The Silver Screen Oasis

Tracy is outstanding in the film. I didn't know he had health issues at the time.

RedRiver wrote:Tracy is outstanding in the film. I didn't know he had health issues at the time.

By that time he was in bad shape, largely self-inflicted by pills, alcohol abuse and being overweight. He did the final 12 minute scene in one long take, and you can see his hands shake now and again, if you look close. This was nothing compared to his condition filming Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, where he could barely work at all (also related to those same problems, only amplified by another half decade and including kidney failure). But in both cases, he performed admirably.

in both cases, he performed admirably.

Truly amazing! Both these performances are 100%. That's an actor!

I watch NORTH BY NORTHWEST for the 3rd time in SIX MONTHS on TCM and every time I see this movie - I gain another perspective of the movie itself. It's becoming a favorite of mine and I learned more about the magic of HITCHCOCK that's he done with his films and he joys that he brings. Being a man my age, I learned to enjoy these classics more as I grow older and learned to appreciate the values that they brings. I just loved this movie more and more as the times goes on.

This week I managed to see "The Grand Budapest Hotel" (2014) directed by Wes Anderson.

I really wanted to like this movie, but it didn't really work for me (except for one sequence that paid tribute to Hitchcock films of the Thirties).

As several have mentioned, the movie is something of a tribute to Ernst Lubitsch, and you can see the Ralph Fiennes character as akin to the charming thief in "Trouble in Paradise." Yet I had a problem with this. (I often have a problem with Fiennes. Something about his voice puts me off.) He seemed to talk an awful lot, and it seemed as if the movie were trying to be carried by its dialogue much of the time.

However, I really never warmed up to the young man, "Zero," who is ostensibly telling the story. I felt zero connection with him, and since the film was about his relationship to the Fiennes character, this proved fatal to my enjoyment of the film.

Also, oddly for a film that tried to invoke Lubitsch, there were no female characters of any interest and male-female romance was barely even an afterthought in this film.

Like I said, I really wanted to enjoy this film. It sounded as if it were just my thing, but I call it a misfire.

Yesterday I watched "Baby Face" (1933) directed by Alfred E. Green.

While I've never been a big fan of "Pre-Code" films and the mystique about them (that they are more "real" than Code films), I have to say that I liked "Baby Face" a lot. Barbara Stanwyck is terrific as the calculating beauty who claws her way to the top. (This would be interesting to double feature with "Double Indemnity.") The movie is pretty smart and pretty frank, until George Brent shows up and Stanwyck goes soft for him. The movie also makes great use of music for a 1933 film.

And part of the fun is to see John Wayne in a tiny part and Edward Van Sloan (Universal's Professor Van Helsing) in a small part. "Stagecoach" and "Dracula" rubbing shoulders in a third movie!

Not a great film, but one I wouldn't mind watching again.

I couldn't agree more. Pre-code holds no attraction for me. A movie might be good. It might not be. Being pre-code doesn't give it special status. But I like this one a lot!

On Sunday I watched "Road House" (1948) directed by Jean Negulescu.

I liked this movie. It is noir, but it feels very different from other noirs. While Lupino is the sexy stranger in town (and she is very sexy here), she is basically a good person, not a heartless seductress. Richard Widmark does go crazy in this one, but there is a degree of sympathy for him that surprised me. The ending of the movie, out in the woods, almost felt like the end of a werewolf movie to me rather than noir.

Once I read that "Road House" was a remake of "Most Dangerous Game." That's just silly.

All in all, this was a very enjoyable movie. I liked Lupino's two songs, "One more for the Road" and "Again."

ROAD HOUSE is atmospheric and intriguing. Some people claim everything is a remake of something. ROCKY is Cinderella. (Love to see Stallone in glass slippers!) McCLINTOCK=TAMING OF THE SHREW. Similar, yes. But pretty far removed from Shakespeare!

There is a funny, if filthy, comedy on video called THIS IS 40. Who knows why a talented writer goes for shock value? Judd Apatow and the legion of filmmakers under his tutelage seem only interested in bathroom humor. But underneath the vulgar surface is a good deal of wit. Even a surprising level of sensitivity. If you can overcome any distaste you might feel for the material, it's actually quite well made. I like it!

MikeBSG wrote:All in all, this was a very enjoyable movie. I liked Lupino's two songs, "One more for the Road" and "Again."

I liked the comments from Celeste Holm's jealous townie about Ida's pipes when asked if she liked the sound made by "the new equipment" imported from Chicago. Her retort was something like "It's fine, if you like the sound of gravel." There's also some halting respect in her remark that "she does more without a voice than anybody I've ever heard."

I liked the blend of Lupino's growly voice with Peg LaCentra's dubbing in The Man I Love (1947) too.

I'm thinking of renting the new, FLOWERS IN THE ATTIC. What's the talk about this one? Intelligent suspense? Or mindless sensationalism? The book was quite popular.

PBS, with its impressive Saturday night programming, ran THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY last night. I must give that deep, thought-provoking story more credit. I never questioned its depth; its thoughtfulness. If anything, I found that to be detrimental to cinematic values. "Don't tell the story. Show it," I was taught. This movie is a lot of talk. Not just chit-chat. Philosophy! Much of the story is told by the narrator. But that story is fascinating. The themes are timeless and true. There's a reason the Oscar Wilde story is a classic.

This movie has greatness. It requires patience. It disregards the traditional standards of filmmaking. But I can't help admiring it, and will probably watch it again someday.

RedRiver wrote:PBS, with its impressive Saturday night programming, ran THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY last night. I must give that deep, thought-provoking story more credit. I never questioned its depth; its thoughtfulness. If anything, I found that to be detrimental to cinematic values. "Don't tell the story. Show it," I was taught. This movie is a lot of talk. Not just chit-chat. Philosophy! Much of the story is told by the narrator. But that story is fascinating. The themes are timeless and true. There's a reason the Oscar Wilde story is a classic.

This movie has greatness. It requires patience. It disregards the traditional standards of filmmaking. But I can't help admiring it, and will probably watch it again someday.

Well said, RR. I remember seeing it in a theater as a kid (no PG ratings back then) and realizing that it was about so much more than a picture that ages.

Disappointed, though, that the PBS print didn't include the color shots of the picture. It just ain't as gruesome in B&W. I did however, understand the depth a bit better than back then(!) Nice to see a very young Angela, too.

Did you watch it Saturday? The print I saw did have the color shots.