I just hate to admit it, but....

Chit-chat, current events

Moderators: Sue Sue Applegate, movieman1957, moira finnie, Lzcutter

jdb1

Post by jdb1 »

Duplicate post. Please disregard. :oops:
Last edited by jdb1 on October 20th, 2007, 11:56 am, edited 2 times in total.
jdb1

Post by jdb1 »

Now that you mention it, Erebus, I've never understood the fuss about From Here to Eternity, especially the Lancaster/Kerr romance. I feel zero chemistry between them. The first time I saw this movie on TV I was a teenager, and I thought it wonderful. Subsequent viewings make me lose patience with it, and I skip it altogether now, much as I like Clift and Borgnine.

I can't agree about Casablanca, though. I don't see anything in this film as a whole, although there are little gems of genuine emotion shining through. I think here to, the problem is the lack of chemistry between Bogart and Bergman; their relationship is the fulcrum of the movie, but for me it doesn't ring true. Bogart reportedly didn't enjoy working with Bergman, and it shows, at least to me. They are more like two people being polite to each other for the sake of company, but I felt that as soon as no one was looking, these two characters would turn away from each other. I would have liked this movie better with Bogart and some other actress, or with Bergman and Cary Grant.
User avatar
traceyk
Posts: 294
Joined: May 25th, 2007, 11:59 am
Location: Ohio

Post by traceyk »

Anything starring Jeanette MacDonald and Nelson Eddy. Though Jeanette by herself isn't too bad--"San Fancisco" was good and so is "The Merry Widow."

"Key Largo" I've said it before, but for a Bogey and Bacall movie, this one misses. Bacall is basically set dressing. Any pretty female would have done. No chemistry between them at all. But between Bogart and Edward G Robinson, that's a different story. Anyway, I'd much rather watch "To Have and Have Not" or "The Big Sleep."


Westerns in general leave me cold, even the classic ones like "The Searchers" and "Stagecoach"
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. "~~Wilde
User avatar
inglis
Posts: 209
Joined: April 24th, 2007, 11:45 am
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

orsen

Post by inglis »

I have never really liked him as an actor I mean he's okay but he just does not turn me on in his movies .I never liked Citizen Cane at all .
pktrekgirl
Administrator
Posts: 641
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 1:08 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

Post by pktrekgirl »

Well, I'll pull out my 'usuals' again, I suppose:

1. Lawrence of Arabia - a four hour film with a story that could have easily been told in two. I mean, ENOUGH already with the camel riding in the desert. We *get* it already! You're in the desert! :P

And ya know....the worst part is that after four hours, he essentially accomplishes NOTHING.

The ONLY think that kept me in that chair after the first 2 1/2 hours was the possibility of more appearances by Omar Sharif. :P

2. Citizen Kane - I have yet to sit through an entire airing of this film. Way boring. And Orson Welles bothers me anyway quite often because he always has this self-important air about him that gets on my nerves.

3. Waterloo Bridge - In this film, we watch as Vivien Leigh gets the man of her dreams...and to celebrate the occasion, intentionally walks in front of a truck. :roll: Melodramatic, anyone???

4. Humoresque - see Waterloo Bridge, only substitute 'Joan Crawford' for 'Vivien Leigh'...and 'intentionally walks into the ocean to drown' for 'intentionally walks in front of a truck.' Can't stand when the character is a drama queen. :roll:

5. Morocco - I know...you would never expect ME to criticize a Gary Cooper film. And in fairness, this film was absolutely FABULOUS.

Until the last 30 seconds or so of the film, during which sultry, urbane, every-hair-in-place, independent, 'experienced woman' nightclub singer Marlene Dietrich kicks off her shoes in the DESERT, and in an elegant DRESS, on the spur of the moment, joins the merry band of Moroccan peasant goat herder ladies who follow the Legion around the desert like rock-band groupies.

STUPIDEST. ENDING. EVER. :roll:

The first time I saw this film, I couldn't stop laughing, the ending was so utterly absurd and ridiculous.

Don't think that was the writers' 'desired effect'. :lol:
My wife said she'd help young people, ... That's what I'd do. Help young people, then buy a big motor home and get out of town.
~ Gary Cooper
User avatar
sandykaypax
Posts: 497
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:15 pm
Location: Beautiful Ohio

Post by sandykaypax »

Well, not surprisingly, many people have mentioned films that I love, or at least, enjoy. But, I'm not going to spend any time defending them--to each his own.

I never got into Star Wars, but I don't really enjoy sci-fi as a rule.

I don't really enjoy The Major and the Minor. It's just kind of creepy. Maybe if I had seen it as a kid I would've liked it...it's too bad, because I am a Ginger Rogers fan. Sorry, SueSue!

Sandy K
User avatar
mrsl
Posts: 4220
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 5:20 pm
Location: Chicago SW suburbs

Post by mrsl »

Most movies I see, I either like or dislike, and when I dislike them, I just chalk it up to two wasted hours and go on. Sometimes though something about them sticks in my craw and I can't just let it go. The four movies I listed back in the beginning of this thread were like that.

People spout about them and they win awards solely because of pressure or ticket sales. Sales can be tricky though because a lot of times people will go to see a movie that has been advertised as terrific only to find it fall on its face, or to see what is so awful that it's getting bad ratings. Personally, I'll wait for the TV viewing, but many people don't have that patience.

When a movie sticks with me because I hated it, it's usually because of the non-chemistry between the two stars, or bad acting skills, or a stupid story. I've never been terribly fond of scary movies so it's been years since I saw one. When the 'Part 2's' started coming out, I knew somehow, that it would be leading to an internal war of who could make the bloodiest and most disgusting. Since Saw IV is coming out this weekend, I guess I was proven correct. Remakes of Halloween, Last House on the Left and Psycho don't help the cause either.

If you're watching a love story and its pretty evident that the two people involved are rather uninterested in the others' performance it becomes kind of senseless to continue watching.

If a war movie is strictly shooting, and battle scenes with no interplay between the cast members, again it becomes senseless.

Nowadays we have so many bad movies, you consider yourself lucky to find a gem in the garbage dump. Once in a while you're lucky and you find one. Choosing a movie to watch nowadays is like taking on a short term job. You have to know the stars and their past work, the director, where the story is taken from - a play, a previous movie, a TV show, etc.
None of us wants to be made a fool of, and sometimes it seems the movie makers, the media, and even word of mouth can be unkind with not necessarily lies, but unspoken truths. A friend may say a movie was good or bad simply because he didn't get it, and doesn't want to admit it. I've found several movies I've had to watch many times to catch all the nuances and twists I missed the first time.

The Hunt for Red October was one such movie. Each time I watched I got something else from it, or learned another point made. The Enemy Below and the Crimson Tide were two more. I recommend them highly, but for me, because of the technical and psychological discussions in them, I didn't understand them until after the third or fourth viewing. I always recommend them now to anyone who wants to see a good psychological, action movie, but always with the codicil that they may need more than one viewing.

In any case, I hate to say it but . . . that's my take on it.

Anne
Anne


***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *

]***********************************************************************
User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5513
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Post by movieman1957 »

My dad's favorite movie is "The Hunt For Red October." If it's on he'll watch no matter where he comes in, and he has the DVD.

A friend of his liked it because there weren't any women in it. However, he just said that to drive his wife crazy.

I always liked "Crimson Tide" as well for the same reasons you do. The language is a bit rough but I guess it would be.

My daughter wants to see "Saw IV." I ask her, how can the little girl who will watch westerns, the Marx Brothers and Audrey Hepburn sit through a movie like that one. "It's cool" she says.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
User avatar
mrsl
Posts: 4220
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 5:20 pm
Location: Chicago SW suburbs

Post by mrsl »

Hi Chris:

Isn't it amazing with today's kids? They're all the same. I agree how can my granddaughter like Shirley Temple and then watch some of the awful stuff her older brother sees. I think it's just because she wants to be as tough as he is though really.

You said Red October IS your dad's favorite movie, has he seen The Enemy Below? If not, check it out for him some time. I'm with him, if I'm channel surfing and run into any of the three I mentioned, I'll just watch from wherever I tune in, and actually none of the three have women in them.

Anne
Anne


***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *

]***********************************************************************
User avatar
cinemalover
Posts: 1603
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:57 am
Location: Seattle, Washington

Post by cinemalover »

Another "classic" film that I've never been able to warm up to is 1965's Doctor Zhivago. It's like a 3+ hour trip to the dentisit for me without the novacaine. Eeeehwwwwwww!
Chris

The only bad movie is no movie at all.
jdb1

Post by jdb1 »

cinemalover wrote:Another "classic" film that I've never been able to warm up to is 1965's Doctor Zhivago. It's like a 3+ hour trip to the dentisit for me without the novacaine. Eeeehwwwwwww!
I hadn't thought of that one, but I agree - I felt it really missed the mark. It might have been better with the supporting players Tom Courtenay and Rita Tushingham as the leads, but then no one would have paid for its production or gone to see it. I thought Julie Christie, who I generally like, was cold as ice in Zhivago, and I didn't believe her psuedo-Russian sufferings for a minute.

I saw it for free when I was in high school - I was the "entertainment" columnist for the school newspaper, and went to a press showing. I remember thinking as I was watching - yipes! when is this going to end? Am I the only one who can't stand this? I remember saying in my review that the colors were striking, but I don't think I had much else nice to say, save for praising the abovementioned supporting players. I saw Zhivago again a few years ago, and the intervening years haven't softened my opinion.
MikeBSG
Posts: 1777
Joined: April 25th, 2007, 5:43 pm

Post by MikeBSG »

To me, the David Lean "Dr. Zhivago" is watchable only when Alec Guinness and Klaus Kinski are on screen. Otherwise it is very ponderous.

There was a much better version of "Zhivago" on "Masterpiece Theater" a few years ago. Keira Knightly was Lara and was very good. Sam Neill had the Rod Steiger part. In general, this was just much better all the way around than the Lean film.

I think the Russians themselves made a "Dr. Zhivago" this year or last year. I'm a bit surprised it hasn't been distributed in this country. Maybe it will turn up on DVD.
User avatar
mrsl
Posts: 4220
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 5:20 pm
Location: Chicago SW suburbs

Post by mrsl »

I guess I'm not a David Lean fan because often, when I find a movie I don't like, it turns out to be one of his. I totally agree on the eeewwwwww for Dr. Zhivago.

Anne
Anne


***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *

]***********************************************************************
User avatar
Bogie
Posts: 534
Joined: September 3rd, 2007, 12:57 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Post by Bogie »

cinemalover wrote:Another "classic" film that I've never been able to warm up to is 1965's Doctor Zhivago. It's like a 3+ hour trip to the dentisit for me without the novacaine. Eeeehwwwwwww!
I've only seen that movie once when I was younger so I can't give a concrete opinion on it but it brings up some epic movies. I think that movies that push the 2 1/2 hour mark are either VERY good or either too slow or boring to bother with it.

One such movie that I found to be boring after awhile is BEN-HUR. The first hour or so is pretty good and Heston does a wonderful job but then the movie bogs under the weight of the timeframe and loses steam.

At least for me.
User avatar
sandykaypax
Posts: 497
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 3:15 pm
Location: Beautiful Ohio

Post by sandykaypax »

Anne, you make a good point about repeat viewings of films. Case in point: I didn't really love Vertigo the first time that I saw it, but a subsequent viewing a few years later made me fall in love with it. I picked up so many things that I missed the first time around. Also, some adult life experience made me more sensitive to the story of love and obsession.

For me, a first viewing is often just about figuring out the plot. I cannot stop myself from trying to predict what is going to happen. I can be more relaxed on a second viewing when I already know the outcome and just enjoy the ride. Repeat viewings are also when I can focus on the cinematography and technical elements, and things going on in the background.

Sandy K
Post Reply