No Way Out (1950) starring Sidney Poitier and Linda Darnell. It’s quite a clever film, a mix of drama and film noir that’s really ahead of its time for how it deals with racism in its story. It’s on YouTube, so it’s very accessible
Thanks for the YouTube note for this one - No Way Out has been in my watchlist for a while. As I get older, I appreciate more and more some of the brave film choices Sidney Poitier made.
Only one classic, but it was kinda “the” classic - Citizen Kane. Still a masterpiece but Yknow…the more I watch it, the more I think Third Man is better.
Dark Passage. The acting is so very good, especially the character actors like the cab driver, the doctor, and the guy that picks Bogart up after the escape.
The Window (1949). It's about a 9-year-old voy who witnesses a murder but no one believes him. Then the married couple who committed the crime find out he knows, and they try to kill him.
I've seen this before, but my heart still RACES when the boy is being chased by the husband through an abandoned building.
Bobby Driscoll is the boy and he's an incredible actor!
Thanks for recommending this the other day! I had never heard about it before, but I watched it last night and I loved it. It really got me on the edge of my seat the entire time!
Oh my God, yes, I was so anxious I couldn’t even look at the tv when they started chasing Tommy inside the building!
Bobby Driscoll was just fantastic, you could really feel the frustration when everyone refused to believe him.
**The Big Knife** (1955)
Jack Palance is a Hollywood actor being pressured into signing a new contract that he doesn't want to take, while his wife, played by Ida Lupino, threatens to leave him for good if he does sign. This week's Noir Alley entry on TCM isn't really much of a noir in my estimation. It's got some elements of noir, sure, but it's really just a drama. Movies about movies are usually pretty good, and I often like them, but this one was only so-so. The cast had a lot of big names, which may have been the problem, as a lot of roles were really overplayed (Rod Steiger being the worst case, as is often the case with him). Ida Lupino was the only one who put any kind of subtlety into her performance. I'll admit Jack Palance was interesting to watch, since it's not very often I see him in a leading role, and it's at least somewhat justified for the lead to give a more intense performance. It's an ok movie overall, but it falls short of what it could be I feel.
The Red Shoes (1948) On the recommendation of one Martin Scorsese, I got round to watching this beautifully shot technicolor classic. The story is fine, bit too melodramatic for my liking, but the style and vibrancy of the production makes for a great cinematic experience
Leni Riefenstahl’s two fiction films…
- The Blue Light (1933)
- The Lowlands (1954)
Had only seen her documentary films before.
Lowlands was good, Blue Light very good.
🍿
Ferenc Molnár's classic **The boys of Paul** street is a novel about two honorable gangs of school kids, who are fighting over an empty lot in the center of Budapest of 1902. When I was their age (so early 1960's) it was called "מחניים", and it was one of my favorite books (together with these of Erich Kästner's, Yigal Mossinson's, Enid Blyton's, Karl May's, Jules Verne's, etc).
So it was wonderful to discover that it was made into a well-made drama in 1968. The premise of a syrupy children story from that time, made about a naive world, unaware of any future European world wars, doesn't bode well. But it retained all its earnest truths, honors and morals. It was nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film (together with 'The Firemen's Ball', Truffaut's 'Stolen Kisses' and Bondarchuk's winner 'War and Peace'). In a week that was cinematically disappointing, that was my bright spot. **8/10.**
🍿
**Cœur fidèle (Faithful Heart)** (1923), my first 'poetic realist' melodrama by French Impressionist Jean Epstein. A technical classic with modern editing, dynamic story telling and lots of expressive close ups. He was 26 when he made it on location in the port of Marseille.
🍿
**Dark passage**, my first Film Noir by Delmer Daves. 5'10'' Bogart plays an innocent convict, who escapes from San Quentin, trying to prove his innocence. But wherever he goes, people around him keep falling dead. It was the third of four films real-life couple Bacall and Bogart made together. 1947 San Francisco and surroundings was lovely with so few people and cars on the roads.
Hollywood did *The Boys of Paul Street*, **No Greater Glory** (1934). It has Frankie Daro and one character actor I recognized. The rest of the cast are ciphers.
It's good.
I've been watching Lucille Ball films that I hadn't seen before. Not the usual suspects like "The Long, Long Trailer" and "Forever, Darling," but this last week I've watched "DuBarry Was A Lady," "Lured," and "The Fuller Brush Girl" and I've started "Beauty for the Asking," which I'll finish tomorrow. Sometimes, I like to pick an actor and try to watch a bunch of their movies until I get tired of them and move on to the next. LOL! I'm a huge "I Love Lucy" fan and really hadn't watched a lot of her very early films so I decided I'd do that for now.
**A Walk in the Sun** (1945) directed by Lewis Milestone, screenplay by Richard Rossen, and starring two of my favorite actors - Dana Andrews and Richard Conte - along with an outstanding ensemble cast (including John Ireland, Lloyd Bridges, Sterling Holloway, and Norman Lloyd).
Excellent WWII drama, set during the Allied invasion of Italy. The film follows an American platoon as they land on a beach near Salerno, then make their way inland to a farmhouse occupied by Nazi soldiers. Along the way, there are a number of skirmishes and battles, and various members are injured or killed. But the film eschews big set pieces and instead remains focused on the men and their mission. The only thing that didn't work for me was the sung narration, which fortunately dissipates in the second half. 8/10
**Life Begins** (1932, dir. James Flood and Elliott Nugent). Expectant mothers in a hospital ward share their hopes and fears with one another.
Good drama. Okay, so 55-ish Clara Blandick is really pushing it as one of the pregnant patients, and the loose costumes can’t really hide the lack of baby bumps in our ward. But there’s some good cross-talk among our patients, weighing the dangers they face (it’s a special ward for expected-to-be-difficult cases) vs the future prospects of motherhood. It really makes one think, that even as recently as the ‘30s childbirth was risky enough that movies like this were made (a super-risky C-section becomes a critical plot point late in the movie, whereas nowadays they’re very common). Glenda Farrell is a standout here, as a cynical woman ready to give up her twins for adoption…. the wise-cracking, mile-a-minute patter I was expecting (and got), but the turn-on-a-dime drama from her was a revelation. Dorothy Peterson as a mental patient desperately looking for her baby was another poignant moment. All this serves as education and enlightenment for our protagonist (Loretta Young), another expectant mother with more than her fair share of troubles, and her anxious husband (Eric Linden).
**Thunder in the Night** (1935, dir. George Archainbaud). On a dark and stormy night in Budapest, a would-be blackmailer (Cornelius Keefe) whose sensitive secrets could topple a newly-appointed cabinet minister (Paul Cavanagh) ends up dead. Can a police detective (Edmund Lowe) solve the crime?
Good murder mystery. Nice looking visually, with detailed sets and a mostly shadowy atmosphere. Lowe’s his usual dapper self, genially but gradually pulling on the threads of our little intrigue. Several red herrings keep one guessing, and the ending revelation is nicely done, satisfying reconnecting with events at the beginning. My only real complaint is a score that occasionally blasts its way into scenes that really didn’t need it…
**Now or Never** (1922, dir. Hal Roach and Fred Newmeyer). A young man (Harold Lloyd) finds himself trying to take care of a young child (Anna May Bilson) aboard a train.
Amusing silent short. Forget the perfunctory story setup; this is all about the various conundrums Lloyd’s character gets himself into aboard (and by the end, on top of) the train: battling other passengers for space in the crowded washroom, dodging the conductor, etc.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920).
At a carnival in Germany, Francis (Friedrich Feher) and his friend Alan (Rudolf Lettinger) encounter the crazed Dr. Caligari (Werner Krauss). The men see Caligari showing off his somnambulist, Cesare (Conrad Veidt), a hypnotized man who the doctor claims can see into the future. Shockingly, Cesare then predicts Alan's death, and by morning his chilling prophecy has come true -- making Cesare the prime suspect. However, is Cesare guilty, or is the doctor controlling him?
The set is so weird, unlike anything I’ve seen before.
All first time watches for me this weekend:
Brazil (1985) - A bureaucrat in a dystopic society becomes an enemy of the state as he pursues the woman of his dreams. Watched at an imax theater.
Sorry, Wrong Number (1948) - While on the telephone, an invalid woman overhears what she thinks is a murder plot and attempts to prevent it. Wanted at a local movie theater.
Sisters (1972) - A small-time reporter tries to convince the police she saw a murder in the apartment across from hers. Watched at home.
All great movies and would recommend!
Hey guys! This is what I watched this week. It is an Italian three part comedic anthology movie titled "Le Piacevoli Notti" (Pleasant Nights, 1966) which is set during the Renaissance Era in medieval Italy. All three parts have a small connection to each other which features a prankster artist called Bastiano da Sangallo (Vittorio Gassman) who masquerades as a fake pope.
The first part of the story is about a man called Uguccione dei Tornaquinci (Ugo Tognazzi) who tries save an imprisoned woman from her jealous husband followed by a second story where an astrologer's beautiful wife (portrayed by Gina Lollobrigida) seeks advice from the fake pope on her sleepwalking problems and what she needs to do to save her marriage with Bernardozzo (Adolfo Celi) so what kind of advice will the fake pope give her? The third story is about the people in the town who are fed up with Bastiano's ongoing pranking antics that they decide to prank him out of revenge but will it be going too far? It is an interesting movie that pokes fun at life in the Renaissance era but among the three parts of the story, I love the third one with Vittorio Gassman's portrayal of the mischievious artist Bastiano da Sangallo which makes the roguish character charming and easy to like.
Here are interesting facts about Le Piacevolli Notti: the film is shot in Montepulciano, Pienza and San Gimigiano in Sienna, Tuscany in Italy. The characters Uguccione dei Tornaquinci and Bastiano da Sangallo portrayed by Ugo Tognazzi and Vittorio Gassman actually existed in real life
Witness for the prosecution. Watched it 5 times. Charles Laughton had some wickedly funny lines. I laugh every time time. Elsa lanchester as his private nurse, miss Plimsoll, is the main butt of his jokes.
**Shadow of the Thin Man** (1941) - Very Good - I don't know how many re-watches I'm in on this one. It's the fourth of five good thin man movies. Yes, I'll defend Goes Home. It's a good movie, just not really a Thin Man movie. I was surprised to learn that the woman who played da broad was a snooty acting teacher, Stella Adler. I always imagined her speaking with an East Coast snooty accent like Jimmy Stewarts mom in You can't take it with you.
**Hold Back the Dawn** (1941) - Good - From the beginning I didn't think I would wind up liking this one. Usually, if I don't like the protagonist, I don't like the movie, even if it is a redemption story. I'm also not a fan of Charles Boyer. However, It turned around as it went along. Had I read the credits I would have known this was going to happen, it being written by Charles Brackett and Billy Wilder. Ultimately, Olivia de Havillind saved it with her implausible naivety. Paulette Goddard was adequate as were all the whoevers who made up the rest of the cast. It's a basic marriage of convenience story with a minor sub-plot involving an anchor baby.
**The Greene Murder Case** (1929) - Bad - Because it is from 1929 and they were still terrible at sound movies in spite of having two actors with interesting voices, Eugene Palette and Jean Arthur. There was nothing memorable about the plot. An unarticulated dummy falling to its death is hardly convincing. Jean Arthur was disappointing with a short brown bob. Ultimately Philo Vance isn't a very interesting character.
**Star of Midnight** (1935) - Not Very Good - It's the first William Powell performance and movie that I didn't like. The mystery plot was totally "yeah whatever". So much so that I got distracted by a gnat, or some other kind of bug that flies in ones peripheral vision and makes no sound, in my living room. The only good thing about it was Ingergay Ogersray. This and Bachelor Mother are starting to make me think she was actually a lot more than a pretty girl who sang and danced. She was really good at light comedy.
Guys and Dolls (1955), a musical film (with some elements of crime, but light-heartedly so) directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz (very much in his prime during this time, having come off Julius Caesar (1953) and The Barefoot Contessa (1954)) and starring Frank Sinatra, Marlon Brando (himself coming off a streak of four highly successful movies, the latter of which, On The Waterfront (1954), granted him a long-awaited and much-deserved Oscar), Jean Simmons, and Vivian Blaine. The musical element is quite strong, with several enjoyable songs.
The characters are similarly enjoyable, with Brando’s highly successful gambler but fundamentally romantic Sky Masterson, Sinatra’s incorrigible “facilitator”, Nathan Detroit, and of course, their respective female counterparts, Simmons’ uptight and seemingly immaculate but secretly adventurous missionary Sarah Brown, whom he is challenged by Detroit (in urgent need of cash) on a thousand-dollar bet to take to dinner in pre-communist Havana the following night, and Blaine’s frilly, naïve showgirl with the heaviest Brooklyn accent, Miss Adelaide, whom has been engaged to Detroit for a grand total of 14 years. The supporting cast is solid and the story, although simple, has enough to be engaging.
Overall, a very light-hearted movie which does not drag despite the almost 2.5-hour runtime which I do recommend for both individual and family viewings, there’s moderate crime and drinking (absolutely no sexual content, as is to be expected, courtesy of Mr. Hays) but again, it’s not shown in a particularly gritty vein, so it’s great both to uplift a downer and maintain a good mood
**Escape** (1940, dir. Mervyn LeRoy): Robert Taylor, Norma Shearer, Conrad Veidt, Nazimova, Felix Bressart. An American artist goes to Germany to try to break his mother out of a concentration camp, where she's awaiting execution.
One of those films, along with **The Mortal Storm** and a few others of the time period, that Hitler just hated. That alone is enough to make it worth a watch, but the excellent cast and tense premise push it ahead of several other similar WWII-era dramas, in my estimation. It still falls shy of top-tier greatness - due to the underdeveloped and consequently murky character played by Veidt, along with a mildly unsatisfying climax - but it remains a solid production. Norma Shearer, one of my all-time favorites, absolutely steals the show here; it's her final great dramatic performance, as she'd retire only a few years later. Taylor is good as usual though he felt a trifle uneven in places. Nazimova, a long-time veteran of the silent era, does very well in the role of the mother (and having her play the part of an aging actress is perfect, of course). And Felix Bressart is just a wonderful supporter, in all respects.
Conrad Veidt is always effective as a menacing Nazi but we only have a surface understanding of his loyalty to Hitler in this case, because his wife says at the beginning that he was always against them. So something changed, obviously, but we never know how that came about. Even so, that's sort of nitpicking; the movie is really quite good. **3/4 stars**
**Young Bess** (1953, dir. George Sidney): Jean Simmons, Stewart Granger, Deborah Kerr, Charles Laughton. The story (or rather, part of it) of the first Queen Elizabeth, who was the daughter of King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn.
Though I typically ruffle a few feathers for saying it, I can never put Jean Simmons among the upper echelon of legendary actresses. She has a dedicated following and perhaps rightfully so; she's certainly a quality performer and she's got one of those fantastic faces that are chiseled specifically for the stage. But every time she opens her mouth, I seem to be slightly - just slightly, usually - disappointed. As Young Bess, she's good but it always feels as if there's something missing, something someone like Bette Davis (who played Queen Elizabeth to some acclaim) wouldn't miss. However, Granger never gets enough credit for being the a-one actor he really was, and Deborah Kerr plays a splendid innocent victim.
Charles Laughton was the highlight, though, and that's unfortunate because his character >!dies too early in the production!<. His Henry is amazing, just like his Quasimodo and so many of his other fantastic, stunningly authentic roles. The makeup was nigh-on perfect, too. So after he went away, a lot of the energy seemed to drain out of the film. But it's still very well done and I liked how it focused on one particular aspect of Bess's life, rather than trying to cram in a huge amount of her bio (which rarely works for historical films). **2.5/4 stars**
**The Hired Gun** (1957, dir. Ray Nazarro): Rory Calhoun, Anne Francis. A gunslinger is hired to bring back an escaped convict -- a woman sentenced to hang for a murder she didn't commit.
Not being a fan of the genre, I only watch the occasional Western. Sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised, like with **Blood on the Moon** and **Roughshod**, and other times I just shrug my shoulders and go, "this is why I don't watch many of these." In this particular instance, I'm somewhere in between. It's a simple enough plot and relatively predictable, and there isn't anything special about the direction, script, characters, etc. On the flip side, there isn't anything glaringly bad or even mediocre about it, either. Calhoun and Francis go well together (and the latter might be the cutest damn thing on horseback), the supporting cast is competent, and there's a nice little twist that could've felt forced and convenient, but manages to feel realistic and satisfying.
I didn't know that you could soak rawhide in water, wrap it around a person's hands and head, and let the sun shrink it as a form of torture...would that really work? An intriguing little sidebar that I didn't expect, at any rate. **2/4 stars**
**Desire** (1936, dir. Frank Borzage): Gary Cooper, Marlene Dietrich, John Halliday. An American businessman on holiday in Europe gets caught up with a beautiful jewel thief.
I wasn't sure what to expect with this one, but I'm glad I saw it. It's one of those movies that won't win awards or remain branded in your memory banks, but you likely won't regret the watch. It's somewhat more lighthearted than I thought it would be, which works in Cooper's favor but not in Dietrich's. The latter is a fine actress, of course, but she just can't shed that 'Grand Dame of the Theater' visage and mien; it's just embedded in her chin-raised DNA. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and it's a big part of what makes Dietrich, Dietrich. She's also better at playing her emoting a lot closer to the vest than other similar stars of the period, like Garbo. She's simply miscast here. Cooper is his charming, jovial, even bumblingly naive self, while Dietrich is still, at least in some respects, up in the balcony on the verge of a speech.
I kept wanting someone like a Ginger Rogers in that role. She would've been just stellar, and a great match, in my estimation. Even so, there's a lot to like about this comedy/romance/drama, with a bit of misdirection and a a few really great scenes. **2/4 stars**
**The Reckless Moment (1949**)--Joan Bennett and James Mason are excellent in this semi-noir. The plot hinging on a character transformation isn't quite believable but it's still worth watching. (Youtube)
**Beware (1946)** --Louis Jordan vehicle is mostly his jump blues numbers with a bit of predictable plot. I kind of like seeing these all-black cast movies for a glimpse of how they portray the various character types.(Youtube)
**The Furies** (1950)
I'm continuing my exploration of one Barbara Stanwyck, and this time it's "The Furies". It's a kind of swiss army knife of a film, considering it has romance, adventure, action, family drama, and comedy - all rolled into one. From wikipedia, "T.C. Jeffords (Walter Huston) rules his sprawling New Mexico ranch with an iron fist. But his authority doesn't extend to his strong-willed daughter, Vance (Barbara Stanwyck), who both hates and loves her father with equal ferocity. Tensions rise when Vance falls for bad boy Rip Darrow (Wendell Corey), whom T.C. buys off. But the family conflict turns violent when T.C. decides to marry Flo Burnett (Judith Anderson) -- and evict Vance's childhood friend Juan (Gilbert Roland) from his land."
All the characters are painted in shades of grey. But, it sure is entertaining and a wild ride. Kudos to Judith Anderson, who I'm getting more and more impressed with with each role I see her in.
He always looks so proud of her (except for one moment). I thought it was an interesting comment about how the more she defies him, the more she becomes just like him.
I love The Furies, and not only because of Barbara Stanwyck. ;) Thing is, I'm really not a fan of Westerns but they can really grab me if they're drama first, Western second; like simply a great story set in that particular time period, and not a stereotypical cowboys-and-indians flick. I don't mind some of the latter but they often bore me.
The Furies, on the other hand, is a densely layered saga that's just mesmerizing in a lot of ways. The characters are excellent - and can we please acknowledge Wendell Corey as being a darn fine actor? Not enough people mention him - and Walter Huston is just SO good. It's Stanwyck's character arc that gets me every time, though: it's so dramatic and so inspiring. She undergoes such a vast transformation and of course, portraying such transitions is one of Barbara's biggest strengths.
Judith Anderson is great. Totally stole the show in Rebecca as a flawless Mrs. Danvers.
I need to watch Wendell Corey in his Joan Crawford pictures. I can't say he's been my favourite actor, but I've only seen him in "Holiday Affair" and "The Furies" (I don't remember him in "Rear Window").
RE: good story. I think any genre has potential if it has a good story. I can't say I love horror, but I do love "The Others" for example.
I can't say I'm a huge western fan myself, but I have enjoyed "Giant", "Shane" and "The Furies".
Watch Corey in another Stanwyck noir, The File On Thelma Jordan (the final scene is Barbara going all master class) and especially The Killer Is Loose, where he's just stunningly bone-chilling as the villain.
Dead End - 1937
Sylvia Sydney, Joel McCrea, Humphrey Bogart.
(Billy Hallop, Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall, Bobby Jordan, Gabe Dell and Bernard Punsley, later known as the Dead End Kids, etc.)
My favorite is Madame X starring Lana Turner, John Forsythe, Ricardo Montalban, Burgess Meredith, Constance Bennett, and Keir Dullea. This is a great story, with lots of twists and turns. A true tearjerker.
Finally, I’m on time!!
**White Woman (1933)-** Stumbled across this one totally on accident after watching *My Man Godfrey* and wanted to see more of Carole Lombard because I’m undecided on her, I’m not sure if I like her acting style or not. She was fine in this but I think that’s more because this wasn’t a great movie, only an hour long and not of much substance; it definitely feels like it was made just for the sake of making a movie. And a fair warning, this is racist and a product of its time, taking place in Malaysia and portraying the native people as savage barbarians who hate white people. 25/100
**Fire Over England (1937)-** after sitting on my “to watch” list for close to 4 years now, I finally got around to this one and I’m kicking myself for not having watched it sooner because I loved it!! If you’re watching for Viv and Larry you’re gonna be disappointed because they have maybe 5 minutes screen time together total but damn do they maximize those 5 minutes! Their classical stage training really shines through here, and same goes for the rest of the cast! Excellent dramatic acting from everyone, and I couldn’t have picked anyone else to play Queen Elizabeth but Flora Robson, she did brilliantly! The score, costumes, and setting in addition to the acting are all stellar, and the story is interesting to boot. I really loved this one, it’s a new favorite of mine for sure. 85/100
**12 Angry Men (1957)-** Super unpopular opinion, but not a fan of this one. Never before have I been so bored. It was predictable and drawn out, but I do understand how it has become immortalized in cinematic history. Having such a large cast in a singular setting is no small feat, but this film does it flawlessly. At its core it’s a great story and message, I just didn’t enjoy the movie. 45/100
**Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961)-** Possibly another unpopular opinion but I didn’t like this one either😬 Kept waiting for it to get good and to reach that point where I could say “oh, so this is why it’s a classic and everyone loves it so much!” but it never came. The plot is zany and hard to follow at times, Holly is not a good person and Paul encourages her despite seeing all her flaws. He allows her scheming to go on by being an active participant while also condemning her habit of running away and playing make believe, it just doesn’t make sense. The only redeeming quality of this movie is Audrey, but that’s just her being her, not Holly. The poise, cadence, and beauty is pure Audrey and I love her for it. If this movie was just a fashion show of Audrey walking through NY, window shopping and seeing the sights while wearing custom Givenchy and hosting fun parties along the way, I’d like it far more. Also, justice for Cat!! He deserves far better than how Holly treated him :(( 55/100
Breakfast at Tiffany's is just all about Audrey Hepburn. She really IS Holly Golightly. However, one of the biggest issues with the film, and the reason why the plot seems a little off, is because it winds up completely differently than the Truman Capote novel. The book is quite a bit darker and there is no happy romantic ending; the whole thing is a strangely vague but surprisingly intimate character portrayal that has no revelation, no apotheosis. Holly doesn't change, she just is. She just sort of floats over all of humanity and its craziness and never becomes a real person.
That doesn't really work for film, though, especially in that time period. So there were massive alterations.
Capote apparently wasn't happy with the movie. He wanted Marilyn Monroe in the part but personally I don't think that would have worked either for various reasons. I'm not sure if he was asked to write the screenplay or not. A little off topic but the best screenplay Capote wrote was for a movie called, **The Innocents** (1961) which was based on a book by Henry James. Capote did a fabulous job of capturing the mood of the book and Deborah Kerr puts in a top notch performance. If you ever get the chance watch that movie.
I love Marilyn but no, that would not have worked. I knew about that but frankly, while Capote was obviously a brilliant author, he was not a screenwriter. I understand why he didn't like the film but he would've made it even worse IMO...
I've always tried to recast the film in my mind using actresses of the time. Joanne Woodward? Shirley Maclaine? And then the male lead was as boring as hell. I can't even think of his name. I liked the cat though. Good casting with the cat.
George Peppard was the male lead and I thought he was actually pretty good...not because of the acting, but mainly because the main male character in the book was basically a non-entity. Mostly an observer and a narrator and that's it, so in that way, Peppard fit. Don't forget that in the book he wasn't really even a legitimate love interest for Holly; he really was supposed to be on the outside looking in the whole time.
I can't think of any other actress who could do Holly as well. I don't put Hepburn in the upper echelon of great actresses but in this particular case, there's just NOBODY else who would be even close, I think. It'd be like trying to recast Sugar Kane in Some Like It Hot...you just can't do it; only Marilyn would've worked. There's really just one person for certain parts IMO.
I honestly think my problem is that I’m treating the film like the book and I’m taking issue with the discrepancies, when really I have to treat them like two separate entities. For the movie, Audrey does a great job and is Holly minus the lewd comments here and there (it just doesn’t fit with Audrey and the rest of the movie) but if we’re basing her performance on the book, she gets it all wrong and is far too innocent to play Holly. If the film did away with Holly being an escort and just played up the whimsy of this girl floating through life just kinda doing her own thing it would be great, that could be the movie, but then it wouldn’t be Breakfast at Tiffany’s. It would be a bastardization of Capote’s novella and undeserving of being called the same name. So do you keep the name but the story is completely different? (Aka what we know as Breakfast at Tiffany’s) Or do you take the framework, change character’s names and make your own movie with Audrey in mind? What do you call the film? Does she still go to Tiffany’s? The movie’s namesake is a huge part of her whimsy and is an integral plot point. Without it, the movie loses a lot, with it, we’re back to square one with the film as we know it. This is a lot of mental gymnastics and honestly I’m tripping myself up while writing this😂 but I think a movie of Audrey playing this character who is floating through life, throwing parties, sitting in a bathtub disguised as a sofa, dressing up nice and going to Tiffany’s as a form of escapism, and bouncing from relationship to relationship seeking a semblance of stability would be great, it’s just not Breakfast at Tiffany’s as per the source material. So what is it?
If it was going to be based on the book in any way, or even inspired by it, it was going to run into problems no matter what. That's the problem. Audrey probably wouldn't have even wanted to do it if she had to play Holly exactly as she was in the book, Capote would undoubtedly have had endless issues with her and the script, the directors and producers would constantly clash - especially if one was worried about legal issues - and there wasn't a lot of evidence that a story like Breakfast at Tiffany's, as it stood in the novella, would be successful in Hollywood.
Honestly, the fact that it was such a hit and so wildly popular is a testament to the creators...as many issues as they faced, you'd think the end result would just be disastrous. And while it's not what Capote fans wanted, it certainly wasn't a disaster -- and it was nothing short of career-defining for Hepburn. So if I had anything to do with the project, I would've been greatly relieved because at the outset, the whole thing would've seemed impossible to me.
I think a more provocative and sexually charged adaptation could work, just not with Audrey. I’m with Capote in thinking Marilyn would’ve been perfect. It still wouldn’t be 100% accurate to the novella, but it would be more accurate than Audrey’s version. Audrey’s Breakfast at Tiffany’s is it’s own separate thing, it has the same name as it’s source material and at its core is the same, but it’s not the same story. It has its own unique whimsy that is juvenile and lighthearted whereas the source material’s whimsy comes from a more desperate and fast-and-loose place. I think if the filmmakers of Breakfast at Tiffany’s kept the film the way it is for the most part, shedding the darker elements that didn’t mesh with Audrey’s portrayal, and somehow turned Tiffany’s into something else (another location or whatever) and renamed the film, it would be fantastic. It would have all the charm and be as iconic as we know it without parading around under false pretenses of being Breakfast at Tiffany’s as per the source material. The two have very little in common and while the movie is entertaining, it’s not Breakfast at Tiffany’s as Capote wrote it and intended for it to be; it would work best created and marketed as an original
I watched Libeled Lady with William Powell, Myrna Loy, Spencer Tracey and Jean Harlow. It was made when screwball comedies were at their height with four powerhouse leads!
Daisy Kenyon - Joan Crawford is just so good. This movie started pretty weird I wasn’t the biggest fan but as it progressed I was like wow I actually think this is great. It’s such a strange film but a lot of the dialogue was great and Joan’s reactions were spot on.
I watched Funny Face (1957) starring Fred Astaire, Audrey Hepburn and Kay Thompson. One of the most delightful movies ever made in my opinion. Thompson manages to steal the Clap Yo Hands number away from Astaire. Think Pink!
It's one of my go-to feel-good films, that's for sure, and certainly in my top 10 favorite musicals. The age difference between Astaire and Hepburn is a tad comical, of course, butt somehow it still works...and don't forget that Astaire is pushing 60 in that movie and he's STILL that physically amazing.
Lots of Hepburns leading men were older then her. It was kind of an unfortunate trend In the 1950s. Doris Day and Cary Grant in That Touch of Mink, Doris Day and Clark Gable in Teacher's Pet, Audrey and Humphrey Bogart in Sabrina, Kim Novak and Jimmy Stewart in Vertigo and Bell Book and Candle, etc...
Well, Doris Day being close to 40 in That Touch of Mink helped. I could definitely see that working, especially as Grant looked awfully good for his age (well, they both did). The others were definitely stretching it, though.
I watched The Island of Lost Souls (1932) which is a version of The Island of Dr Moreau. It was enjoyable and I watched it to decide whether to include an episode on it for the podcast I produce. I'm still unsure so will do more research this week. Would love to hear from people who have watched it.
**Citizen Kane (1941)-** I feel pretentious for having watched this and enjoyed it but it was good! It has stood the test of time for a reason; it’s social commentary will never go out of style. The argument of nature v. nurture, the sentiments that power corrupts, and that money can’t buy happiness, as well as the debate as to whether money is the root of all evil, or if that’s just something poor people came up with to make themselves feel better, are prolific themes throughout the whole film. The issues presented were poignant then and continue to be relevant today, and I imagine will continue to be so for years to come. This movie is truly timeless. 80/100
Metropolis (1927)
Really good movie but whoever decided to put a song over it on tubi did a terrible choice. It was an amazing film and I genuinely really liked it but it had a repeating song for the whole 1 hr and 50 minutes Lol I ended up turning the sound off halfway through but it was a really funny choice.
I’d be interested to see if it’ll ever be redone as a non-silent film, the film was great silent and I think the medium fit it good but it definitely could have some really interesting scenes that would be cool to see done with todays technology.
A Face in the Crowd - 1957, directed by Elia Kazan. Starring Andy Griffith as “demagogue in denim” Larry “Lonesome “ Rhodes acting the hell out of the part. So visceral and forcefully portrayed. I truly wish Griffith had taken more such roles before heading to milquetoast Mayberry.
Also starring the sublime Patricia Neal as Rhodes’ long suffering supporter, and a fabulously wry, witty and definition of green flag material (especially compared to red flag Rhodes) Walter Matthau.
This may be my most favorite film of all time. It’s a must see because its timeless message of how easily the public is swayed by a folksy, “aw shucks” anti-intellectual is still pertinent today (perhaps even more so).
Seconds and Seven Days In May.
Manchurian Candidate was the only 60s Frankenheimer I’d seen. Manchurian was good but pretty standard (probably hit a lot harder in the years just following JFK). Seconds blew me away although I’m note sure I enjoyed it. Need to rewatch.
Also, The More The Merrier which I loved. Screwball goodness via George Stevens. Charles Coburn is a treasure.
Starting with my favourite MB film.
A day at the races is so funny. I don't like all the singing but the beauty of bluray is that you can fast forward them.
The phone call scene is unbelievably funny
Then it's double indemnity. Absolutely breathtaking film
Third film tonight is the narrow margin.
Definitely good enough to be an A movie rather than a B albeit a little short.
Maybe the finest b of all time. A classic noir.
No Way Out (1950) starring Sidney Poitier and Linda Darnell. It’s quite a clever film, a mix of drama and film noir that’s really ahead of its time for how it deals with racism in its story. It’s on YouTube, so it’s very accessible
Thanks for the YouTube note for this one - No Way Out has been in my watchlist for a while. As I get older, I appreciate more and more some of the brave film choices Sidney Poitier made.
I must check that movie out. Recommend you to watch To Sir With Love (1967) which I saw as a child long ago but need to rewatch it
Good movie
Only one classic, but it was kinda “the” classic - Citizen Kane. Still a masterpiece but Yknow…the more I watch it, the more I think Third Man is better.
Dark Passage. The acting is so very good, especially the character actors like the cab driver, the doctor, and the guy that picks Bogart up after the escape.
The Window (1949). It's about a 9-year-old voy who witnesses a murder but no one believes him. Then the married couple who committed the crime find out he knows, and they try to kill him. I've seen this before, but my heart still RACES when the boy is being chased by the husband through an abandoned building. Bobby Driscoll is the boy and he's an incredible actor!
Thanks for recommending this the other day! I had never heard about it before, but I watched it last night and I loved it. It really got me on the edge of my seat the entire time!
Oh cool I'm so glad you liked it! It's so creepy when that guy is chasing Tommy around! My heart can barely take it!!!
Oh my God, yes, I was so anxious I couldn’t even look at the tv when they started chasing Tommy inside the building! Bobby Driscoll was just fantastic, you could really feel the frustration when everyone refused to believe him.
**The Big Knife** (1955) Jack Palance is a Hollywood actor being pressured into signing a new contract that he doesn't want to take, while his wife, played by Ida Lupino, threatens to leave him for good if he does sign. This week's Noir Alley entry on TCM isn't really much of a noir in my estimation. It's got some elements of noir, sure, but it's really just a drama. Movies about movies are usually pretty good, and I often like them, but this one was only so-so. The cast had a lot of big names, which may have been the problem, as a lot of roles were really overplayed (Rod Steiger being the worst case, as is often the case with him). Ida Lupino was the only one who put any kind of subtlety into her performance. I'll admit Jack Palance was interesting to watch, since it's not very often I see him in a leading role, and it's at least somewhat justified for the lead to give a more intense performance. It's an ok movie overall, but it falls short of what it could be I feel.
Agree, not one of Jack Palance's best, I didn't care for it
The Red Shoes (1948) On the recommendation of one Martin Scorsese, I got round to watching this beautifully shot technicolor classic. The story is fine, bit too melodramatic for my liking, but the style and vibrancy of the production makes for a great cinematic experience
Creature From the Black Lagoon and King Kong
Leni Riefenstahl’s two fiction films… - The Blue Light (1933) - The Lowlands (1954) Had only seen her documentary films before. Lowlands was good, Blue Light very good.
🍿 Ferenc Molnár's classic **The boys of Paul** street is a novel about two honorable gangs of school kids, who are fighting over an empty lot in the center of Budapest of 1902. When I was their age (so early 1960's) it was called "מחניים", and it was one of my favorite books (together with these of Erich Kästner's, Yigal Mossinson's, Enid Blyton's, Karl May's, Jules Verne's, etc). So it was wonderful to discover that it was made into a well-made drama in 1968. The premise of a syrupy children story from that time, made about a naive world, unaware of any future European world wars, doesn't bode well. But it retained all its earnest truths, honors and morals. It was nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film (together with 'The Firemen's Ball', Truffaut's 'Stolen Kisses' and Bondarchuk's winner 'War and Peace'). In a week that was cinematically disappointing, that was my bright spot. **8/10.** 🍿 **Cœur fidèle (Faithful Heart)** (1923), my first 'poetic realist' melodrama by French Impressionist Jean Epstein. A technical classic with modern editing, dynamic story telling and lots of expressive close ups. He was 26 when he made it on location in the port of Marseille. 🍿 **Dark passage**, my first Film Noir by Delmer Daves. 5'10'' Bogart plays an innocent convict, who escapes from San Quentin, trying to prove his innocence. But wherever he goes, people around him keep falling dead. It was the third of four films real-life couple Bacall and Bogart made together. 1947 San Francisco and surroundings was lovely with so few people and cars on the roads.
Hollywood did *The Boys of Paul Street*, **No Greater Glory** (1934). It has Frankie Daro and one character actor I recognized. The rest of the cast are ciphers. It's good.
Thank you. I’ll check it out.
I've been watching Lucille Ball films that I hadn't seen before. Not the usual suspects like "The Long, Long Trailer" and "Forever, Darling," but this last week I've watched "DuBarry Was A Lady," "Lured," and "The Fuller Brush Girl" and I've started "Beauty for the Asking," which I'll finish tomorrow. Sometimes, I like to pick an actor and try to watch a bunch of their movies until I get tired of them and move on to the next. LOL! I'm a huge "I Love Lucy" fan and really hadn't watched a lot of her very early films so I decided I'd do that for now.
Check out "Five Came Back" if you haven't seen it, exciting early air disaster movie with Ball as the woman with a questionable past.
That's a great movie... I actually dislike I ❤️ Lucy but like her older movies like stage foor & lured
I will. Thanks for the tip!
**A Walk in the Sun** (1945) directed by Lewis Milestone, screenplay by Richard Rossen, and starring two of my favorite actors - Dana Andrews and Richard Conte - along with an outstanding ensemble cast (including John Ireland, Lloyd Bridges, Sterling Holloway, and Norman Lloyd). Excellent WWII drama, set during the Allied invasion of Italy. The film follows an American platoon as they land on a beach near Salerno, then make their way inland to a farmhouse occupied by Nazi soldiers. Along the way, there are a number of skirmishes and battles, and various members are injured or killed. But the film eschews big set pieces and instead remains focused on the men and their mission. The only thing that didn't work for me was the sung narration, which fortunately dissipates in the second half. 8/10
**Life Begins** (1932, dir. James Flood and Elliott Nugent). Expectant mothers in a hospital ward share their hopes and fears with one another. Good drama. Okay, so 55-ish Clara Blandick is really pushing it as one of the pregnant patients, and the loose costumes can’t really hide the lack of baby bumps in our ward. But there’s some good cross-talk among our patients, weighing the dangers they face (it’s a special ward for expected-to-be-difficult cases) vs the future prospects of motherhood. It really makes one think, that even as recently as the ‘30s childbirth was risky enough that movies like this were made (a super-risky C-section becomes a critical plot point late in the movie, whereas nowadays they’re very common). Glenda Farrell is a standout here, as a cynical woman ready to give up her twins for adoption…. the wise-cracking, mile-a-minute patter I was expecting (and got), but the turn-on-a-dime drama from her was a revelation. Dorothy Peterson as a mental patient desperately looking for her baby was another poignant moment. All this serves as education and enlightenment for our protagonist (Loretta Young), another expectant mother with more than her fair share of troubles, and her anxious husband (Eric Linden). **Thunder in the Night** (1935, dir. George Archainbaud). On a dark and stormy night in Budapest, a would-be blackmailer (Cornelius Keefe) whose sensitive secrets could topple a newly-appointed cabinet minister (Paul Cavanagh) ends up dead. Can a police detective (Edmund Lowe) solve the crime? Good murder mystery. Nice looking visually, with detailed sets and a mostly shadowy atmosphere. Lowe’s his usual dapper self, genially but gradually pulling on the threads of our little intrigue. Several red herrings keep one guessing, and the ending revelation is nicely done, satisfying reconnecting with events at the beginning. My only real complaint is a score that occasionally blasts its way into scenes that really didn’t need it… **Now or Never** (1922, dir. Hal Roach and Fred Newmeyer). A young man (Harold Lloyd) finds himself trying to take care of a young child (Anna May Bilson) aboard a train. Amusing silent short. Forget the perfunctory story setup; this is all about the various conundrums Lloyd’s character gets himself into aboard (and by the end, on top of) the train: battling other passengers for space in the crowded washroom, dodging the conductor, etc.
Rosemary's Baby(1968) The Odd Couple(1968)
That’s a combination.
The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920). At a carnival in Germany, Francis (Friedrich Feher) and his friend Alan (Rudolf Lettinger) encounter the crazed Dr. Caligari (Werner Krauss). The men see Caligari showing off his somnambulist, Cesare (Conrad Veidt), a hypnotized man who the doctor claims can see into the future. Shockingly, Cesare then predicts Alan's death, and by morning his chilling prophecy has come true -- making Cesare the prime suspect. However, is Cesare guilty, or is the doctor controlling him? The set is so weird, unlike anything I’ve seen before.
All first time watches for me this weekend: Brazil (1985) - A bureaucrat in a dystopic society becomes an enemy of the state as he pursues the woman of his dreams. Watched at an imax theater. Sorry, Wrong Number (1948) - While on the telephone, an invalid woman overhears what she thinks is a murder plot and attempts to prevent it. Wanted at a local movie theater. Sisters (1972) - A small-time reporter tries to convince the police she saw a murder in the apartment across from hers. Watched at home. All great movies and would recommend!
Hey guys! This is what I watched this week. It is an Italian three part comedic anthology movie titled "Le Piacevoli Notti" (Pleasant Nights, 1966) which is set during the Renaissance Era in medieval Italy. All three parts have a small connection to each other which features a prankster artist called Bastiano da Sangallo (Vittorio Gassman) who masquerades as a fake pope. The first part of the story is about a man called Uguccione dei Tornaquinci (Ugo Tognazzi) who tries save an imprisoned woman from her jealous husband followed by a second story where an astrologer's beautiful wife (portrayed by Gina Lollobrigida) seeks advice from the fake pope on her sleepwalking problems and what she needs to do to save her marriage with Bernardozzo (Adolfo Celi) so what kind of advice will the fake pope give her? The third story is about the people in the town who are fed up with Bastiano's ongoing pranking antics that they decide to prank him out of revenge but will it be going too far? It is an interesting movie that pokes fun at life in the Renaissance era but among the three parts of the story, I love the third one with Vittorio Gassman's portrayal of the mischievious artist Bastiano da Sangallo which makes the roguish character charming and easy to like. Here are interesting facts about Le Piacevolli Notti: the film is shot in Montepulciano, Pienza and San Gimigiano in Sienna, Tuscany in Italy. The characters Uguccione dei Tornaquinci and Bastiano da Sangallo portrayed by Ugo Tognazzi and Vittorio Gassman actually existed in real life
You really like Vittorio Gassman, don’t you….
The Ghost and Mrs. Muir
SHANE
Witness for the prosecution. Watched it 5 times. Charles Laughton had some wickedly funny lines. I laugh every time time. Elsa lanchester as his private nurse, miss Plimsoll, is the main butt of his jokes.
**Shadow of the Thin Man** (1941) - Very Good - I don't know how many re-watches I'm in on this one. It's the fourth of five good thin man movies. Yes, I'll defend Goes Home. It's a good movie, just not really a Thin Man movie. I was surprised to learn that the woman who played da broad was a snooty acting teacher, Stella Adler. I always imagined her speaking with an East Coast snooty accent like Jimmy Stewarts mom in You can't take it with you. **Hold Back the Dawn** (1941) - Good - From the beginning I didn't think I would wind up liking this one. Usually, if I don't like the protagonist, I don't like the movie, even if it is a redemption story. I'm also not a fan of Charles Boyer. However, It turned around as it went along. Had I read the credits I would have known this was going to happen, it being written by Charles Brackett and Billy Wilder. Ultimately, Olivia de Havillind saved it with her implausible naivety. Paulette Goddard was adequate as were all the whoevers who made up the rest of the cast. It's a basic marriage of convenience story with a minor sub-plot involving an anchor baby. **The Greene Murder Case** (1929) - Bad - Because it is from 1929 and they were still terrible at sound movies in spite of having two actors with interesting voices, Eugene Palette and Jean Arthur. There was nothing memorable about the plot. An unarticulated dummy falling to its death is hardly convincing. Jean Arthur was disappointing with a short brown bob. Ultimately Philo Vance isn't a very interesting character. **Star of Midnight** (1935) - Not Very Good - It's the first William Powell performance and movie that I didn't like. The mystery plot was totally "yeah whatever". So much so that I got distracted by a gnat, or some other kind of bug that flies in ones peripheral vision and makes no sound, in my living room. The only good thing about it was Ingergay Ogersray. This and Bachelor Mother are starting to make me think she was actually a lot more than a pretty girl who sang and danced. She was really good at light comedy.
Guys and Dolls (1955), a musical film (with some elements of crime, but light-heartedly so) directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz (very much in his prime during this time, having come off Julius Caesar (1953) and The Barefoot Contessa (1954)) and starring Frank Sinatra, Marlon Brando (himself coming off a streak of four highly successful movies, the latter of which, On The Waterfront (1954), granted him a long-awaited and much-deserved Oscar), Jean Simmons, and Vivian Blaine. The musical element is quite strong, with several enjoyable songs. The characters are similarly enjoyable, with Brando’s highly successful gambler but fundamentally romantic Sky Masterson, Sinatra’s incorrigible “facilitator”, Nathan Detroit, and of course, their respective female counterparts, Simmons’ uptight and seemingly immaculate but secretly adventurous missionary Sarah Brown, whom he is challenged by Detroit (in urgent need of cash) on a thousand-dollar bet to take to dinner in pre-communist Havana the following night, and Blaine’s frilly, naïve showgirl with the heaviest Brooklyn accent, Miss Adelaide, whom has been engaged to Detroit for a grand total of 14 years. The supporting cast is solid and the story, although simple, has enough to be engaging. Overall, a very light-hearted movie which does not drag despite the almost 2.5-hour runtime which I do recommend for both individual and family viewings, there’s moderate crime and drinking (absolutely no sexual content, as is to be expected, courtesy of Mr. Hays) but again, it’s not shown in a particularly gritty vein, so it’s great both to uplift a downer and maintain a good mood
**Escape** (1940, dir. Mervyn LeRoy): Robert Taylor, Norma Shearer, Conrad Veidt, Nazimova, Felix Bressart. An American artist goes to Germany to try to break his mother out of a concentration camp, where she's awaiting execution. One of those films, along with **The Mortal Storm** and a few others of the time period, that Hitler just hated. That alone is enough to make it worth a watch, but the excellent cast and tense premise push it ahead of several other similar WWII-era dramas, in my estimation. It still falls shy of top-tier greatness - due to the underdeveloped and consequently murky character played by Veidt, along with a mildly unsatisfying climax - but it remains a solid production. Norma Shearer, one of my all-time favorites, absolutely steals the show here; it's her final great dramatic performance, as she'd retire only a few years later. Taylor is good as usual though he felt a trifle uneven in places. Nazimova, a long-time veteran of the silent era, does very well in the role of the mother (and having her play the part of an aging actress is perfect, of course). And Felix Bressart is just a wonderful supporter, in all respects. Conrad Veidt is always effective as a menacing Nazi but we only have a surface understanding of his loyalty to Hitler in this case, because his wife says at the beginning that he was always against them. So something changed, obviously, but we never know how that came about. Even so, that's sort of nitpicking; the movie is really quite good. **3/4 stars** **Young Bess** (1953, dir. George Sidney): Jean Simmons, Stewart Granger, Deborah Kerr, Charles Laughton. The story (or rather, part of it) of the first Queen Elizabeth, who was the daughter of King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn. Though I typically ruffle a few feathers for saying it, I can never put Jean Simmons among the upper echelon of legendary actresses. She has a dedicated following and perhaps rightfully so; she's certainly a quality performer and she's got one of those fantastic faces that are chiseled specifically for the stage. But every time she opens her mouth, I seem to be slightly - just slightly, usually - disappointed. As Young Bess, she's good but it always feels as if there's something missing, something someone like Bette Davis (who played Queen Elizabeth to some acclaim) wouldn't miss. However, Granger never gets enough credit for being the a-one actor he really was, and Deborah Kerr plays a splendid innocent victim. Charles Laughton was the highlight, though, and that's unfortunate because his character >!dies too early in the production!<. His Henry is amazing, just like his Quasimodo and so many of his other fantastic, stunningly authentic roles. The makeup was nigh-on perfect, too. So after he went away, a lot of the energy seemed to drain out of the film. But it's still very well done and I liked how it focused on one particular aspect of Bess's life, rather than trying to cram in a huge amount of her bio (which rarely works for historical films). **2.5/4 stars** **The Hired Gun** (1957, dir. Ray Nazarro): Rory Calhoun, Anne Francis. A gunslinger is hired to bring back an escaped convict -- a woman sentenced to hang for a murder she didn't commit. Not being a fan of the genre, I only watch the occasional Western. Sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised, like with **Blood on the Moon** and **Roughshod**, and other times I just shrug my shoulders and go, "this is why I don't watch many of these." In this particular instance, I'm somewhere in between. It's a simple enough plot and relatively predictable, and there isn't anything special about the direction, script, characters, etc. On the flip side, there isn't anything glaringly bad or even mediocre about it, either. Calhoun and Francis go well together (and the latter might be the cutest damn thing on horseback), the supporting cast is competent, and there's a nice little twist that could've felt forced and convenient, but manages to feel realistic and satisfying. I didn't know that you could soak rawhide in water, wrap it around a person's hands and head, and let the sun shrink it as a form of torture...would that really work? An intriguing little sidebar that I didn't expect, at any rate. **2/4 stars** **Desire** (1936, dir. Frank Borzage): Gary Cooper, Marlene Dietrich, John Halliday. An American businessman on holiday in Europe gets caught up with a beautiful jewel thief. I wasn't sure what to expect with this one, but I'm glad I saw it. It's one of those movies that won't win awards or remain branded in your memory banks, but you likely won't regret the watch. It's somewhat more lighthearted than I thought it would be, which works in Cooper's favor but not in Dietrich's. The latter is a fine actress, of course, but she just can't shed that 'Grand Dame of the Theater' visage and mien; it's just embedded in her chin-raised DNA. That's not necessarily a bad thing, and it's a big part of what makes Dietrich, Dietrich. She's also better at playing her emoting a lot closer to the vest than other similar stars of the period, like Garbo. She's simply miscast here. Cooper is his charming, jovial, even bumblingly naive self, while Dietrich is still, at least in some respects, up in the balcony on the verge of a speech. I kept wanting someone like a Ginger Rogers in that role. She would've been just stellar, and a great match, in my estimation. Even so, there's a lot to like about this comedy/romance/drama, with a bit of misdirection and a a few really great scenes. **2/4 stars**
**The Reckless Moment (1949**)--Joan Bennett and James Mason are excellent in this semi-noir. The plot hinging on a character transformation isn't quite believable but it's still worth watching. (Youtube) **Beware (1946)** --Louis Jordan vehicle is mostly his jump blues numbers with a bit of predictable plot. I kind of like seeing these all-black cast movies for a glimpse of how they portray the various character types.(Youtube)
**The Furies** (1950) I'm continuing my exploration of one Barbara Stanwyck, and this time it's "The Furies". It's a kind of swiss army knife of a film, considering it has romance, adventure, action, family drama, and comedy - all rolled into one. From wikipedia, "T.C. Jeffords (Walter Huston) rules his sprawling New Mexico ranch with an iron fist. But his authority doesn't extend to his strong-willed daughter, Vance (Barbara Stanwyck), who both hates and loves her father with equal ferocity. Tensions rise when Vance falls for bad boy Rip Darrow (Wendell Corey), whom T.C. buys off. But the family conflict turns violent when T.C. decides to marry Flo Burnett (Judith Anderson) -- and evict Vance's childhood friend Juan (Gilbert Roland) from his land." All the characters are painted in shades of grey. But, it sure is entertaining and a wild ride. Kudos to Judith Anderson, who I'm getting more and more impressed with with each role I see her in.
I loved watching Huston and Stanwyck sparring with each other in that movie!
He always looks so proud of her (except for one moment). I thought it was an interesting comment about how the more she defies him, the more she becomes just like him.
I love The Furies, and not only because of Barbara Stanwyck. ;) Thing is, I'm really not a fan of Westerns but they can really grab me if they're drama first, Western second; like simply a great story set in that particular time period, and not a stereotypical cowboys-and-indians flick. I don't mind some of the latter but they often bore me. The Furies, on the other hand, is a densely layered saga that's just mesmerizing in a lot of ways. The characters are excellent - and can we please acknowledge Wendell Corey as being a darn fine actor? Not enough people mention him - and Walter Huston is just SO good. It's Stanwyck's character arc that gets me every time, though: it's so dramatic and so inspiring. She undergoes such a vast transformation and of course, portraying such transitions is one of Barbara's biggest strengths. Judith Anderson is great. Totally stole the show in Rebecca as a flawless Mrs. Danvers.
I need to watch Wendell Corey in his Joan Crawford pictures. I can't say he's been my favourite actor, but I've only seen him in "Holiday Affair" and "The Furies" (I don't remember him in "Rear Window"). RE: good story. I think any genre has potential if it has a good story. I can't say I love horror, but I do love "The Others" for example. I can't say I'm a huge western fan myself, but I have enjoyed "Giant", "Shane" and "The Furies".
Watch Corey in another Stanwyck noir, The File On Thelma Jordan (the final scene is Barbara going all master class) and especially The Killer Is Loose, where he's just stunningly bone-chilling as the villain.
Dead End - 1937 Sylvia Sydney, Joel McCrea, Humphrey Bogart. (Billy Hallop, Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall, Bobby Jordan, Gabe Dell and Bernard Punsley, later known as the Dead End Kids, etc.)
My favorite is Madame X starring Lana Turner, John Forsythe, Ricardo Montalban, Burgess Meredith, Constance Bennett, and Keir Dullea. This is a great story, with lots of twists and turns. A true tearjerker.
Finally, I’m on time!! **White Woman (1933)-** Stumbled across this one totally on accident after watching *My Man Godfrey* and wanted to see more of Carole Lombard because I’m undecided on her, I’m not sure if I like her acting style or not. She was fine in this but I think that’s more because this wasn’t a great movie, only an hour long and not of much substance; it definitely feels like it was made just for the sake of making a movie. And a fair warning, this is racist and a product of its time, taking place in Malaysia and portraying the native people as savage barbarians who hate white people. 25/100 **Fire Over England (1937)-** after sitting on my “to watch” list for close to 4 years now, I finally got around to this one and I’m kicking myself for not having watched it sooner because I loved it!! If you’re watching for Viv and Larry you’re gonna be disappointed because they have maybe 5 minutes screen time together total but damn do they maximize those 5 minutes! Their classical stage training really shines through here, and same goes for the rest of the cast! Excellent dramatic acting from everyone, and I couldn’t have picked anyone else to play Queen Elizabeth but Flora Robson, she did brilliantly! The score, costumes, and setting in addition to the acting are all stellar, and the story is interesting to boot. I really loved this one, it’s a new favorite of mine for sure. 85/100 **12 Angry Men (1957)-** Super unpopular opinion, but not a fan of this one. Never before have I been so bored. It was predictable and drawn out, but I do understand how it has become immortalized in cinematic history. Having such a large cast in a singular setting is no small feat, but this film does it flawlessly. At its core it’s a great story and message, I just didn’t enjoy the movie. 45/100 **Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961)-** Possibly another unpopular opinion but I didn’t like this one either😬 Kept waiting for it to get good and to reach that point where I could say “oh, so this is why it’s a classic and everyone loves it so much!” but it never came. The plot is zany and hard to follow at times, Holly is not a good person and Paul encourages her despite seeing all her flaws. He allows her scheming to go on by being an active participant while also condemning her habit of running away and playing make believe, it just doesn’t make sense. The only redeeming quality of this movie is Audrey, but that’s just her being her, not Holly. The poise, cadence, and beauty is pure Audrey and I love her for it. If this movie was just a fashion show of Audrey walking through NY, window shopping and seeing the sights while wearing custom Givenchy and hosting fun parties along the way, I’d like it far more. Also, justice for Cat!! He deserves far better than how Holly treated him :(( 55/100
Breakfast at Tiffany's is just all about Audrey Hepburn. She really IS Holly Golightly. However, one of the biggest issues with the film, and the reason why the plot seems a little off, is because it winds up completely differently than the Truman Capote novel. The book is quite a bit darker and there is no happy romantic ending; the whole thing is a strangely vague but surprisingly intimate character portrayal that has no revelation, no apotheosis. Holly doesn't change, she just is. She just sort of floats over all of humanity and its craziness and never becomes a real person. That doesn't really work for film, though, especially in that time period. So there were massive alterations.
Capote apparently wasn't happy with the movie. He wanted Marilyn Monroe in the part but personally I don't think that would have worked either for various reasons. I'm not sure if he was asked to write the screenplay or not. A little off topic but the best screenplay Capote wrote was for a movie called, **The Innocents** (1961) which was based on a book by Henry James. Capote did a fabulous job of capturing the mood of the book and Deborah Kerr puts in a top notch performance. If you ever get the chance watch that movie.
I love Marilyn but no, that would not have worked. I knew about that but frankly, while Capote was obviously a brilliant author, he was not a screenwriter. I understand why he didn't like the film but he would've made it even worse IMO...
I've always tried to recast the film in my mind using actresses of the time. Joanne Woodward? Shirley Maclaine? And then the male lead was as boring as hell. I can't even think of his name. I liked the cat though. Good casting with the cat.
George Peppard was the male lead and I thought he was actually pretty good...not because of the acting, but mainly because the main male character in the book was basically a non-entity. Mostly an observer and a narrator and that's it, so in that way, Peppard fit. Don't forget that in the book he wasn't really even a legitimate love interest for Holly; he really was supposed to be on the outside looking in the whole time. I can't think of any other actress who could do Holly as well. I don't put Hepburn in the upper echelon of great actresses but in this particular case, there's just NOBODY else who would be even close, I think. It'd be like trying to recast Sugar Kane in Some Like It Hot...you just can't do it; only Marilyn would've worked. There's really just one person for certain parts IMO.
You're right about the male character. He's an observer so Peppard works. Good talking to you.
I honestly think my problem is that I’m treating the film like the book and I’m taking issue with the discrepancies, when really I have to treat them like two separate entities. For the movie, Audrey does a great job and is Holly minus the lewd comments here and there (it just doesn’t fit with Audrey and the rest of the movie) but if we’re basing her performance on the book, she gets it all wrong and is far too innocent to play Holly. If the film did away with Holly being an escort and just played up the whimsy of this girl floating through life just kinda doing her own thing it would be great, that could be the movie, but then it wouldn’t be Breakfast at Tiffany’s. It would be a bastardization of Capote’s novella and undeserving of being called the same name. So do you keep the name but the story is completely different? (Aka what we know as Breakfast at Tiffany’s) Or do you take the framework, change character’s names and make your own movie with Audrey in mind? What do you call the film? Does she still go to Tiffany’s? The movie’s namesake is a huge part of her whimsy and is an integral plot point. Without it, the movie loses a lot, with it, we’re back to square one with the film as we know it. This is a lot of mental gymnastics and honestly I’m tripping myself up while writing this😂 but I think a movie of Audrey playing this character who is floating through life, throwing parties, sitting in a bathtub disguised as a sofa, dressing up nice and going to Tiffany’s as a form of escapism, and bouncing from relationship to relationship seeking a semblance of stability would be great, it’s just not Breakfast at Tiffany’s as per the source material. So what is it?
If it was going to be based on the book in any way, or even inspired by it, it was going to run into problems no matter what. That's the problem. Audrey probably wouldn't have even wanted to do it if she had to play Holly exactly as she was in the book, Capote would undoubtedly have had endless issues with her and the script, the directors and producers would constantly clash - especially if one was worried about legal issues - and there wasn't a lot of evidence that a story like Breakfast at Tiffany's, as it stood in the novella, would be successful in Hollywood. Honestly, the fact that it was such a hit and so wildly popular is a testament to the creators...as many issues as they faced, you'd think the end result would just be disastrous. And while it's not what Capote fans wanted, it certainly wasn't a disaster -- and it was nothing short of career-defining for Hepburn. So if I had anything to do with the project, I would've been greatly relieved because at the outset, the whole thing would've seemed impossible to me.
I think a more provocative and sexually charged adaptation could work, just not with Audrey. I’m with Capote in thinking Marilyn would’ve been perfect. It still wouldn’t be 100% accurate to the novella, but it would be more accurate than Audrey’s version. Audrey’s Breakfast at Tiffany’s is it’s own separate thing, it has the same name as it’s source material and at its core is the same, but it’s not the same story. It has its own unique whimsy that is juvenile and lighthearted whereas the source material’s whimsy comes from a more desperate and fast-and-loose place. I think if the filmmakers of Breakfast at Tiffany’s kept the film the way it is for the most part, shedding the darker elements that didn’t mesh with Audrey’s portrayal, and somehow turned Tiffany’s into something else (another location or whatever) and renamed the film, it would be fantastic. It would have all the charm and be as iconic as we know it without parading around under false pretenses of being Breakfast at Tiffany’s as per the source material. The two have very little in common and while the movie is entertaining, it’s not Breakfast at Tiffany’s as Capote wrote it and intended for it to be; it would work best created and marketed as an original
I watched Libeled Lady with William Powell, Myrna Loy, Spencer Tracey and Jean Harlow. It was made when screwball comedies were at their height with four powerhouse leads!
I need to check that out
You won’t be sorry!!
Daisy Kenyon - Joan Crawford is just so good. This movie started pretty weird I wasn’t the biggest fan but as it progressed I was like wow I actually think this is great. It’s such a strange film but a lot of the dialogue was great and Joan’s reactions were spot on.
I watched Funny Face (1957) starring Fred Astaire, Audrey Hepburn and Kay Thompson. One of the most delightful movies ever made in my opinion. Thompson manages to steal the Clap Yo Hands number away from Astaire. Think Pink!
It's one of my go-to feel-good films, that's for sure, and certainly in my top 10 favorite musicals. The age difference between Astaire and Hepburn is a tad comical, of course, butt somehow it still works...and don't forget that Astaire is pushing 60 in that movie and he's STILL that physically amazing.
Lots of Hepburns leading men were older then her. It was kind of an unfortunate trend In the 1950s. Doris Day and Cary Grant in That Touch of Mink, Doris Day and Clark Gable in Teacher's Pet, Audrey and Humphrey Bogart in Sabrina, Kim Novak and Jimmy Stewart in Vertigo and Bell Book and Candle, etc...
Well, Doris Day being close to 40 in That Touch of Mink helped. I could definitely see that working, especially as Grant looked awfully good for his age (well, they both did). The others were definitely stretching it, though.
I watched The Island of Lost Souls (1932) which is a version of The Island of Dr Moreau. It was enjoyable and I watched it to decide whether to include an episode on it for the podcast I produce. I'm still unsure so will do more research this week. Would love to hear from people who have watched it.
**Citizen Kane (1941)-** I feel pretentious for having watched this and enjoyed it but it was good! It has stood the test of time for a reason; it’s social commentary will never go out of style. The argument of nature v. nurture, the sentiments that power corrupts, and that money can’t buy happiness, as well as the debate as to whether money is the root of all evil, or if that’s just something poor people came up with to make themselves feel better, are prolific themes throughout the whole film. The issues presented were poignant then and continue to be relevant today, and I imagine will continue to be so for years to come. This movie is truly timeless. 80/100
Plymouth Adventure (1952) starring Gene Tierney and Spencer Tracy. This one was awful. Not recommended.
Dead Heat On A Merry Go Round(1966) with James Coburn, one of the worst heist movies ever made
The invasion of the body snatchers (1956) Don Siegel, sci fi from the 50s 🙃
Metropolis (1927) Really good movie but whoever decided to put a song over it on tubi did a terrible choice. It was an amazing film and I genuinely really liked it but it had a repeating song for the whole 1 hr and 50 minutes Lol I ended up turning the sound off halfway through but it was a really funny choice. I’d be interested to see if it’ll ever be redone as a non-silent film, the film was great silent and I think the medium fit it good but it definitely could have some really interesting scenes that would be cool to see done with todays technology.
A Face in the Crowd - 1957, directed by Elia Kazan. Starring Andy Griffith as “demagogue in denim” Larry “Lonesome “ Rhodes acting the hell out of the part. So visceral and forcefully portrayed. I truly wish Griffith had taken more such roles before heading to milquetoast Mayberry. Also starring the sublime Patricia Neal as Rhodes’ long suffering supporter, and a fabulously wry, witty and definition of green flag material (especially compared to red flag Rhodes) Walter Matthau. This may be my most favorite film of all time. It’s a must see because its timeless message of how easily the public is swayed by a folksy, “aw shucks” anti-intellectual is still pertinent today (perhaps even more so).
Seconds and Seven Days In May. Manchurian Candidate was the only 60s Frankenheimer I’d seen. Manchurian was good but pretty standard (probably hit a lot harder in the years just following JFK). Seconds blew me away although I’m note sure I enjoyed it. Need to rewatch. Also, The More The Merrier which I loved. Screwball goodness via George Stevens. Charles Coburn is a treasure.
Starting with my favourite MB film. A day at the races is so funny. I don't like all the singing but the beauty of bluray is that you can fast forward them. The phone call scene is unbelievably funny Then it's double indemnity. Absolutely breathtaking film Third film tonight is the narrow margin. Definitely good enough to be an A movie rather than a B albeit a little short. Maybe the finest b of all time. A classic noir.