented the TV viewership, streaming, and the availability of hundreds of thousands of hours of shows and movies, guarantees that there won't be as much attention paid to any one thing as there used to be. You know how many movies I watch (too many!), and yet there were still over a quarter of the movies listed on that 100 best of the decade thread that I haven't seen. Same goes for best TV of the decade (I think I watched two of the top ten shows listed, if that). 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9169f2b7fcaa7b2c487342cfe0c97449.jpg?w=6

Gate of Hell (1953) Teinosuke Kinugasa, Japan- 6/10- In 1160, a noble samurai is sent to protect a lady in waiting disguised as the Empress' sister. Soon he falls in love with her but is rejected because she is married. Gradually his infatuation causes him to lose his sanity and send him down a dark path dooming them all. The plot to this one isn't particularly interesting but the selling point is the beautiful cinematography and Eastman color. This won an Academy Award for foreign film and I have to think it was entirely because color was new at the time. While it is a decent film from a visual perspective, it is not that interesting and the acting is a bit wooden. I also didn't like the orchestral soundtrack which seemed out of place. A film like this needs a traditional Japanese sound like in Ugetsu Monogatari from the same year. This also won an award for costumes which it deserved as the costumes used were very beautiful and with bright blues, reds, purples, etc. not great but worth watching for the beautiful visuals and nice costumes and sets.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crossed Swords (1954)

Errol Flynn's rarest swashbuckler.

Following the termination of his Warner Brothers contract the actor travelled to Italy to make this costume adventure with a tongue-in-cheek approach similar to his Adventures of Don Juan, a film that had been a hit on the Continent a few years earlier.

Flynn plays Renzo, a womanizing, balcony climbing, window escaping rogue who spends most of his time as a "romantic grasshopper" in 16th Century Italy. Among those he is interested in is Gina Lollobrigida, the daughter of the ruler of Sidonia. But his interest is limited as his character is also decidedly marriage averse. So much so that when a new law is decreed that any bachelors over 20 are to be exiled from the area as long as they have heard the proclamation of the law read aloud Flynn spends much of his time jumping out windows to avoid hearing it whenever the town crier shows up to make the announcement (yes, there is a guy whose job is to shout out the new law for all to hear).

Much of the film plays in this largely comedic vein though there will also be a plot by a dastardly councillor to steal the kingdom, with Renzo getting involved to stop him.

Flynn plays his part with light hearted enthusiasm but is largely defeated by a muddled, unwitty screenplay and Milton Krims' often inept direction. Crossed Swords is a sadly ordinary costumer to which few would play any attention if it was not for Flynn's presence.

On the other hand, Jack Cardiff's magnificent Technicolor photography makes the film a constant visual pleasure, with the on location filming on cobblestone streets and at an actual Italian castle adding atmospheric touches of authenticity. There will also be a duel at the end (with the villainous Roldano Lupi, who looks a bit like an oily John Hodiak) that is surprisingly well staged (certainly better than you would expect for this film). While Flynn is doubled in some shots of the duel he still participates in much of it, showing a few flamboyant flashes with the blade. Even though we're a long way from Robin Hood here, this would be the last time in his career in which the actor would demonstrate such a generally impressive athletic showing.

There have been some pretty wretched looking copies of Crossed Swords floating around for a few years. However, from what I can tell, the best looking copy of it came from a restoration of the film released by a company called Gozilla. The colours of the print are very impressive indeed. However, the audio fluctuates in volume making it challenging to hear, at times, and, most irritatingly for a restored image, Gozilla has its own company logo periodically appear on the bottom right corner of the screen about every 10 to 12 minutes. The Gozilla print, visually appealing as it is, runs 78 minutes while I have seen the original running time of the film listed as 86 minutes. Indeed there appears to be some abrupt editing in the print on a few occasions.

Still, for Flynn die hards for whom this film will primarily appeal, the Gozilla version of Crossed Swords appears to be the best game in town.

The following screen snapshots are taken directly off the Gozilla DVD so you have an idea of the quality of the visuals of the print. This version, for those interested, can be found on Amazon. The print has Italian titles and an English soundtrack. Curiously, even though she is clearly speaking English, Lollobrigida is dubbed by another actress.

UEhIEar.png

WOQ7k4g.png

2 out of 4

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, cinemaspeak59 said:

The Irishman (2019) It’s difficult to avoid hyperbole for this latest Martin Scorsese tour de force, which is narrated in flashback by Robert De Niro as Frank Sheeran, aka The Irishman, in a flat, phlegmatic tone. The scenes between De Niro and Al Pacino as Jimmy Hoffa are magical. The way they play off each other, the rhythms of speech, movements, expressions… it’s all magnificent.  I found the de-aging process almost seamless.

Joe Pesci doesn’t miss a beat as Russell Bufalino, the chief of the Northeast U.S. syndicate. Pesci tones it down in a subtle performance. He and Philly Cosa Nostra boss Angelo Bruno (Harvey Keitel) are old-school dons who believe themselves to be nothing but businessmen. They farm out the dirty work (the painting of houses) to the cold but respectful Sheeran, who is so enamored of the lifestyle (and money) he’ll do anything for Bufalino, but at a painful cost. Keitel is under-utilized, but he’s great in the few scenes he has.  Steven Zaillian’s screenplay is gorgeously profane. The period details, covering mostly the 50s to the 70s, are immaculate.  The tone feels morose, as if we’re seeing the end of an era. In short, The Irishman is a masterpiece.

Very nicely written. Thanks, cinemaspeak, for that review of The Irishman.

I'm planning to see it myself this coming Tuesday. It's playing for all of one week at my local one and only review cinema in the small city I live in. I'm looking forward to seeing it, I almost always love anything Scorsese does.

"That said", I am disappointed and chagrined that a film like The Irishman isn't getting a proper run in movie theatres. Very limited, limited in terms of both time (one or two weeks only) and venues (very few actual cinemas are showing it) -- nope, very short-term run and then straight to Netflix.

There's probably a thread about this already, and I don't want to derail this one, but recently I've been feeling very disappointed and even anxious about all the streaming of movies, even new-release ones. I actually like going out to see a movie in a real movie theatre sometimes (like, several times a year.)  I'm worried that this activity is rapidly going to become obsolete. I will miss it, very much.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

"That said", I am disappointed and chagrined that a film like The Irishman isn't getting a proper run in movie theatres. Very limited, limited in terms of both time (one or two weeks only) and venues (very few actual cinemas are showing it) -- nope, very short-term run and then straight to Netflix.

There's probably a thread about this already, and I don't want to derail this one, but recently I've been feeling very disappointed and even anxious about all the streaming of movies, even new-release ones. I actually like going out to see a movie in a real movie theatre sometimes (like, several times a year.)  I'm worried that this activity is rapidly going to become obsolete. I will miss it, very much.

misswonderly, you make good points.  I also enjoy the experience of seeing a movie in the theater, but I like the idea that a movie like The Irishman which doesn't have mass appeal (based on current trends at least) can find an audience through streaming platforms like Netflix.  I like that The Irishman is having some theatrical release, although a limited one as you pointed out. A theatrical release is necessary to be eligible for Oscar consideration. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PANIQUE (1946) 

Image result for panique 1946

I've been trying to get more into French film lately... I liked this one, didn't love it. The femme fatale strikes again. SCORE: 3/5

 

LA BELLE ET LA BETE (1946) 

Image result for la belle et la bete 1946

SCORE: 3/5 

An interesting and visually appealing film. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MARTY (1955) *Score: 4/5*

There's something about this film that I really connect with... I can sympathize with both Ernest Borgnine and Betsy Blair's characters, and the overall atmosphere is genuinely appealing. 

Image result for marty 1955

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched 2 movies recorded last month from TCM:

IN PERSON '35

This was kind of early in Ginger's career, right at the beginning of her Astaire/Rogers musicals. This was most likely one of her first leading roles and she shows her ability to carry a lightweight romantic comedy. The usual fluff plot: a beautiful actress can't deal with fame so she goes out in public disguised with wig, glasses & crazy teeth. She meets up with the male romantic lead, big bottomed George Brent who is kind to her, but is certainly not attracted to her. (I found this sort of shallow on his part) They end up alone together on a vacation and (spoiler?) he falls in love with her "personality".

OK a pretty bland programmer made watchable by the talented sparkling Ginger Rogers. She has a few song & dance numbers and I was happy to see she can hold her own without Fred. I don't know who said she was "inferior" and needed Fred to make her look better dancing- she dances great. And with Hermes Pan choreographing, dances just as well without Fred.

Ginger Harlow anyone?

MV5BMzVkOTQ4MWUtMDljOC00YTQzLThlMjAtYjJm

Second feature was 1942's FINGERS AT THE WINDOW. Just another 80 minute programmer about an axe murderer stalking the heroine played by Laraine Day. This was my first time seeing Day as well as Lew Ayres and they both made quite an impression. Day is gorgeous and Ayres is extremely likable, reminding me a bit of Jack Lemmon.

Spoilers here include: Girl is lying & motive needs to be unwrapped, young & handsome Basil Rathbone is the villain, although not the killer. Another simple picture, but well acted and fun. I had always heard about Lew Ayres, but never actually saw him in a leading role. He's nothing like I had imagined, but I do wonder why he didn't become a bigger star. Enjoyable double feature-like a movie novella.

%22Fingers_at_the_Window%22_(1942).jpg

How do you like this poster? "Danger at Nightfall, Romance at Daybreak" woo-hoo!

Share this post


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

 

"That said", I am disappointed and chagrined that a film like The Irishman isn't getting a proper run in movie theatres. Very limited, limited in terms of both time (one or two weeks only) and venues (very few actual cinemas are showing it) -- nope, very short-term run and then straight to Netflix.

There's probably a thread about this already, and I don't want to derail this one, but recently I've been feeling very disappointed and even anxious about all the streaming of movies, even new-release ones. I actually like going out to see a movie in a real movie theatre sometimes (like, several times a year.)  I'm worried that this activity is rapidly going to become obsolete. I will miss it, very much.

I get what your saying. It is unfortunate that it’s not getting a proper release and I’m sure it’s fantastic. But coming from a somewhat different perspective, I know a lot of people who just don’t like going to the theaters. And that’s people that range from my peers to my grandmother. It’s very expensive and a lot of people don’t care for the environment of a theater. Honestly, I’ve only been four this year, to see a new film at least. I guess I’ve been eight, but the other four were Big Screen Classics. I feel different about those for some reason. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, NickAndNora34 said:

MARTY (1955) *Score: 4/5*

There's something about this film that I really connect with... I can sympathize with both Ernest Borgnine and Betsy Blair's characters, and the overall atmosphere is genuinely appealing. 

Image result for marty 1955

Very good film! I appreciate how it shows that you don’t have to look like Cary Grant or Audrey Hepburn to be considered attractive. It’s a great message. And Ernest Borgnine is fantastic!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dangerous (1935)

Bette Davis won her first Oscar for this film. She said she believed it was to compensate her not even being nominated for her breakthrough role in 1934's "On Human Bondage." I would believe that that was true. While Bette is fantastic in "Dangerous," she gives so many brilliant performances in future films (where she didn't win an Oscar), it seems hard to believe that this film was anything special--that it warranted an Oscar above other films where Bette was nominated and lost. 

In this film, Bette plays Joyce Heath, a theater actress who used to be the biggest young actress in town. However, due to a series of character flaws and poor decisions, Joyce burned all her bridges in town and developed a reputation as a "jinx." It seems that men would fall in love with her and their lives were ruined as a result.

One night, architect/socialite Don Bellows (Franchot Tone) is out on the town with his fiancee, the wealthy Gail Armitage (Margaret Lindsay) and a friend. They end up at a dive bar, with 10-cent drinks (!) At the bar, Don spots Joyce drowning her sorrows in gin. Gail and the friend leave for the evening and Don opts to stay and talk to Joyce.

Joyce is completely trashed and ends up passing out at the bar. Unable to find her address, Don takes Joyce to his country estate in Connecticut to dry out. While at the estate, Joyce is initially combative but warms to Don's attempts to help her out. Don finds himself falling in love with her.  He's then faced with the decision of staying with safe, but somewhat bland, Gail or leaving Gail and taking a chance with the more exciting, but unpredictable Joyce. 

I loved Franchot Tone's country estate.  It always seems like characters in these 1930s/1940s films own these fancy, sprawling country estates, in addition to their city home.  Tone's character seemed like he was fairly well off, since at one point he drops $80k ($1.5 mil in 2019 dollars) like it was nothing. 

I thought this film was good, definitely not my favorite Bette Davis film, but it wasn't bad. I liked Franchot Tone in this film. I also loved Alison Skipworth who played Tone's maid, Mrs. Williams. I looked her up on Wikipedia and she was born in 1863. It is absolutely insane to me that someone born before the Civil War would be acting in movies!

The most notable thing about this film is that Bette Davis was caught in a compromising position with co-star Franchot Tone...who was engaged to Joan Crawford! Thus, this was the start of the infamous Davis-Crawford feud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Girl From 10th Avenue (1935)

I watched this film after "Dangerous." In this film, Bette, in a rather thankless role as Miriam Brady, plays a woman who saves an inebriated Geoffrey Sherwood (Ian Hunter) from arrest. A crowd is gathered outside of a wedding processional when Geoffrey wanders up. He starts loudly mocking the proceedings and it becomes apparent that Geoffrey was jilted by the bride.

When Geoffrey's loud babbling catches the attention of two police officers, Miriam takes Geoffrey into a cafe for lunch. While eating lunch, two of Geoffrey's friends walk in and offer Miriam $100 to keep Geoffrey out of trouble. Geoffrey and Miriam end up going out for a night on the town, which involves bottle after bottle of champagne.

The next morning, Geoffrey and Miriam discover that during their drunken escapades, they married. Miriam offers an annulment to Geoffrey, but he decides to stay married. They set up an apartment in a lower-class area and Geoffrey leaves his law practice and sets up an oil business. The landlady, Mrs. Martin, (played by Alison Skipworth) is a former society matron who helps Miriam learn how to act and look more high class.  Miriam feels self-conscious about her social status (or lack thereof) in comparison with Geoffrey and his circle of friends'. 

Originally, Miriam was with Geoffrey out of a form of companionship, offering him an "out" if he meets someone he likes more. But as the movie progresses, Miriam is finding herself falling in love with Geoffrey. Her main issue throughout much of the film is that she feels inadequate to high society Geoffrey and his upper class friends. Things are further complicated when Geoffrey's ex-girlfriend, the now married Valentine, wants Geoffrey back.

My favorite part of this film is when Miriam and Mrs. Martin crash a luncheon that Valentine and her society friends are attending.  Miriam and Mrs. Martin arrange to have their table placed right within view of Valentine.  Mrs. Martin encourages Miriam to make eye contact, bowing slightly, anything that allows Miriam to non-verbally signal that "she belongs" with the class of people at the restaurant.  The scene does not end well for Valentine & co. Lol. 

I thought this film was okay, but was definitely nothing to write home about. Bette was fantastic per usual, and it was interesting seeing Ian Hunter in something else other than playing "King Richard" in "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938). Alison Skipworth was as amazing as she was in the film I watched prior to this one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Very good film! I appreciate how it shows that you don’t have to look like Cary Grant or Audrey Hepburn to be considered attractive. It’s a great message. And Ernest Borgnine is fantastic!

You will realize of course that they wouldn't have worked for this story. And I agree, the actuals were well cast. There is a suggestion of plainness in Betsy Blair, though she looks great in the photo. Borgnine is well cast, reasonable looks and the jolly oaf. I this were noir she would say, "ya big lug." I think it jarring when he refers to them both as "a couple of dogs," an expression that might have been more acceptable then.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NickAndNora34 said:

MARTY (1955) *Score: 4/5*

There's something about this film that I really connect with... I can sympathize with both Ernest Borgnine and Betsy Blair's characters, and the overall atmosphere is genuinely appealing.

MY TWO CENTS ON MARTY...

i Have been a hardcore armchair 20th century Oscar historian/critic since the 1990's and, in my opinion, during no TEN YEAR SPAN of the ACADEMY'S HISTORY have they been more off the money than the 1950's in terms of BEST PICTURE/ACTOR/AND ACTRESS.  I RARELY agree with almost all their choices in those three categories from 1950-1959 (there are of course exceptions)

and then last year, I saw MARTY for the FIRST TIME - during 31,000 DAYS OF OSCAR NO LESS!!! (it was my lone holdout of ALMOST ALL THE BEST PICTURES, i figured it was terrible because, well, [apologies because i am extra salty lately] but I really don't like any of the other BEST PICTURE winners of the 1950's at all...AND FRANKLY I'M LUKEWARM TOWARDS MOST BEST PICTURES. 

so, i went in all ready to hate it and hate BORGNINE and hate PADDY CHAYEFSKY (SIC?)'s work, and you know what? I'll be GD'ed if I wasn't utterly enchanted.

And I wasn't even MAD AT MYSELF FOR LIKING IT, it's a lovely film and the one time where I saw something from BORGNINE that I never- and I mean NEVER- saw from him again, and I have seen MERLIN'S SHOP OF MAGICAL WONDERS.

1955 SEEMED TO BE the ONE YEAR of the decade where L'ACADEMY'S top three choices were 100% on the money- (Actor for Borgnine, PICTURE for MARTY and ACTRESS for MAGNANI in THE ROSE TATTOO.)

and you know, I really regret that MAGNANI and BORGNINE did not somehow team up for something truly potentially grand after their wins.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always enjoyed the film MARTY because it wasn't a love story between two folks who would be considered 'the beautiful people'. They were just two ordinary, average everyday people, lonely and looking for companionship.

MARTY proved you didn't need a gorgeous hunk or a raving beauty as the leads to make a successful love story.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I really don't like any of the other BEST PICTURE winners of the 1950's at all...

Not even All About Eve? Or On the Waterfront? Or The Bridge on the River Kwai?

  • Like 2

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...