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

Recommended Posts

Camelot Poster

Camelot (1967)  TCM On Demand 4/10

The Lerner and Lowe musical about the love triangle of King Arthur, Guenevere and Sir Lancelot.

First time viewing for me and a big disappointment. For years I listened to the Broadway cast album with Richard Burton, Julie Andrews and Robert Goulet and loved it. I avoided seeing this film because of all the negative things I have read (Leonard Maltin gave the film *1/2 rating). Now that I have seen it I can understand why. Richard Harris is OK as Arthur but he talks and whines through the songs. Vanessa Redgrave is badly miscast as Guenevere and she clearly does not have the vocal range and doesn't even try, Marni Nixon would have helped immensely this time. I was about to praise Franco Nero's singing but I just found out he was dubbed! Other problems are the length (178 minutes) and deadly dull pacing. It seems like they were trying to do a serious historical epic like A Man For All Seasons rather than a lavish, tuneful musical. The music is toned down so it seems like an afterthought as times.

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Det Jim McLeod said:

Camelot Poster

Camelot (1967)  TCM On Demand 4/10

The Lerner and Lowe musical about the love triangle of King Arthur, Guenevere and Sir Lancelot.

First time viewing for me and a big disappointment. For years I listened to the Broadway cast album with Richard Burton, Julie Andrews and Robert Goulet and loved it. I avoided seeing this film because of all the negative things I have read (Leonard Maltin gave the film *1/2 rating). Now that I have seen it I can understand why. Richard Harris is OK as Arthur but he talks and whines through the songs. Vanessa Redgrave is badly miscast as Guenevere and she clearly does not have the vocal range and doesn't even try, Marni Nixon would have helped immensely this time. I was about to praise Franco Nero's singing but I just found out he was dubbed! Other problems are the length (178 minutes) and deadly dull pacing. It seems like they were trying to do a serious historical epic like A Man For All Seasons rather than a lavish, tuneful musical. The music is toned down so it seems like an afterthought as times.

I agree, CAMELOT, despite its fine cast, was a real dud, and not the kind of movie I would want to see again.

Perhaps the movie might have worked better if they had tossed out the songs and just made it a big dramatic epic.

Frankly it's a real bizarre viewing experience watching Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave sing.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Blondie Goes Latin Poster

Blondie Goes Latin (1941) Youtube 6/10

Mr Dithers invites Blondie and family on a cruise to South America.

A fun entry with some musical moments. Mr Dithers suddenly finds out Dagwood would be needed at the office so he has the leave the ship. He ends up being mistaken for the drummer with  the band playing on the ship. Ruth Terry is a the band's singer and she does a good song and has great comic timing with Arthur Lake. Penny Singleton gets to show her musical talents as well and she has a very nice singing voice. Baby Dumpling even gets a to sing a fun duet with a little girl (Janet Burston). Another treat is seeing Dagwood in drag. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2020 at 7:48 AM, TikiSoo said:

WHERE'S POPPA? I

I agree that the parts of it that worked were hilarious. The bizarre jaw dropping ending was changed but reinstated later. 

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

I agree, CAMELOT, despite its fine cast, was a real dud, and not the kind of movie I would want to see again.

Frankly it's a real bizarre viewing experience watching Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave sing.

Even with the original musical written for Richard Burton's non-singing "musical musing", it's a bizarre experience watching Richard Harris in anything.  

But not as bizarre as watching Vanessa sing the cheeky "Lusty Month of May" as a languid funeral dirge, as if she was sleeping late on a Riviera vacation.

(I'm in the process of watching a late-60's roadshow-musical flop even worse, but you'll have to wait a few days for me to slog through it before I can IJW it.  Not doing this halfway.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Det Jim McLeod said:

Camelot Poster

Camelot (1967)  TCM On Demand 4/10

The Lerner and Lowe musical about the love triangle of King Arthur, Guenevere and Sir Lancelot.

First time viewing for me and a big disappointment. For years I listened to the Broadway cast album with Richard Burton, Julie Andrews and Robert Goulet and loved it. I avoided seeing this film because of all the negative things I have read (Leonard Maltin gave the film *1/2 rating). Now that I have seen it I can understand why. Richard Harris is OK as Arthur but he talks and whines through the songs. Vanessa Redgrave is badly miscast as Guenevere and she clearly does not have the vocal range and doesn't even try, Marni Nixon would have helped immensely this time. I was about to praise Franco Nero's singing but I just found out he was dubbed! Other problems are the length (178 minutes) and deadly dull pacing. It seems like they were trying to do a serious historical epic like A Man For All Seasons rather than a lavish, tuneful musical. The music is toned down so it seems like an afterthought as times.

I am coming to believe that I am one of the nine people on the planet who truly like this movie. I feel the naive singing adds significantly to the feeling that these are real people in a real situation rather than highly-trained, highly-skilled and highly-paid performers waiting for any opportunity to cast off their costumes, perform their hit number and then duck into a limousine to be driven off into the sunset. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, SansFin said:

I am coming to believe that I am one of the nine people on the planet who truly like this movie. I feel the naive singing adds significantly to the feeling that these are real people in a real situation rather than highly-trained, highly-skilled and highly-paid performers waiting for any opportunity to cast off their costumes, perform their hit number and then duck into a limousine to be driven off into the sunset. 

I always feel so bad for King Arthur. Harris looks so damn sad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Newbie here!

Terrorizers (1986)

I've recently began exploring New Taiwanese Cinema -- a movement that I don't know too much about. Edward Yang is one of the key filmmakers from this era and Terrorizers is considered to be one of his most provocative titles. I really enjoyed it. The narrative revolves around three groups of people and how their lives change following a shooting that takes place in their neighborhood. It's an eerily quiet film that progressively becomes more unnerving with each scene. The film has been cited as one of the best representations of the growing uncertainty Taiwan was experiencing due to their shifting political structure at that time. It's certainly an effective film, though I definitely need to rewatch it soon to better absorb everything.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Brideshead Revisited (2008) This movie has a tough go from the get go. It has that tramp of a giant, the BBC TV Adaptation from 1981 to follow. This last was 11 episodes, at least an hour long and some 90 minutes, the last one, for instance. It treated Evelyn Waugh's 1945 novel in minute detail. The 2008 movie is about 130 minutes. It's hard to assess the movie in some respects because without the TV Show, it would be the same but it might have come off better. AS it is, it will inevitably seem thin. Even perhaps without the TV adaptation breathing down it's neck. Some the characters underdeveloped. Emma Thompson is formidably icy and imperious with all the demands that religion puts on her and that she transmits to her children. But she is essentially cardboard. Michael Gambon is a fine actor but he left me cold. He has two scenes, the first one when he was visited by his son and friend (the two young men) and near the end when he comes home to "die."

It's fairly lavish with excellent production values. The photography excels, especially in a beautiful scene where the waters of a Venetian canal is reflected in in the moonlight with shadows wafting along the adjacent buildings.  Quite nice.  The homosexual element in the movie is more overt that the earlier show, but not what some people might refer as going "to far." Please consult a cast list on the net. I will say that the two young men were quite good. And the love interest of the protagonist, Charles Ryder, had fantastic looks. There was quirk near the end, a peculiar decision that differs from the TV show and the book. It doesn't ruin everything but the original idea is better.

The author, Evelyn Waugh, also wrote A Handful of Dust in 1834. A movie was made in 1988, I believe. Both stories had a colossal mansion that represented the values of the Victorian age. Not necessarily those of the rich, but throughout. He admired stable tradition. You couldn't be a good person on your own, if so you were living precariously on the edge, you had to have the foundation of religion, or some moral code based on Tradition. Waugh was born in 1903, the year the old queen died ; so what does he know about it, ha!. Take the literary environment he grew up during the age of Bloomsbury Group but decidedly he had no truck with that. But he was keen on the golden times, and in fact was just as repelled by the current age. Brideshead was written in 1945 and story ends on the brink of WWII. In both of these novels, the characters seem clueless in behavior with their wretched morals, although icy Emma would meet with his approval, perhaps. She represented the old school but was certainly not an exemplary human being. But Waugh was quite a fussbudget about things. a quality that might have even sustained him in his pronounced reactionary views. In Brideshead the mansion comes to ruin but not before it being used as a military outlet. The main character, who gets the point of view throughout, after suffering a major disappointment (not to be revealded) finds himself  an Army officer now stationed at that great old haunt, and we are made to feel as he does, looking back when it was full of bustling activity of the family he knew and loved and that we experienced with him.

Most of which I say of the author is from the prior novel mentioned above. It was a recent book club selection and which we discussed in detail. I have not read Brideshead Revisited but thematically the similarities are evident even though just by watching the movie. I think Brideshead is a deserving watch.

///

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Golden Head" (1964)

Buddy Hackett almost ruined it!  He was TOO STUPID to be funny.  His script stinks! :angry:

Rest of it was OK, George Sanders was hard to take as a thief.  Odd ending.

The movie was almost lost forever after it's short 8 week run because of lackluster turnout.

Smilebox format

maxresdefault.jpg

 

golden-head.png

 

It came with  DVD and Bluray disc.

.thegoldenhead.jpg?w=466

 

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

"The Golden Head" (1964)

Buddy Hackett almost ruined it!  He was TOO STUPID to be funny.  His script stinks! :angry:

Rest of it was OK, George Sanders was hard to take as a thief.  Odd ending.

The movie was almost lost forever after it's short 8 week run because of lackluster turnout.

Smilebox format

maxresdefault.jpg

 

golden-head.png

 

It came with  DVD and Bluray disc.

.thegoldenhead.jpg?w=466

 

Never saw this one. George Sanders does look like he's getting up there among this time.

I usually like Buddy Hackett though.

You got me curious though, where did you find this one? I might like to give it a view, even if turns out not to be my kind of movie.

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

You got me curious though, where did you find this one? I might like to give it a view, even if turns out not to be my kind of movie.

Don't mean to offend, but does anyone else's brain visually connect the "L & I" in the company name Flicker Alley as a "U"? ( FLICKER) 

 

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

Never saw this one. George Sanders does look like he's getting up there among this time.

I usually like Buddy Hackett though.

You got me curious though, where did you find this one? I might like to give it a view, even if turns out not to be my kind of movie.

 

Amazon whom also has "How The West Was Won". (make certain to get the correct Blu-ray Smilebox version whom's logo is only on the back of case - disc only)

91qx7oqbQ0L._SL1500_.jpg

%20smiley%20800%20snapshot20080911192732

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just tried to watch the new Perry Mason  on HBO, which apparently is extremely popular and has been renewed.   I wasn't a huge fan of the TV series with Raymond Burr, but I thought the new series might be closer to the original intent.    The idea of this new  version appealed to me because of the 30s period flavor, but I was both shocked and disappointed.  I never thought I was a prude, and I do occasionally see a well-reviewed R-rated film in a theater (prepandemic of course), but haven't watched too many "premium" network series.  The level of sex and gratuitous violence was beyond what I've seen in many theater films (except for maybe Tarantino's), and the dialogue was poorly written, as well as occasionally inaudible.    I don't mind an occasional F-bomb, but the script was littered with them; is that word just a substitute for actual adjectives?  Even though I didn't learn "whodunnit" in the first episode, I chose not to watch further.  I think I'm going to crawl back to my comfort zone -- PBS and BBC mysteries and TCM.     I'm already thinking fondly of The Case of the Curious Bride with Warren William, Margaret Lindsay, and a host of Warners' contract players, which compared to the HBO series,   sounds like it was performed by  Shakespearean actors.   Dammit, they talk fast in those Warners' flicks, but you can understand every word.  Plus, Errol Flynn turns up as a handsome corpse.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

Don't mean to offend, but does anyone else's brain visually connect the "L & I" in the company name Flicker Alley as a "U"? ( FLICKER) 

You're a real flicker, Uncle Flicker...  😄

And yes, Flicker Alley's pretty much bought up ALL the early independent Cinerama epics (eg. the travelogues and "Scent of Mystery")  that MGM didn't produce, and is still using proper Smilebox format even when Warner gave up after the aforementioned HtWwW.  (They used the standard regular-widescreen prints for their TCM Collection box versions of West and "Battle of the Bulge".)  It would be nice if Warner finally gave them custody of "Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm" to emergency-restore, which it needs, but the battle goes on.  

And, serendipitously moving on to the faux-Cinerama '68-'70 days of SuperPanavision movies shown in old Cinerama theaters, brings me to my big Sunday-afternoon IJW book-report:

----

Song of Norway (1970) - 👎

songofnorway.jpg

We need a thread for "Ever have that one movie you've spent your life so far trying to track down?" - In my case, it was seeing the popular-theater ads for this movie, playing up a few sycophantic critics' comparisons to Sound of Music-mania, and using the marketing to backhand-deceptively imply that this actually was some in-spirit sequel to the Von Trapps, if not a direct sequel, since everyone was prancing around the fjords in dirndls.  (Spoiler:  It isn't...The Trapps escaped to Switzerland, not Norway, although that might make an interesting sequel.)  The movie had seemed to drop off the face of the earth after that, rarely even showing up on TV, and the only other time I'd heard evidence that the movie existed was when it showed up in the Medveds' Golden Turkey Awards, losing "Worst Musical" to Lost Horizon.  I've seen Lost Horizon, and Mame, and the Julie Andrews Trilogy, but it was always the frustration over this movie that fueled my curiosity for the halcyon days of the Late-60's/Early-70's Roadshow-Musical Flop--The only info the Medveds gave was that "Song" was a (very) old-fashioned composer bio of Edvard Grieg, with the "songs" (you'll understand why I put that in quotation marks) consisting of lyrics put to Grieg melodies and filmed on location, and said only, quote, "What could be so wrong about traipsing around Norwegian mountain scenery to the music of Grieg?  Watch this movie and you will understand."  And I know now I was not the only reader saying "Um, could you be a little more SPECIFIC?":  When the movie showed up on a restored Blu-ray, I ended up in a Twitter chat with another user who was only buying the movie out of unsatisfied childhood curiosity over the ads and the Golden Turkey Awards write-up.  Someone had to solve the mystery.

Fortunately, I opted for just digging up a muddy 4:3 VHS print on YouTube with Korean subtitles, and can now shed some archeological details.  What the Medveds meant by their vague rubric was that the movie was 2-1/2 hours long, bizarre and insufferably Nordic, deadly, deadly dull, and would be considered corny by Nelson Eddy & Jeanette McDonald standards...Except, of course, that we don't have McDonald, we have Florence Henderson (yes - she wasn't a bad soprano before she had three girls of her own), which should give you some idea of the tone.  Based on a 40's stage musical, it's standard old-school operetta fare about Grieg's life, loves, and struggle to put Norwegian classical music on the map, and as one critic put it, "It wasn't Grieg's fault that he wasn't chased by Nazis, but you'd think something plot-compelling could have happened to him."  The movie arbitrarily breaks into the director's own delusion of "Hollywood roadshow-musical number" choreography, but is hobbled by the fact Grieg does not exactly lend itself to doe-a-deer musical numbers on the level of Rodgers & Hammerstein, or even the Doctor Dolittle era of Newley & Bricusse.

And that's one of the more tuneful numbers.   I remember one of the critic blurbs for the movie quoted in Medved was "You can't get mad at something this awful; it seems to have been made by trolls."  I never realized the critic was making a Norwegian joke and always cracked up at that line, as one of my all-time favorite critic-isms in general...It does seem to be something made outside the realm of human experience.

Unless anyone knows of any other late-60's/early-70's Roadshow-Musical Flops I've missed (and yes, I've seen enough of "At Long Last Love" to get an idea, and even own the '76 "The Blue Bird" on disk), I believe my mission may finally be done, and it leaves me with sort of an empty feeling.  😕 Now I've only got two or three other unexplained movies I ran across as a kid to track down, on my Movie Bucket List.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Lemon-Shaped Rock said:

Newbie here!

Terrorizers (1986)

I've recently began exploring New Taiwanese Cinema -- a movement that I don't know too much about. Edward Yang is one of the key filmmakers from this era and Terrorizers is considered to be one of his most provocative titles. I really enjoyed it. The narrative revolves around three groups of people and how their lives change following a shooting that takes place in their neighborhood. It's an eerily quiet film that progressively becomes more unnerving with each scene. The film has been cited as one of the best representations of the growing uncertainty Taiwan was experiencing due to their shifting political structure at that time. It's certainly an effective film, though I definitely need to rewatch it soon to better absorb everything.

Nice first post, Lemon-Shaped Rock. Informative while concise - my favorite kind.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf (1966)

Nasty drunks scream at each other for 130 minutes.  Nick and Nora Charles they ain't.

I can take movies where not much happen, even movies about difficult people; I really enjoyed Albert Finney's The Dresser.  But the juvenile drivel slung back and forth by George and Martha (Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor) makes you wonder why their guests (George Segal and Sandy Dennis) didn't just get up and walk out.

2/10.  Not even worthwhile as a lesson on how to act.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

Don't mean to offend, but does anyone else's brain visually connect the "L & I" in the company name Flicker Alley as a "U"? ( FLICKER) 

 

YES!  I had to do a double take...twice!

As for recent viewing, I caught a Max von Sydow double dip and an old favorite featuring Jane Russell.  The first one I watched was "Winter Light" from 1963.  This Ingmar Bergman film was about a pastor in rural Sweden who is going through a crisis of faith, stemming from his wife's death four years before the story begins.  A local school teacher tries to console him by offering him her love and devotion, but he rejects her advances.  Von Sydow plays a fisherman who's a member of one of the parishes the minister tends.  He is consumed by anxiety about the state of world affairs, according to his wife.  The couple have three children and a fourth is on the way.  The pastor sets up an appointment later in the day with von Sydow, but when he arrives for his consultation, he can't get in a word edgewise, because the pastor is spilling his guts about his own personal doubts about his faith!  As a 'thanks for nothing' nod about the session, von Sydow later commits suicide as he's bereft of ideas on how to heal his tormented spirit.  A sad tale, as only Bergman could tell it (or show it).  Despite it being a bummer, I'd give it 7 out of 10.

"The Virgin Spring" was also directed by Ingmar Bergman in 1960.  It's set in medieval Sweden, and von Sydow is the lord of all he purveys.  That's to say he's a well-off landowner who has a loving and religiously devout wife.  They also have several servants to help them manage their property, which includes a nice layout of lodgings for people and animals.  The couple have a beautiful (and entitled) daughter, Karin who, as a virgin, must participate in a religious rite where she's taking candles to the local church in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary.  The journey on horseback through the Swedish countryside should take most of the day, and Karin suggests having the family's servant girl, Ingeri go with her.  Trouble is, Ingeri can't stand Karin and as a pagan, she calls upon the Norse gods to bring harm to the beautiful maiden.  The girls never make it to the church.  Three goat-herding brothers accost Karin (who has proceeded to the church while leaving Ingeri behind in the woods).  At first, all 4 people are enjoying the beautiful weather and eating lunch.  Then, the two older brothers get the urge to sexually assault the young girl, and she is ultimately murdered.  Ingeri, who has caught up to Karin by now, witnesses her assault and death, and thinks about doing something to help out her mistress, but she realizes she can't do anything about it and heads back home.  As fate would have it, the goat-herding murderers, having stripped Karin of her fine clothes and jewelry end up at the dead girl's parents home at nightfall.  The three brothers are welcomed in and given hospitality by von Sydow's family.  After dinner, one of the brothers offers one of Karin's garments to her mother as a 'thank you' for letting them spend the night, not knowing that the woman is the dead girl's mom!  Mom tells Dad, and understandably, von Sydow goes into 'beast mode'.  He slays all three brothers (including the youngest sibling who looks to be about 10 years old) and avenges his daughter's death.  Then, he leads the entire household, including Ingeri who admitted to having witnessed the assault but out of fear and despair couldn't do anything about it, to Karin's body, where they retrieve it and take it home.  Once the girl's body is moved, however, fresh spring water begins flowing down the hillside to a nearby stream.  It is there that von Sydow takes it as a sign to build a church at that very spot in memory of his daughter.  Great flick!  I'd give it a 9 out of 10.

Finally, I watched Jane Russell try to balance encounters with 3 men in "The Las Vegas Story".  Russell is married to Vincent Price.  Both are traveling cross-country by train to Los Angeles, and Price wants to stop in Las Vegas for a night or two before heading to SoCal.  Russell doesn't want to, and we learn about her love/hate relationship with the town.  She used to work at a casino and club off the Strip called The Last Chance, where she'd warble Hoagy Carmichael tunes.  It was here that she met Victor Mature, and they had the hots for each other, but the relationship cooled off.  She went East and married Price.  Mature stayed in Vegas and became a cop with the Sheriff's Department of Clark County.  Now, the problem with Jane's marriage to Vincent is that he loves to gamble, and he's not very good at it.  He's put up her expensive necklace as collateral in getting an advance to help him recoup his gambling losses.  He keeps losing and losing.  Russell doesn't like it, but when Mature tries to point out that she married a louse, she gets defensive and sticks by her hubby.  Enter Brad Dexter, an insurance representative who wants to make sure nothing unseemly happens to Russell's pricey necklace, which his company has insured.  Dexter keeps pestering Russell about her necklace, and she and Price have some great snarky lines in this film, not only toward each other, but to Dexter's character too!  In fact, Russell got the best lines in this film with her contempt for both Dexter and Mature, but for vastly different reasons.  By movie's end, three people have been croaked, and there's a great chase scene in the Nevada desert to an abandoned air base involving a 'woody' station wagon and a helicopter!  I really like watching Jane Russell movies.  She's not Academy Award caliber, for the most part, but she always gave good performances where she usually played the attractive babe who played hard to get, but in the end, you knew she'd end up with the leading man.  I'd give this film 7 out of 10.

Finally, I was going to watch "Smashing the Rackets", but when I saw it wasn't an autobiography of John McEnroe's life...boy, was I disappointed!

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

DIABOLIQUE (1955) *Score: 4/5* 

I watched this just last night, and was pleasantly surprised. There was a twist, which I am embarrassed to say I understood way too late. Excited to watch more Clouzot. 

UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG (1964) *Score: 3.5/5* 

My second Demy film; I love the way he used color. Catherine Deneuve is quite charming in this, and I am stoked to see more of her filmography. 

THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL (2014) *Score: 4/5* 

I was recommended this by one of my film club friends for our "secret cinema" biweekly event (like secret Santa, but with movies). I actually enjoyed this more than I thought I would. The bright colors and overall aesthetic were intensely wonderful. This is my 6th Wes Anderson; I plan on finishing the rest of his movies in the near future. 

MOONSTRUCK (1987) *Score: 4/5* 

I love Cher. That is all. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ophelia (2018) Yes, that Ophelia. Another famous story as seen by a different character therein. One might imagine that this looks like a love story and one might be right. There is a sort of love story in the original but it gets truncated. The movie is 40 minutes old before the Bard’s story begins. In that time, we learn that Ophelia has been made a lady-in waiting to Gertrude. The is a clever device because it give Ophelia access to the Queen’s secrets. Hamlet doesn’t need the Ghost for tidings. And we learn that Queen Gertrude has a sister. Hmm, that doesn’t sound familiar. When Hamlet becomes privy to his father’s death, he is mad as hell which is familiar but he doesn’t blame Ophelia. He has a few nasty words about that frailty of women but he excludes her from his wrath. There are fragments of the nunnery speech but in that scene the two of them are shamming because they know they are being watched by Claudius and Polonius, which happens a lot in the Bard’s version. I won’t itemize any more of this because I don’t want to spoil anything more, but you get the idea. The screenplay sticks to the Bard on the outside but we are made privy to the inside view. The Mad Scene is interesting but I probably need need not tell you about that, you could almost guess. The point is that they didn’t just make a brand new story.

The only actor in the film that I really know is Naomi Watts and she is … well … hot! I love her in this. She plays Gertrude. I have linked the cast below so have a look. The first reviews I read on IMDB were scathing. Ones, twos, and threes … but then all of sudden some sevens, eights, and higher. The average was 6.6 which I guess is not that great. Some of the poorer reviews pained me. Let’s not get too serious for crying out. The movie should rake in points, and a lot of them, for sheer creativity of conception. It is undoubtedly clever. It is somewhat of a woman’s story but not so bold that it is a ChickFlick. Think Victorian Era. Most young women do what their father want them to do but there are a few that have a mind of their own.

The cast:

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ALeKk00AwDezFKUJiC-w70KiRzhQddZmnA%3A1595801201370&ei=cf4dX_CZFu670PEPmuSgkAc&q=ophelia+cast&oq=ophelia+cast&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQARgAMgQIABBDMgIIADICCAAyAggAMgIIADIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB4yBggAEBYQHjIGCAAQFhAeMgYIABAWEB46BwgAEEcQsAM6CAguEJECEJMCOgsILhDHARCvARCRAjoLCC4QsQMQxwEQowI6BQguELEDOggIABCxAxCDAToFCAAQsQM6BQgAEJECOgcILhCxAxBDOgQILhBDOgoILhCxAxBDEJMCOgcIABCxAxBDOggILhCxAxCDAToICC4QxwEQrwE6BAguEAo6AgguUJ-ZrARYtbWsBGC9zawEaAFwAHgAgAF4iAHvCJIBAzguNJgBAKABAaoBB2d3cy13aXrAAQE&sclient=psy-ab

///

 

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

"The Virgin Spring" was also directed by Ingmar Bergman in 1960. 

As fate would have it, the goat-herding murderers, having stripped Karin of her fine clothes and jewelry end up at the dead girl's parents home at nightfall.  The three brothers are welcomed in and given hospitality by von Sydow's family.  After dinner, one of the brothers offers one of Karin's garments to her mother as a 'thank you' for letting them spend the night, not knowing that the woman is the dead girl's mom!  Mom tells Dad, and understandably, von Sydow goes into 'beast mode'.  He slays all three brothers (including the youngest sibling who looks to be about 10 years old) and avenges his daughter's death. 

Although I'm not sure if Wes Craven kept the part about the spring and the church in mind when he did his famous "remake"...  😲

2 hours ago, Fedya said:

 Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf (1966)

Nasty drunks scream at each other for 130 minutes.  Nick and Nora Charles they ain't.

Sometimes it's cathartic to watch the Benny Hill parody, where, through the miracle of editing, Mr. Hill was able to play both Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVb5EBSNKTw  😅

Taylor: "What would you ever do if you came home and found me in bed with another man?"
Burton:  "I'd hit him over the head...With his white stick!"

7 hours ago, EricJ said:

We need a thread for "Ever have that one movie you've spent your life so far trying to track down?" -

Now I've only got two or three other unexplained movies I ran across as a kid to track down, on my Movie Bucket List.

In case you're wondering:

One, before the rise of YouTube, IMDb and Warner Archive fandom, it took me thirty years to realize that the strange 30's musical I tuned in on a local station was the finale to Eddie Cantor's Kid Millions (1934),

And the other, as I'm pleased to announce, it just now--JUST NOW, mind you, as in ten minutes ago, after nearly three or four decades of thinking I must have dreamed or misremembered it--occurred to me to do an IMDb search for the Turtles (of "Happy Together" fame), and realize the equally bizarre spectacle I had come across afternoon TV as a kid was goofy teen-rock/spy comedy Out of Sight (1966).  Also on the YouTube ether.

...What an age we live in.  😎

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoulder Arms (1918)

I haven’t taken to Chaplin like I have with Keaton and Linder, but I still respect him as an actor and filmmaker. I actually liked this one a lot and it’s definitely in the top half of my favorite silent films. It also features my new favorite title card: “More heroic work.” If you have ever wondered why Germany lost the war, this will answer a lot of your questions. Who could possibly take on Charlie Chaplin and win? Maybe Buster? I hear he was a great boxer. 
 

I recently subscribed to the Criterion Channel and I am overwhelmed with the amount of films that are available. Some of them aren’t my favorite types, but I’m hoping to try some new genres. 

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

DIABOLIQUE (1955) 

There was a twist, which I am embarrassed to say I understood way too late. 

UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG (1964)

THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL (2014)

This is my 6th Wes Anderson; I plan on finishing the rest of his movies in the near future. 

Love your line up N&N! I have to say, I'm a pretty dense/gullible viewer of mysteries. But the "twist" ending of Diabolique was apparent & logical even to me within the first 20 minutes.

I love Umbrellas of Cherbourg as well. I think the colors/sets/fashion very much adds to the film, like an extra "charactor".

Wes Anderson is by far my favorite director and so glad he's consistent & prolific. Another one whose visual composition truly adds to the storytelling, often humorous:

keitel21.png?w=640

They got the lighting JUST PERFECT to illuminate his nipples in the shadow! And I love the old pin up girl photos.  Amazingly, Anderson's animated work leaves me cold.

12 hours ago, laffite said:

Some of the poorer reviews pained me. Let’s not get too serious for crying out. The movie should rake in points, and a lot of them, for sheer creativity of conception. It is undoubtedly clever.

Because some people are only watching movies for the story or the escapism of the effects, etc. Others -I assume those in this TCM group-  can admire the artistry & technician of the visuals, music, editing that all make a movie great storytelling

The ratings for the movie are changing as more people discover it & like it too-the beginning of a "cult" film. If that trend endures and it flips to most people agree & like it, it becomes a "cult classic".

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

The level of sex and gratuitous violence was beyond what I've seen in many theater films (except for maybe Tarantino's), and the dialogue was poorly written, as well as occasionally inaudible.    I don't mind an occasional F-bomb, but the script was littered with them; is that word just a substitute for actual adjectives?

Thanks nice to find a "never though I was a prude" person to spotlight something that sounds very interesting, thanks for the heads up Ill be sure to check it out now. 😎

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...