Spoilers What Movie Are You Watching?

[Scepticalscribe]

In a few minutes I'll be watching 1946 "Notorious"...one of the few Hitchcock films I like. He minimizes his usual tricky, cutesy crap in this film. I do like some of his very early, British films from the 30's and 40's...generally before he came to the US. However, to be fair, I did like "Rope" (for the attempt at giving the appearance that the entire film was shot in one take...although Jimmy Stewart was unbelievably and embarrassingly miscast), "Strangers On A Train", and "Psycho".

I would watch Ingrid Bergman read the phone book, and she is, as usual, just wonderful in this film...as is Claude Rains. Cary Grant, for a change, doesn't just do "Cary Grant" in this film. He actually doesn't really do that much at all, which is fine. The only other film of his where I think his performance is spectacularly good is 1944 "None But The Lonely Heart". He play a hardscrabble cockney, which is what he was when he was still Archie Leach, and before he took on the Cary Grant persona. It is clear that he knew people like his character, Ernie Mott...and he is truly wonderful actually playing a role other than "Cary Grant"...which was all he did in most of his films.

Interesting, what you write.

I'm not a huge fan of Hitchcock either, (despite one of my mentors, in my adolescent days, revering him, and reacting with stupefaction when I came to realise that I actually loathed the creepy misogyny and cruelty and sadism of his world view which I eventually recognised and belatedly, was capable of expressing), apart from one of two movies (I do rather like 'Rebecca').

Re Cary Grant, I have often thought that for Brits who headed off to Hollywood, the whole point of travelling to the US, apart from being able to earn a rather decent living in acting, was to able to reinvent yourself by casting aside the corsets of the class system into which you were born, and which defined you. The US allowed you to do this, (and, to some small extent still does, which has always been one of its greatest attractions to Europeans seeking a future/fortune/another life/alternative identity there).


'Cary Grant' was a much more suave, and doubtless, satisfying persona to play for the rest of your life than 'Archibald Leach', a tough, cocky cockney lad, especially to the sort of US audience (unlike the Brits, who have an almost preternatural ability to detect class origins from a microscopic examination of the acoustics of accent) who couldn't tell the difference after the patina of lived in experience had been applied to the 'Cary Grant' persona.

Having said that, cinematically, and personally, I have always been something of a sucker for suave. Articulate and elegant has always trumped the other, for me.

 

[millerj123]

Family recommended "Topper Returns", so we watched it over the holidays. Overall, I liked it.

I haven't kept up with the James Bond films, but watched "Skyfall" last night. It was a good action film, but I would have liked more gadgets.

 

[Shrink]

Interesting, what you write.

I'm not a huge fan of Hitchcock either, (despite one of my mentors, in my adolescent days, revering him, and reacting with stupefaction when I came to realise that I actually loathed the creepy misogyny of his world view which I finally recognised and was able to articulate), apart from one of two movies (I do rather like 'Rebecca').

Re Cary Grant, I have often thought that for Brits who headed off to Hollywood, the whole point of travelling to the US, apart from being able to earn a rather decent living in acting, was to able to reinvent yourself by casting aside the corsets of the class system into which you were born, and which defined you. The US allowed you to do this, (and, to some small extent still does, which has always been one of its greatest attractions to Europeans seeking a future/fortune/another life/alternative identity there).


'Cary Grant' was a much more suave, and doubtless, satisfying persona to play for the rest of your life than 'Archibald Leach', a tough, cocky cockney lad, especially to the sort of US audience (unlike the Brits, who have an almost preternatural ability to detect class origins from a microscopic examination of the acoustics of accent) who couldn't tell the difference after the patina of lived in experience had been applied to the 'Cary Grant' persona.

Having said that, cinematically, and personally, I have always been something of a sucker for suave. Articulate and elegant has always trumped the other, for me.

I agree that "Rebecca" was one of Hitchcock's better films, although I wanted to slap the Joan Fontaine character silly for not telling the Dame Judith Anderson's character to stuff it...a tribute to a well played part. Also, the preternaturally smarmy George Sanders character was wonderful.

Again, it was before Hitchcock descended into predictable, annoyingly superficial trickery which, apparently, was very popular and sold tickets.

As for Grant...nobody could play a "Cary Grant" part like Cary Grant...but, unfortunately, that's all he could do...or was allowed to do. It was the same character in every role...suave, gorgeous looking, and perfect for the romantic lead in light comedy. He had the persona perfected...but he had absolutely no range or ability to play any other role. He was never submerged in his character...he was always Cary Grant. He once said..." I wish I was Cary Grant"...in full knowledge that the persona had totally taken over who he was.

No argument that his persona was suave, sophisticated, funny...an absolute delight as long as he just played himself. As I mentioned above, the only time he actually showed acting skill, and played a character other than "Cary Grant", was in "None But The Lonely Heart"...which was both surprising and delightful.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I agree that "Rebecca" was one of Hitchcock's better films, although I wanted to slap the Joan Fontaine character silly for not telling the Dame Judith Anderson's character to stuff it...a tribute to a well played part. Also, the preternaturally smarmy George Sanders character was wonderful.

Again, it was before Hitchcock descended into predictable, annoyingly superficial trickery which, apparently, was very popular and sold tickets.

As for Grant...nobody could play a "Cary Grant" part like Cary Grant...but, unfortunately, that's all he could do...or was allowed to do. It was the same character in every role...suave, gorgeous looking, and perfect for the romantic lead in light comedy. He had the persona perfected...but he had absolutely no range or ability to play any other role. He was never submerged in his character...he was always Cary Grant. He once said..." I wish I was Cary Grant"...in full knowledge that the persona had totally taken over who he was.

No argument that his persona was suave, sophisticated, funny...an absolute delight as long as he just played himself. As I mentioned above, the only time he actually showed acting skill, and played a character other than "Cary Grant", was in "None But The Lonely Heart"...which was both surprising and delightful.

In both 'Rebecca' (an excellent book) and 'The Birds', Hitchcock was - fortunately - constrained by the contours of a tale crafted by someone else (interestingly, both stories were written by Daphne du Maurier).

Rebecca featured several superb roles for women - there was Joan Fontaine's role as the second Mrs de Winter, and, of course, the superbly realised sinister character of the housekeeper, Mrs Danvers, played superbly by Dame Judith Anderson. This is a case where the book (itself brilliant, and a superb study in tension, suppression, unequal relationships, fear, guilt etc. exceptionally well told), was translated very well and faithfully to the screen.

George Sanders was excellent (the gone-to-seed element of his character was also clearly evident in the book), as was Laurence Olivier as Maxim de Winter.

Sure, Cary Grant could only play himself but he did that very well. And, as I have already remarked, I am a complete sucker for suave - in life and in art: I could watch Cary Grant endlessly, whereas the clichéd 'strong, silent, type' as personified by say, John Wayne, (who could also play only one role) left me completely cold.

If I have to watch a western, I prefer mine with a bit of nuance, subtlety, and a bit of verisimilitude (take a bow, Clint Eastwood, especially in your incarnation as a director of outstanding westerns)......

Re Ingrid Bergman, agreed, a simply superb actress.

 

[Huntn]

Interesting, what you write.

I'm not a huge fan of Hitchcock either, (despite one of my mentors, in my adolescent days, revering him, and reacting with stupefaction when I came to realise that I actually loathed the creepy misogyny of his world view which I finally recognised and was able to articulate), apart from one of two movies (I do rather like 'Rebecca').

Re Cary Grant, I have often thought that for Brits who headed off to Hollywood, the whole point of travelling to the US, apart from being able to earn a rather decent living in acting, was to able to reinvent yourself by casting aside the corsets of the class system into which you were born, and which defined you. The US allowed you to do this, (and, to some small extent still does, which has always been one of its greatest attractions to Europeans seeking a future/fortune/another life/alternative identity there).


'Cary Grant' was a much more suave, and doubtless, satisfying persona to play for the rest of your life than 'Archibald Leach', a tough, cocky cockney lad, especially to the sort of US audience (unlike the Brits, who have an almost preternatural ability to detect class origins from a microscopic examination of the acoustics of accent) who couldn't tell the difference after the patina of lived in experience had been applied to the 'Cary Grant' persona.

Having said that, cinematically, and personally, I have always been something of a sucker for suave. Articulate and elegant has always trumped the other, for me.

Interesting observations. I hold Alfred Hitchcock in high regard. His movies were exciting and intriguing (for myself ). My favorites have to be Psycho, North by Northwest, Vertigo, and The Birds although The Birds comes in last.

I agree that "Rebecca" was one of Hitchcock's better films, although I wanted to slap the Joan Fontaine character silly for not telling the Dame Judith Anderson's character to stuff it...a tribute to a well played part. Also, the preternaturally smarmy George Sanders character was wonderful.

Again, it was before Hitchcock descended into predictable, annoyingly superficial trickery which, apparently, was very popular and sold tickets.

As for Grant...nobody could play a "Cary Grant" part like Cary Grant...but, unfortunately, that's all he could do...or was allowed to do. It was the same character in every role...suave, gorgeous looking, and perfect for the romantic lead in light comedy. He had the persona perfected...but he had absolutely no range or ability to play any other role. He was never submerged in his character...he was always Cary Grant. He once said..." I wish I was Cary Grant"...in full knowledge that the persona had totally taken over who he was.

No argument that his persona was suave, sophisticated, funny...an absolute delight as long as he just played himself. As I mentioned above, the only time he actually showed acting skill, and played a character other than "Cary Grant", was in "None But The Lonely Heart"...which was both surprising and delightful.

Some actors on screen personalities are so attractive, it does not matter that they play the same person repeatedly. Audiences seem to lap it up. Whether you like or hate him, I'd place John Wayne in the same category. For Carry Grant he seemed to fit well in both drama/adventure (North by Northwest) and comedy, as I think of Arsenic and Old Lace.

 

[S.B.G]

Starting Immortals.

 

[Shrink]

Interesting observations. I hold Alfred Hitchcock in high regard. His movies were exciting and intriguing (for myself ). My favorites have to be Psycho, North by Northwest, Vertigo, and The Birds although The Birds comes in last.



Some actors on screen personalities are so attractive, it does not matter that they play the same person repeatedly. Audiences seem to lap it up. Whether you like or hate him, I'd place John Wayne in the same category. For Carry Grant he seemed to fit well in both drama/adventure (North by Northwest) and comedy, as I think of Arsenic and Old Lace.

Interesting that you should mention "Arsenic And Old Lace"...I read that Grant hated that film. I found his performance way over the top...and although it's sort of fun, it's not my favorite of his films.

Since John Wayne was mentioned...I would agree that he, among others, could only play one role...John Wayne. I would suggest that he did somewhat modify that horribly predictable persona in "The Searchers", a visually stunning film where his character was not the pure hero he always played, but a bit more nuanced than usual.

As for the Western genre, I do agree that Eastwood brought more subtlety (later in his career) than most, and I enjoy his films. I would also suggest that there are directors of Westerns who did more with the genre that the usual white hat/black hat stuff. The low budget director Bud Boetticher made some slightly more interesting films than was common at the time. Also Nicholas Ray's "Johnny Guitar" is a fascinating cult film in the Western genre. Although Joan Crawford is far from my favorite actress, she and Mercedes McCambridge were fascinating in this film with it's gender bending and lesbian undertones. And finally, Sam Peckipah made two of the most intertesting and praise worthy Westerns ever, IMO, in "The Wild Bunch" and "Ride The High Country". Both were singularly interesting character studies. I think the subtlety and amazing acting in "The Wild Bunch" is lost with the attention given to the stylized, slo-mo violence which garner most of the attention. Robert Ryan, William Holden, Warren Oates (a favorite of mine), and the others in the cast had a lot more to offer than just the violence of the film.

 

[Huntn]

Interesting that you should mention "Arsenic And Old Lace"...I read that Grant hated that film. I found his performance way over the top...and although it's sort of fun, it's not my favorite of his films.

Since John Wayne was mentioned...I would agree that he, among others, could only play one role...John Wayne. I would suggest that he did somewhat modify that horribly predictable persona in "The Searchers", a visually stunning film where his character was not the pure hero he always played, but a bit more nuanced than usual.

As for the Western genre, I do agree that Eastwood brought more subtlety (later in his career) than most, and I enjoy his films. I would also suggest that there are directors of Westerns who did more with the genre that the usual white hat/black hat stuff. The low budget director Bud Boetticher made some slightly more interesting films than was common at the time. Also Nicholas Ray's "Johnny Guitar" is a fascinating cult film in the Western genre. Although Joan Crawford is far from my favorite actress, she and Mercedes McCambridge were fascinating in this film with it's gender bending and lesbian undertones. And finally, Sam Peckipah made two of the most intertesting and praise worthy Westerns ever, IMO, in "The Wild Bunch" and "Ride The High Country". Both were singularly interesting character studies. I think the subtlety and amazing acting in "The Wild Bunch" is lost with the attention given to the stylized, slo-mo violence which garner most of the attention. Robert Ryan, William Holden, Warren Oates (a favorite of mine), and the others in the cast had a lot more to offer than just the violence of the film.

Regarding A&OL, I'd call it farce/comedy or slap stick which by it's nature can be over the top.

The Searchers an incredible John Ford directed creation is celluloid art, JW's best role. I also agree that Clint Eastwood has blossomed in old age. His Unforgiven is excellent and surprised me. Besides the new outstanding movies he has been associated with, his old classics are movies like "Outlaw Josey Wales, Eiger Sanction, Dirty Harry, Kelly's Heroes, and Where Eagles Dare.

I think I see the same thing with many actors, they get comfortable expressing themselves a certain way and it takes effort and risk to break out a known successful formula. It also seems harder for actors to break out as they get older and settled in their ways. Some examples: Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn, Nicholas Cage, Will Ferrel, same, same same, every role, although I found Will Ferrel's performance in Mega Mind to be a separation and quite refreshing from his normal psychotic antics.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Ah, 'Arsenic And Old Lace' - now, that is a movie I'd happily spend my week-end watching; I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I hadn't known that Cary Grant didn't like the movie; interesting footnote and thanks for passing it on.

Anyway, I am a huge fan of those urbane, black British comedies, the sort made by the Ealing Brothers, and, indeed, 'Arsenic & Old Lace'. Years ago, as an undergrad, I recall seeing an extremely good stage production of Arsenic & Old Lace produced by a very talented university drama society.

 

[DesertEagle]

"Captain Philips"

 

[Huntn]

"Captain Philips"

Yes- up, down?

Almost a Lord of the Rings Marathon today, watched the Fellowship of the Rings, and The Two Towers- story telling perfection, emotional relationships, epic eye candy, and mostly true to the books.

One of my favorite places:

 

[DesertEagle]

Yes- up, down?

Up! It's a great movie.

 

[Huntn]

Up! It's a great movie.

I'll be streaming this. Thanks.

 

[Tsuchiya]

Blue is the Warmest Color

Take out the lesbian angle and the sex scene most journalists focus on and you still have one hell of a movie. It's far from short but I was still disappointed when it ended. At its core you have a story about first love and everything that goes with it. The lead actresses were mesmerising, particularly Adele. Worth a watch.

The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug

Wasn't too keen on seeing this at first, the cynic in me found it difficult to look past the obvious money grabbing angle of making a trilogy. Was glad I went though, the set pieces here were amazing. Very entertaining.

Anchorman 2

Enjoyed the first movie, and everyone around me in the theatre was laughing their asses off throughout this one but I just didn't think it was that great. Will Ferrell thinks he is funnier then he is, and the whole thing just seemed like it was trying too hard. The kind of movie you watch on Netflix because you are super bored.

 

[twietee]

Night of the Demon / Curse of the Demon

Great 50s movie by one of my fav directors Jaques Tourneau. The credits just told me that Ken Adam was production designer - and it shows!

 

[ritmomundo]

About Time - Started off a little slow, but it was good. It wasn't the boring rom-com I was expecting it to be. It had some well-done time travel, and some light laughs. The end made actually made me tear up a bit.

 

[millerj123]

"Battle Beyond the Stars". Netflix describes it as a cult classic. I'm not in that cult. Most of their $2M went into "special effects" which just meant models of spacecraft. I like many of the actors, but it just felt like they couldn't pull it off. There were tons of good bits, things I liked, but at the end of the movie, I was just glad it was over.

I also recently saw "Percy Jackson:Sea of Monsters". Overall, I liked it. I was expecting Tyson to be a little more hulking, but it may also have been that he was described as monstrous, not big.

 

[McGiord]

Europa Report
Streaming in Netflix.
Was entertaining and sparked interested in other movies by this director.

 

[The.316]

Yes- up, down?

Almost a Lord of the Rings Marathon today, watched the Fellowship of the Rings, and The Two Towers- story telling perfection, emotional relationships, epic eye candy, and mostly true to the books.

One of my favorite places:
Image

Image

Just did that this week. I went through all three LOTR, and even though I know the movies from beginning to end, the trilogy is still entertaining.

Blue is the Warmest Color

Take out the lesbian angle and the sex scene most journalists focus on and you still have one hell of a movie. It's far from short but I was still disappointed when it ended. At its core you have a story about first love and everything that goes with it. The lead actresses were mesmerising, particularly Adele. Worth a watch.

The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug

Wasn't too keen on seeing this at first, the cynic in me found it difficult to look past the obvious money grabbing angle of making a trilogy. Was glad I went though, the set pieces here were amazing. Very entertaining.

Anchorman 2

Enjoyed the first movie, and everyone around me in the theatre was laughing their asses off throughout this one but I just didn't think it was that great. Will Ferrell thinks he is funnier then he is, and the whole thing just seemed like it was trying too hard. The kind of movie you watch on Netflix because you are super bored.

I thought of him that way as well, even when he does his interviews.

 

[ucfgrad93]

I'm watching The Little Rascals with my kids.

 

[The.316]

About Time - Started off a little slow, but it was good. It wasn't the boring rom-com I was expecting it to be. It had some well-done time travel, and some light laughs. The end made actually made me tear up a bit.

I liked it. I love "rom-coms"

 

[kirky29]

The Lone Ranger

One of the best movies I think I've seen. Funny, great action, great acting, fantastic soundtrack, awesome plot. Just great!

 

[sk1wbw]

Just watched Boonkock Saints for the first time... Pretty awesome movie.

 

[twietee]

Only Lovers Left Alive

Beautiful movie with a perfect cast, will watch it again. Tilda Swinton <3

 

[mysterytramp]

Wolf of Wall Street -- thumbs down

The Wolf of Wall Street - It was not at all what I expected, which was "Wall Street" meets "Great Gatsby." Instead it was more like "Wall Street" meets "Superbad." It was interesting, and entertaining, but not nearly as good as reviews make it out to be. There are definitely funny parts (notably the red candle scene and the "cerebral palsy" scene, which was terrible but hilarious at the same time), but the movie is WAAAAY too long. Leonardo DiCaprio does a great job though, excellent versatile actor.

It was raunchy and funny, and then the next day, I read this open letter by Belfort's partner's daughter, and now the movie seems very inappropriate.

There's been lots of chatter trying to decide if the movie goes too far. I think it clearly does.

1) DiCaprio and Scorsese try to argue that they created a movie of what happened. But the only time one of Belfort's victims appear in the film is one voice one other end of a telephone.

2) There's no mention that Belfort has yet to make his court-ordered restitution. In fact, the ending makes it seem as though he's living an acceptable life as a motivational speaker.

3) In the middle of the movie, the FBI agent reveals he considered a career as a stock broker before he went into law enforcement. And he and DiCaprio share a few lines about how different his life would be had he chosen that life.

Then there's a scene toward the end where the FBI agent is riding the train home with a bunch of schlubs. The look on the actor's face is, I guess, open to interpretation, but I think it's pretty clear he's unhappy with his financial status.

4) And finally, if you don't think it glamorizes debauchery, imagine the movie with Jonah Hill and Leonardo DiCaprio switching roles. There's nothing about Belfort's appearance that demands such a handsome actor.