The Silver Screen Oasis

As in the other forums I thought we could have a catch all place for those films that may not need its own thread. So to start -

Edward Dmytryk's Mutiny is a film about an American ship off to France to carry $10 million back to America to help finance the War of 1812. At 77 minutes it is pretty compact but not necessarily successful. It stars Mark Stevens as the Captain of the ship. Stoic and fairly dull is his manner. Patric Knowles plays his friend and former British naval officer who is brought along because of his experience as a sailor and for being a Brit. As a condition of his going he is promised to meet up with lover Angela Lansbury.

SPOILERS

Along the way part of the crew and Knowles, at the urging of Lansbury, decide to mutiny and steal the gold. Patric has been a bad boy in the English navy and he was bounced from it. This is his chance to redeem his life and reputation by helping the nation that gave him refuge. No, he'd rather have the money. For that matter so would Angela.

Sometimes my own sensibilities get in the way of completely enjoying a movie. This is one of them. That a man who has been given a chance to put his life right would give in so willingly to a woman who is only using him disappoints me. She's greedy, selfish and not above throwing her cleavage around. Conversely, the rest of the crew so dead set to have the money also has a total breakdown over a barrel of "grog." But it's 1952 so you can guess how it all ends up. Several familiar faces help move the action. Lansbury is properly slimy and Knowles is by far the more interesting of the two leading men.

A terrible print of the film turns up on DVD. It looks like it was transferred from a VHS tape. In addition the miniature sets looked like it. Explosions looked like puffs of smoke. And in the climax of the film it looked as though that while set at night part of it was shot with too much light. And the music didn't always fit the action though the score itself was fine.

Straight forward film but nothing great.

Gosh, this is a great addition to the action adventure forum, MM! I can't say I've seen anything recently, except one little bit of Son of Fury, but when I do, I'll be sure to post here about it.

I like having these little threads throughout the forums. "What Have You Seen Lately" is very popular but it's easy for me to have some films to get lost in the discussion so I thought this one might help. It's worked well in Noirs and Westerns. So, why not?

Absolutely! I need to abbreviate my reviews to a readable length and these types of threads make me really try and get my thoughts into a 'less is more' format.

Oh no! You keep writing the way you do. Reading your commentaries as well others who write so beautifully should not treat any of these threads any different, least of all because of the way I write.

No, I just mean that some movies lend themselves to long posts, and some lend themselves to short. Some movies I think are going to be good discussion films end up not being quite as in depth as I thought, and others, especially when I can't really get a grip on them at first, end up making me think/write a book length review! It's too much pressure to always write something huge or even meaningful.

I think it's the working of the muses. We seem to collectively take turns getting the proverbial "wild hair" about an actor, a director, a film, a genre, etc. and then go to town once in a while. I love being a part of a community of such stalwart appreciators.

That was exceptionally well put, intothenitrate! I am happy too to belong here at the SSO.

Is this thread for us to share our thoughts about Action and Adventures Films?

Just Wondering about that?

Yes. I started it like I have others in different forums for those lesser films that don't really warrant their own thread but may be worth talking about. So, if you have one go ahead.

JackFavell wrote:No, I just mean that some movies lend themselves to long posts, and some lend themselves to short. Some movies I think are going to be good discussion films end up not being quite as in depth as I thought, and others, especially when I can't really get a grip on them at first, end up making me think/write a book length review! It's too much pressure to always write something huge or even meaningful.

Oh, I understand. "Mutiny" hardly warrants anything in depth or meaningful. But someone mentioned it somewhere and it's one I had never heard of so it's fun to get an unfamiliar one out there.

That's it exactly, MM.

In the UK our version of Dancing With The Stars, Strictly Come Dancing has started. One of the celebs is Colin Salmond, who played secret agent Charles in most of the Pierce Brosnan Bond's. I'll try and find a link. Here it is, it's his first dance

Hi CineMaven

If you want to see Shirley Eaton in film Nior you could look for 2 of 3 epsiodes she did of The Saint. One was the pilot The Talented Husband, where she shares the leading lady role with classic Brit actress Patrica Roc in her last role.Unlike Goldfinger she isn't dubbed.

Eaton was also leading lady in the first 2 Carry On movies Carry On Sargeant and Carry On Nurse. She was also in the underrated romantic comedy The Love Match with the non conventionally good looking comedy actor Danny Ross

Stuart

I believe I just set a personal record for elapsed time between viewings of a film -- about 50 years -- having only seen HANNIBAL (Edgar G. Ulmer/Carlo Bragaglia - unc. 1959) when it lumbered into my little hometown second-run theater upon its release. Does it hold up? You betcha! Elephants in the Alps will always amaze me, even though I'd forgotten how early in the proceedings that came. There was also a lot more romance than my 9-year old brain processed. And the battle scenes were far more violent, bloody and realistic than I remembered (probably repressed that). But one can't go wrong with sword fights, togas and the Victor Mature role being played by Victor Mature.

The DVD has a marvelous extra - a 33 minute interview (sound only) of Ulmer by Peter Bogdanovich. It's clearly from the interview published in various compilations (Kings of the Bs: Working Within the Hollywood System; Who the Devil Made It: Conversations with Legendary Directors), but I don't recall this conversation or, if it's there, it may have been edited into a more chronological scheme. Ulmer bemoaned the editing of HANNIBAL, that much of his thesis was cut out because it was "too philosophical." He also discusses his work with, and admiration for, F.W. Murnau and his lack of admiration for William Dieterle and Otto Preminger, his successor with Max Reinhardt ("There are two kinds of people in the movies: those who see movies as Art and those who see movies as Business.").

We know on which side Ulmer is.