1940's Hall Of Fame Part I

VERY happy to hear you enjoyed it, Camo!
There were a few things I would have liked seen explored, including that relationship, but with such a short running time I can see how they cut it out and simply made it life happening around Laughton as he dealt with the circumstances. Though it ended up feeling rushed over in the end.

__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes

~Mr Minio

SPOILERS
I can see why I liked this so much when I was a kid; this is more or less a perfect adventure movie to show a 6-12 year old (I was 10 I think). It's got a simple plot, colorful sets, cool effects and a bad guy just evil enough to be interesting, but not scary.

As an adult, I still liked it, but the flaws show in a more direct way. It's the worst case of "love at first sight" outside Snow White or Sleeping Beauty I can recall, and I'm sorry to say that both Ahmed and the princess were forgettable roles. If Abu and Jaffar hadn't been there (or rather, been portrayed by lesser actors), there wouldn't have been anything positive to say about the acting outside of the Sultan and the Genie. As luck would have it, though, we did get Sabu and Veidt.

Conrad Veidt is the show-stealer for me as Jaffar, the evil Grand Vizier. He's the one that gets to deliver all the good dialouge and sets up the best scenes in the movie. I also found the intense close-ups on his eyes extremely funny for some reason, a fault of mine I'm sure as they were probably ment to be very powerful and intimidating.

Sabu as Abu the thief was another good cast, mainly as he continuosly walks around telling Ahmed how utterly stupid he is and still tries to help him in his endeavours. I found the introduction of the Genie a bit forced (again with the faults of the script showing through) and out of nowhere. Were we to believe it was with them on the boat and washed ashore with them? Or was finding the flask just a random happenstance? Either way, it leads us to Abu releasing a angry Genie, from which Abu cons three wishes. Rex Ingram overacts quite a bit, but in the end I can forgive that due to the entertaining banter the two share.

The matte-paintings in this movie were beautiful, astonishing craftmanship. The City of Bagdad was very nice to behold, as was Basra, seen from above as the Sultan rides the mechanical/magical flying horse. The blue aura that appeared around the effects shots actually lent them some credibility, as they only appeared as magic was being used, making it seem as though it was an effect of using magic rather than a clue as to when an effects shot was in place. Probably only I thought that, but I found it more interesting thinking that than just going with the actual reason for why the blue aura was there.

And while speaking of the Sultan, he was such a fount of joy. He loved his toys and that joy was infecting. I also found his reasoning for getting the horse kinda funny and kinda horrible a the same time:

Also, he tells Jaffar that marriage has been nothing but a burden to him, and for all his troubles he's only ever got a daughter. That is, until the very next scene, where the princess says that she'll go to her sister to seek refuge. DId he forget he had another daughter???

...Wait, I can actually by that coming from this guy. Proceed.

In the end, I liked this movie. It's beautiful to look at, has a compelling villain and a good dose of humour. The story's thin and some of the actors put on quite forgettable performances, but it's made up for by good actors doing their parts. While not liking it as much as I did when I was younger, it's still a worthwhile watch and I'm glad to have returned to it after all this time. Great nom, Raul!

__________________
Why not just kill them? I'll do it! I'll run up to Paris - bam, bam, bam, bam. I'm back before week's end. We spend the treasure. How is this a bad plan?

Like a lot of Hitchcock films, I saw this once about 20 years ago and could barely remember anything about it. I couldn't even remember if I liked this one. I liked the story, and it reminded me a lot of 1946's The Stranger starring Orson Welles who also directed. In that film, Welles plays a wanted man in a new town pursued by someone who doesn't know what he looks like. There's also a moral dilemma for a loved one, only it's a wife instead of a sister. That movie is pretty suspenseful, and I think superior. I liked this movie, but I give all the credit to the cast, especially Joeseph Cotton. The only exception to the acting was the two children, and to be honest, I don't even know why they were in the film. The story and the performances made me enjoy the film, but I didn't think it was executed particularly well. I didn't find it that suspenseful, with a couple exceptions, and I found myself scratching my head a number of times. I think it's a good, but not great movie. I probably would have put Hitchcock in my top ten for favorite directors a couple years ago, but lately I've been thinking he is overrated. A lot of good movies, but not as many great ones as I once thought.




That's it for me except I may watch Laura again before the deadline comes.

I'm sorry to hear that you didn't like Arsenic And Old Lace. Thanks for at least giving it a try.


That's the whole point of a screwball comedy. If people just communicated properly, there wouldn't be a reason for the movie.


The point of Mortimer trying to get Teddy institutionalized is that he won't stop blowing the horn and scaring the neighbors, so Mortimer is trying to move him out of the house.

__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.

That would explain the Comedy HoF.

Thief of Bagdad:

First, I want to say Thank You to Citizen Rules for warning me about the scene with the giant spider. (Is there some rule that I don't know about that requires that each HoF I join must have at least one movie with a spider scene in it? )

I thought this was a first time watch for me, but as I watched it, parts of it looked vaguely familiar. I think I may have seen this movie a long time ago, but not enough to remember anything about the movie except the visuals. And I think that's where the problem is for me with this movie. The movie looks nice, but it's mostly forgettable. Even the songs were only okay, but they're mostly just forgettable.

I didn't care much for most of the characters. The best character is easily Jaffar, but he's not enough to carry the movie. The only likable character is Abu, but he's annoying at times, and flawed. For example, he's smart enough to figure out how to get the genie back in the bottle, but then he wastes a wish on sausages. Ahmed and the Princess spent so little time together that I didn't really care if they ended up together or not.

The film is nice to watch, and the special effects were good for their time, but the story was just okay. It feels like the kind of movie that I might have liked when I was a kid, but it just doesn't seem to hold up for me now.

Rope:

I've seen this movie several times, and IMO, this is not Hitchcock's best movie, but it's up there near the top of the list. It's one of those movies that I seem to notice more and more little things every time I watch this movie. Little things, like the way Jimmy Stewart looks at Brandon and Philip as they're talking, and him watching them in the background without them noticing. And I loved the way we were able to see the expression on Brandon's face through the swinging door when he "hid" the rope.

I was also surprised to realize that it's actually Philip who physically strangles David at the beginning of the movie. (I always just assumed that it was Brandon, but I never went back to the beginning of the movie to check.) Based on their reactions after the crime, Brandon seems much more comfortable with actually killing someone for no reason other than because he thinks he's superior. The way Philip reacts after the murder, it feels like it should have been Brandon who was actually holding the rope and strangling David.

The only thing that I didn't like was when the camera pans down to someone's back, and then goes out again to continue the scene. I found that a bit distracting.

The last 20 minutes or so are easily the most tension-filled part of the movie.

I didn't think that Philip felt any real remorse for what he did, but rather he was terrified that they were going to get caught.

Seems like maybe taking the horn away and figuring out what to do with the body would be more time appropriate. Plus if he is going to cover for his aunts, why doesn't he just let them bury the body.

I get what screwball is trying to accomplish, that's why I said objectively I can see why people who like this humor love it. It is just one of those things where it irritates me and I can't see how anyone finds amusement in it. Comedy is that way. For every person who loves a comedy or comedian there is someone who is totally irritated by them and can't understandhow someone could laugh at such nonsense.

__________________
Letterboxd

Put on Laura, fell asleep. Rewound the movie 20 min and tried again. Fell asleep. Started over again, got 40 min in and passed out again. It seems I'm meant to go to sleep now, rather than watching a movie. Never heard such a perposterous idea. Trying again.

*30 min pass*

Good night.

I love these random Clazor updates. Can't wait until he posts "Guys, i'm eating pizza" out of nowhere

I've been busy this past week or so with work (and also watching Christmas movies with my room mates), so I haven't watched anything for this in awhile. I have a project to finish and I'm going to see Rogue One tomorrow, so I probably won't get a chance then either. But I'm off work now until after Christmas, and I'm going out of the city to stay with my mom for the holidays starting on Monday. Since she basically lives in the middle of nowhere (not really but...it's a small town), I imagine I'll probably get through most of the other films by the new year haha.

You best just be extremely tired.

__________________

Attachments

   

I like the kind of movies you've been nominating, CR, even if I view them as somewhat flawed. They have not been safe choices, and I know when I watch them I can count on getting hit in some fashion.

Thanks Cricket...Like you said, my noms are not always safe noms, but I'm glad at least their uniqueness gets some appreciation

As you guessed, I was thinking of you when I wrote that last paragraph about the dialogue....but please don't take it as a hit or personal. It's not

I myself didn't fully appreciate the dialogue until I read an online script (as I was looking for quotes for my review)...that's when I searched the script for the word "life" and was amazed at how much poignant/relevant dialogue about life had been in the movie and I had missed it. I think maybe it flies under most peoples radar, as it's done low key...

http://www.springfieldspringfield.co...oo-bridge-1940

I was, started watching at 9:00 pm after a hectic 10 hour workday. Not the smartest desicion, but I wanted to watch one of the noms and Laura was qued up. Tried again last night and got through it, will write up a review tomorrow.

Don't have too much to say about this one, so forgive me if this review comes in on the short side.

This was a good movie, somewhat spoiled by the fact that I guessed who the killer was by the halfway point. Was it just me who found the this murder mystery lacking in...mystery? I understand that it's not the movies fault, that we as a modern audience have seen the story tropes too many times, but I can't see how it could've played out any other way, barring a sudden, last minute revelation which would render the whole movie, thus far, pointless.


Ignoring that, the rest of the movie's good. The actors put in great performances, especially Tierney and Webb. I really liked his initial monolouge, describing hwo he met and started sociallising with her. As the story progressed, you become aware that he's a douch, but in the beginning he comes off as having a dry sense of humour (and a very high opinion of himself, but that can be overlooked if he's funny enough).

I'm ashamed to admit I didn't recognize Price, though this is as young as I've ever seen him. I didn't even recognize his voice, he must've developed that signature sound later in his career. He, too, did a fine job, even if I never liked him or found him very interesting.

Overall, Tierney was the most interesting, Webb was funniest and it kept me entertained throughout the runtime. I've heard a few of the participants claiming that this was one of the noms fighting for the top spot. I don't know if I can really see why. So far I'd say both The Suspect and Arsenic & old Lace got it beat. But perhaps I'm in a minority. Feel free to tell me so and why you think this is more worthy of the top spot. I'd welcome the respons.

Good nom, Des!

***SPOILERS....Laura (1944)

I'd say you're right that modern audiences would interpret Laura (1944) differently than 1940's audiences. And...I think that's what you just done with the expectations of a modern, murder mystery movie.

But, it's not intended to be an outright murder mystery. The movie doesn't try to hide the fact that Waldo is the heavy, it's pretty clear from the start that he's the bad guy...The surprise is that Laura is still alive.

But the movie's main focus is on a character study of how Laura impacts the men around her. Shes this luminous beauty with je ne sais quoi, that make men madly fall for her. She can transform the men around her just with her sheer looks alone in the case of Dana Andrews. Each of the three men in the story are deeply effected by her, she's a muse that drives them to action and that's what the film focuses on...Laura.

So with all that in mind, I think Laura is a pretty good movie. But others might have a different take.