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

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

I think FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT is THE early UNDERRATED HITCHCOCK, (FRENZY would be the late one.)

I LOVE    "Foreign Correspondent"  !  It's got one of my faves, Joel McCrea, playing a big straight-talking no-nonsense American lovable lug. Plus pretty Laraine Day, poor old Herbert Marshall  (who often played hapless characters -- not that he's exactly "hapless" in F.C., but it's not a sympathetic role...), and the ever suave George Sanders.  It's great fun !

Two examples of classic Hitchcock scenes:    SPOILERS  !!      all those umbrellas around the steps of that embassy (or whatever it is), enabling the assassin to make a hasty undetected exit --- except our man Joel is on it !  !      and of course, the windmill scene.

Also....it's so funny, that bit that shows the kidnapped diplomat being tortured by really loud swing music !   "Oh no, not "Sing Sing Sing"  again !  I'll tell, I'll tell everything, just turn it off !"    (I made that up, but that's what I imagine...)

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/28/2020 at 3:50 AM, laffite said:

The UnInvited (1943) was going good until bam, it just ran out of gas. During the first hour the plot is clean and interesting. For a ghost story it seemed to have a long exposition, with only sparse clues about ghost and no really spooky moments. Inevitably, the backstory fill-ins defeated me. Newer characters entering the story with all the backstory and I just got bored. It lasted about 70 minutes. I don't care for horror but I still like a good ghost story if I can find one. Gail Russell certainly impressed me favorably.

 

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy "The Uninvited", laffite.  I really like this interesting blend of eeriness, obsession  (talking about that creepy Miss Holloway character ) and romance.  It is one of those ghost movies that, once you've seen it, isn't very scary with subsequent viewings. But the first time I saw it, for sure, I thought it had several very chilling ghost scenes.  I did not think it "ran out of gas".    And I love the cast:  I always like the dignified Donald Crisp,  Gail Russell is very sweet, and I say you can never go wrong with handsome elegant likable Ray Milland.    Maybe the problem was you were expecting a "horror" movie; I would not label  "The Uninvited" as such. Perhaps your expectations were disappointed because of that.

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

"Oh no, not "Sing Sing Sing"  again !  I'll tell, I'll tell everything, just turn it off !"    (I made that up, but that's what I imagine...)

In One, Two, Three, Horst Bucholz is tortured by an off-center version of "Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka-Dot Bikini".

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

 

What ?? !!!    I don't get how there seems to be so many people who stop and start movies.  A movie is not like a television series,  where you can watch one episode  (usually an hour long) and then take some time off before you watch the next one.  Most movies are roughly two hours in length  (yes, some longer, many shorter),  so what's the problem with just sticking it out for a couple of hours?

Now, I do understand a couple of reasons why one might not watch a film all in one sitting:  you get interrupted somehow  (emergency phone call,  whatever device you're watching it on stops working, you fall asleep...)  sure, that happens.  Sometimes.  But honestly, even if I don't like the movie I'm watching, I almost always stick with it to the end. If I don't like it, I never have to watch it again.   I suppose I sound judgemental, and I shouldn't , because  some of my favourite people here on these boards watch movies in bits. But personally, I'll never understand it.

ps:  I also have trouble understanding why you didn't like the ending. The ending is great, a typical exciting dramatic suspenseful Hitchcock ending.  If you didn't like the ending of "North by Northwest", I imagine you're not much of a Hitchcock fan.

I don't want to get into some pointless argument, but why are you lobbing all of these accusations at me? I watched a film and I didn't care for the ending. Why is it such a big deal?  Additionally, some of us may not have a couple hours at a time all of the time. When I have time to watch a film in one sitting, I watch it in one sitting. 

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

I did not think it "ran out of gas". 

Well, maybe it was me who ran out of gas. It was the preponderance of back story that emptied the tank. There was something almost procedural about it. The narrative was moving so nicely and then runs aground. I got bored. The seance was comical. The relief was much needed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And now MY two cents on The Uninvited here:

Great acting all around, tremendously atmospheric, and moves fairly well plot-wise.

Now, the only thing that has always somewhat disappointed me about the ending was that it ends up showing us the ghost during that séance scene(perhaps that's what you meant here about it being "comical", laffite?) , and instead of how my favorite movie ghost story presents its ending to us.

(...and that would be Robert Wise's The Haunting, and how Wise by use of just sounds, lighting and editing, and sans such special effects, makes his movie's ending even more mysteriously and frighteningly imaginative to the mind)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dargo said:

the only thing that has always somewhat disappointed me about the ending was that it ends up showing us the ghost during that séance scene(perhaps that's what you meant here about it being "comical", laffite?)

No, no, that would be ridicule and I don't really mean to do that. That's a part of a ghost story and I liked those sequences. The comical part was, if I understand rightly, the attempt by the two guys to move the glass to the NO position in order to convince the young lady not to visit Windward (or something like that) only to be roundly rebuked by the machinations of the ghost. The presence of the ghost had to represented in some way and you seem to be saying that the actual white glimmering was too much. Yes? I'm not sure I even remember it at that moment. What the glass did to end the scene seemed enough to leave no doubt.

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

No, no, that would be ridicule and I don't really mean to do that. That's a part of a ghost story and I liked those sequences. The comical part was, if I understand rightly, the attempt by the two guys to move the glass to the NO position in order to convince the young lady not to visit Windward (or something like that) only to be roundly rebuked by the machinations of the ghost. The presence of the ghost had to represented in some way and you seem to be saying that the actual white glimmering was too much. Yes? I'm not sure I even remember it at that moment. What the glass did to end the scene seemed enough to leave no doubt.

Actually, I like that part of the seance. Even though it may be predictable that the ghost would move the glass to show us of its existence the surprised reaction of the participants adds to the eeriness of the moment. I think it's a scene that works. I certainly don't think the scene is "comical."

I'm a little surprised, though, that no one has commented upon my photos posted earlier here to identify the character actress who I think played the ghost in the film. Did nobody pick up on that, or perhaps you just don't care?

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

I don't want to get into some pointless argument, but why are you lobbing all of these accusations at me? I watched a film and I didn't care for the ending. Why is it such a big deal?  Additionally, some of us may not have a couple hours at a time all of the time. When I have time to watch a film in one sitting, I watch it in one sitting. 

What accusations?  I just said I thought watching a movie "in bits", instead of at one sitting, was strange to me.  It's also definitely not the way the moviemakers intended the film to be viewed  (any film.)  I also said I do know a lot of people who also watch movies that way.  Watch a movie any way you want, I don't care.  All I said was, to me it's an odd way to experience a film.  (And if you never have "a couple of hours at a time" to view a film, I feel bad for you. You must be a busy guy.)

  • Haha 2
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TomJH said:

Actually, I like that part of the seance. Even though it may be predictable that the ghost would move the glass to show us of its existence the surprised reaction of the participants adds to the eeriness of the moment. I think it's a scene that works. I certainly don't think the scene is "comical."

I'm a little surprised, though, that no one has commented upon my photos posted earlier here to identify the character actress who I think played the ghost in the film. Did nobody pick up on that, or perhaps you just don't care?

Amusing then. Didn't the two guys look at each other with excitedly raised eyebrows in order to coordinate their efforts to steer the glass? I mean it's not exactly Three Stooges material but it was ... amusing. A seance is an inherently eerie moment or at least it is supposed to be. This one was sufficiently so, I guess. Added music sometimes goes overboard in scenes like this but that didn't happen here, which I respect.

I see that IMDB confirms that Elizabeth Russell IS the uncredited ghost and if your are saying that you knew that without looking, then I would you compliment you on the correct surmise. I am hard pressed to see a decisive resemblance.

//

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

I see that IMDB confirms that Elizabeth Russell IS the uncredited ghost

Elizabeth Russell was the sister-in-law of Rosalind Russell,     but neither was related to Gail Russell  (Stella).

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2020 at 8:43 AM, LornaHansonForbes said:

I was hesitant to rewatch THE NIGHT DIGGER (1971), as I knew a repeat viewing could not compare to the first- which carried (for me) a DELIGHTFUL TWIST which, knowing so little about the film, I DID NOT SEE COMING.

I'M NOT GOING TO RUIN IT FOR ANYONE WHO HAS YET TO SEE IT THOUGH.

night+digger.jpg

IT'S a very well-crafted, HELLA BRITISH movie with some great location shoots and nice photography,watchable even knowing how the dance plays out as I did this time,  it incorporates NEAL's real-life stroke from a few years before into the story cleverly, and JESUS is NICHOLAS CLAY HOT.

A MUST for fans of GREY GARDENS and NOW, VOYAGER.

ps- it's been many, many years now, but i still recall how surprised I was to discover Miss Neal was a SOUTHERNER. I completely thought she was British.

We are in total agreement about the merits of The Night Digger, Patricia Neal, and the smokin' Nicholas Clay. There's a reason that Patricia Neal sounds British in her later films and interviews. After her stroke, her husband Roald Dahl taught her to speak again. He was British, so that's the way Patricia Neal imitated him as she learned to talk. Dahl believed, despite the opinions of medical experts, that his wife could return to normal.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Jungle Book" (2016)

One tiger roasted served.

340?cb=20161112131424

:D

 

So no girl fetching her jug of water?  All for the best, better the jungle life than a future hen pecked husband.  ;)

 

Girls, who needs them!

b02507fb-4e09-4d06-8170-dbaf5e3f7d36_scr

:P

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, TomJH said:

I'm a little surprised, though, that no one has commented upon my photos posted earlier here to identify the character actress who I think played the ghost in the film. Did nobody pick up on that, or perhaps you just don't care?

I just remember that fact from when it was posted on this board before. 

And Godfrey, not only is watching a movie in short increments not the way the filmmakers intended, watching segments of multiple movies concurrently sounds nonsensical to most people. (I almost always watch movies in 2 parts because I fall asleep halfway through and have to rewatch the second half the next night) 😴

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Naked Kiss Poster

The Naked Kiss (1964) VHS tape 10/10

An ex prostitute tries to escape her past in a new town and gets a job in a hospital as a pediatric nurse to handicapped children.

I love this Sam Fuller directed lurid melodrama. I just rewatched it for the first time in years and it still stuns me with it's jaw dropping themes. The opening scene is still a shocker, as  bald hooker beats and robs her pimp.  Constance Towers stars as Kelly the hooker and she chooses her final client to be the local corrupt cop Griff (Anthony Eisley). In a surprising twist she gets the job in the hospital even though she had no experience. She then falls in love with the rich philanthropist war hero Grant (Michael Dante), but he has some dark secrets. None of the actors were big names, they all found work in TV but usually in guest shots. Patsy Kelly was the most familiar face in the cast as a wisecracking head nurse. I know many on here have said they hate the scene where the kids in the hospital sing a song with Kelly. I thought it was  a strange and weird scene and later when we found out a twist in the story, it becomes very disturbing.  After it is over, I still feel stunned at what I saw, especially since this was 1964.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, kingrat said:

We are in total agreement about the merits of The Night Digger, Patricia Neal, and the smokin' Nicholas Clay. There's a reason that Patricia Neal sounds British in her later films and interviews. After her stroke, her husband Roald Dahl taught her to speak again. He was British, so that's the way Patricia Neal imitated him as she learned to talk. Dahl believed, despite the opinions of medical experts, that his wife could return to normal.

Like GREY GARDENS, THE NIGHT DIGGER "speaks on a deeper level" to a gay audience (and especially an OLDER one), who most definitely find themselves siding with PAT NEAL as the film progresses.

 

I mean, yes- okay, SO he's a sadistic, habitual strangler, but GIRL, HE FINE and HE YOURS, so YOU JUST DO WHAT YOU GOT TO DO to hang on to him.

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

Amusing then. Didn't the two guys look at each other with excitedly raised eyebrows in order to coordinate their efforts to steer the glass? I mean it's not exactly Three Stooges material but it was ... amusing. A seance is an inherently eerie moment or at least it is supposed to be. This one was sufficiently so, I guess. Added music sometimes goes overboard in scenes like this but that didn't happen here, which I respect.

I see that IMDB confirms that Elizabeth Russell IS the uncredited ghost and if your are saying that you knew that without looking, then I would you compliment you on the correct surmise. I am hard pressed to see a decisive resemblance.

//

I didnt care for the comedic touches they added to the film (mostly by Ray Milland's character) The book was a straight ghost story and superior to the film because of that.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the western El Dorado this afternoon (which was enjoyable, and it was nice to see Robert Mitchum again), but I'm still a bit discombobulated from seeing Phantom of the Paradise (1974) just before bed last night. Bad idea. Very bad idea. I had trouble getting to sleep after that one's crazy, disturbing finale. The film's very effective and well handled both directorially and acting wise, but it freaked me out. Memo to myself: No more De Palma films before bedtime.

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

I saw the western El Dorado this afternoon (which was enjoyable, and it was nice to see Robert Mitchum again), but I'm still a bit discombobulated from seeing Phantom of the Paradise (1974) just before bed last night. Bad idea. Very bad idea. I had trouble getting to sleep after that one's crazy, disturbing finale. The film's very effective and well handled both dictatorially and acting wise, but it freaked me out. Memo to myself: No more De Palma films before bedtime.

Phantom of the Paradise is a weird one. I like Paul Williams, though. He is a very good songwriter. "Old Souls" is my favorite song in the movie. And that character Beef is a riot. Did you know Sissy Spacek was a set dresser?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rudy's Girl said:

Phantom of the Paradise is a weird one. I like Paul Williams, though. He is a very good songwriter. "Old Souls" is my favorite song in the movie. And that character Beef is a riot. Did you know Sissy Spacek was a set dresser?

I did know about Sissy Spacek from one book I have, and its one of those random fun facts that is very enjoyable. I also liked Jessica Harper in the leading lady part. She did a fine job.  its definitely a one of a kind type of film.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

An American Dream (1966)

Stuart Whitman shamelessly overacts as a TV talk show host who could give a master class to Howard Beale.  He's trapped in a loveless marriage to wealthy heiress Eleanor Parker, who overacts even more shamelessly.  He wants to file for divorce and goes up to her penthouse to tell her, but she refuses.  In the ensuing struggle, Parker goes over the wall of the balcony and falls to her death, getting run over by a car containing a gangster Whitman had been railing against on his TV show.

Unfortunately, up until this point the movie has been hilariously, spectacularly awful, and when Parker dies about a half hour in, the movie goes to tediously bad.  Janet Leigh plays Whitman's previous girlfriend who is now dating the gangster's nephew, and Lloyd Nolan is Parker's dad, desperate for her death to be anything but suicide so he can give the poor little Catholic girl a decent burial.  (I've got news for you, Lloyd: your daughter wasn't very decent.)

It's too bad the movie can't keep up the energy of the first half hour because it would be a tremendous disaster on the scale of Where Love Has Gone or The Big Cube.  Instead it bogs down into a silly late-60s mess.

4/10.  What might have been.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Fedya said:

who could give a master class to Howard Beale

Howard Beale could at least holler with the best of them. That whole movie was a hollerfest. I saw it as a acting competition to find who could overdo it the most without coming across as blithering blowhard. And of all Beale wins. His rants were really quite good and convincing. Others did not fare so well, they seemed forced and out of range of the actor who seemed to be reaching for something that wasn't quite there. Peter Finch was really quite good in that film. Others not so much but probably ok. Except for Mr Holden, who looked lost throughout the whole thing. IMO.

:ph34r:

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

Howard Beale could at least holler with the best of them. That whole movie was a hollerfest. I saw it as a acting competition to find who could overdo it the most without coming across as blithering blowhard. And of all Beale wins. His rants were really quite good and convincing. Others did not fare so well, they seemed forced and out of range of the actor who seemed to be reaching for something that wasn't quite there. Peter Finch was really quite good in that film. Others not so much but probably ok. Except for Mr Holden, who looked lost throughout the whole thing. IMO.

:ph34r:

I found Dunaway to be a caricature but Holden represented a sense of decency amidst the insanity. Finch may have had a showier role with the bigger scenes but Holden, with its aging frailties and imperfections, was still the character with whom the audience can identify. For my money, Holden's contribution to Network was crucial.

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

I found Dunaway to be a caricature but Holden represented a sense of decency amidst the insanity. Finch may have had a showier role with the bigger scenes but Holden, with its aging frailties and imperfections, was still the character with whom the audience can identify. For my money, Holden's contribution to Network was crucial.

I don't doubt that ... I just thought he looked uncomfortable, somewhat not with it ... as if actor drawn out of retirement or something and having lost earlier good form. I'm not saying that was the case with him, but as if ... .  I saw the frailty and imperfection in the actor, not the character. But as i recall, I picked up the movie (this most recent showing) on route and therefore my judgement might be skewed for not having watched from the beginning. I might then have been clued into character more and not therefore blamed the actor. He did seem a bit lost amid all the fracas, as you point out. The movie overall is entertaining and has its satirical bent but all the screaming rants are too much, for me anyway.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, laffite said:

I don't doubt that ... I just thought he looked uncomfortable, somewhat not with it ... as if actor drawn out of retirement or something and having lost earlier good form. I'm not saying that was the case with him, but as if ... .  I saw the frailty and imperfection in the actor, not the character. But as i recall, I picked up the movie (this most recent showing) on route and therefore my judgement might be skewed for not having watched from the beginning. I might then have been clued into character more and not therefore blamed the actor. He did seem a bit lost amid all the fracas, as you point out. The movie overall is entertaining and has its satirical bent but all the screaming rants are too much, for me anyway.

 

There's a sadness about Holden's performance that I find affecting. He's older and he's vulnerable but he's not happy with the television world his character lives in (as well as his own insecure philandering with a younger woman with whom he has nothing in common) but, as I said, he also represents decency in the film. Holden did not age well, as we know, and was only five years from the end when he made Network but, for me, this performance was one of his last hurrahs as an actor. Maybe Holden does appear a bit lost because of his sadness but that doesn't mean he isn't effectively cast. Holden is a human being full of frailties in this film and that, for many, will make him the one person in this film with whom the audience can connect.

  • Like 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
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...