Classic Comedy Hall of Fame

Tools    





"Money won is twice as sweet as money earned."



Is there a deadline?

New Rule
You must have 1 write-up done in the first 2 weeks
You must have 2 write-ups done in the first month
You must have 4 write-ups done in the first 6 weeks



We'll see after that with only 6 people this might be done in a month



New Rule
You must have 1 write-up done in the first 2 weeks
You must have 2 write-ups done in the first month
You must have 4 write-ups done in the first 6 weeks

We'll see after that with only 6 people this might be done in a month
No worries for me, I can finish early. I have all the noms lined up and should start watching real soon.

I just wanted to know so I could fill out the deadline info here But not a problem, I'll just leave it like it is for now.



Sorry for my bad English :p
Sherlock Jr. (1924)



i've always loved buster keaton from the first time i've ever saw him, maybe even more than charlie chaplin, i mean yes charlie's movies can be deeper and emotional and even with more elaborate script but i find buster's movies more charming and more creative especially when it comes to gags and stunts.

sherlock jr. is without a doubt my favorite buster keaton movie, it's funny charming and clever in its construction. the story is very simple especially if we remove the film inside the film, it's the oldest story ever ! a man loves a woman and have a competition with another man to win her , our man wants to be a detective but he fails to prove that he is a good one and loses the girl with it , then comes the film inside the film where he does everything to prove himself as a detective and win her over, what he did in that dream sequence is like all what he wanted to do and ironically when he won in the dream he did it without doing a thing in the real life.

buster keaton is known for the amazing and dangerous stunts that he does by himself, and in sherlock jr. he took it to another level especially in the chase scene, i also love the pool scene, and the last scene when he imitates the actor in the movie.
__________________
my facebook page : In The Mood For Cinema



Trouble in Paradise

What a fun, elegant, and ultimately bittersweet comedy! It was really well done, and I liked the characters and the settings in Europe. The screenplay was such fun, many times very funny, or just a playful, sexual, kind of humor that you don't really see a lot in early comedy. I especially enjoyed the relationships between the three main characters, and the simmering sexual tensions arising in them all that comes to a final climax (which I wasn't a huge fan of, but the last scene was great). Those moments of silence, when we're left seeing one or two of the characters contemplate their situation, are deceptively shallow, and I think this movie has a lot to say about the sexual desires even the "best" of us sometimes have, and what happens if we let it get out of hand.




Think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?
great review @ahwell, really looking forward to re-seeing Trouble In Paradise
__________________
They say: that after people make love there's a kind of melancholia, the petite mort, the little death. Well, I'm here to tell you, after a romantic night with yourself there's a very acute sensation of failed suicide. ~Dylan Moran






True Confession is a good not nesicary great comedy from the 1930's. It tells the story of a wife who cannot tell the truth and a Husband who cannot lie. The premise is dynamite and the first act is amazing almost all the early comic set pieces work really well. Lombard shines in the first act as a clever(ish) woman to her husbands honest(ish) tendencies.


The problem with the film is the male lead Fred MacMurray isn't Jimmy Stewart or Spencer Tracy it's very difficult to portray a character that is honest and yet still drives the plot. MacMurray doesn't ever feel like an honest person just a passive aggressive one. Lombard is also very good at the start of the film but her intelligence takes a huge nose dive after a murder and she becomes cartoonish on the borderline of insane.


John Barrymore is the third lead and while he's very good at the beginning as a mysterious figure his role in the third act sinks the film for me. The entire third act of the story felt completely extraneous and was a bit of a chore to get through. I can understand why Citizen Rules nominated this film, when the screen play doesn't have Carole Lombard playing an idiot she's very good.






True Confession....
Your rating is 'curious', and I'll tell you why....Twice now as a host you've tried to influence me to change my nom before the HoF ever even started.

You did that in the 18th HoF with my nom Abandon Ship! and you did it again here with True Confession. Both times you stated the 'bar was high' implying my nom wasn't good enough for the HoF.

In the 18th you even posted the wrong movie,Valley of the Dolls, as my nom. At the time I assumed it was an honest mistake on your part. But now as you've tried to get me to change my nom again in this HOF....I'm starting to see a pattern and think you might have intentionally posted the wrong nom for me in the 18th.

It's not the duty of a host to try and influence a member to change their nom, so as to suit the host's taste. That's not something a host should be doing.

This all makes me think your rating of my nom True Confession is more about you being unhappy that you couldn't talk me into changing my nom.....If it's an honest rating, then it's fine.



Sorry for my bad English :p
i've never heard of the movie true confession so i don't know if its good or not, but honestly i prefer if someone nominate an obscure or a not so good movie with some interesting story or aspects than nominating a well known movie that everyone has seen , because i've joined this HoF to discover movies that i've never heard of and talk about them, that's why i like this lineup because it's a perfect mix of well known and unknown movies.



Your rating is 'curious', and I'll tell you why....Twice now as a host you've tried to influence me to change my nom before the HoF ever even started.

Yeah because I want your films to do better, you're spending time doing this Hall and I can imagine it being soul crushing to have your films come in near to last. I don't want you to stop participating.


You did that in the 18th HoF with my nom Abandon Ship! and you did it again here with True Confession. Both times you stated the 'bar was high' implying my nom wasn't good enough for the HoF.

Yes because everyone else nominated classics and you didn't.


In the 18th you even posted the wrong movie,Valley of the Dolls, as my nom. At the time I assumed it was an honest mistake on your part. But now as you've tried to get me to change my nom again in this HOF....I'm starting to see a pattern and think you might have intentionally posted the wrong nom for me in the 18th.

I told you I wanted you to nominate Valley of the Dolls because I thought it would do better based on the nom's(that I saw and you didn't) and because I actually blind bought the film and was looking for an excuse to watch it. Also I didn't pull the film randomly out of thin air this was the last post you pm'd me


Citizen Rules
OK, maybe I should have went with my first choice. I'm pretty sure if I nominated Valley of the Dolls it would come in near last.
It's not the duty of a host to try and influence a member to change their nom, so as to suit the host's taste. That's not something a host should be doing.

Well you were the one who pushed me into hosting, unless you forgot that. Also I would remind you the last Hall of Fame I suggested a rule to give people the option for feedback to their noms so they wouldn't have their feelings hurt. I have always believed that more information is better than less information.


This all makes me think your rating of my nom True Confession is more about you being unhappy that you couldn't talk me into changing my nom.....If it's an honest rating, then it's fine.

I think it's more about you picking average films Waterloo Bridge, Bachelor Mother, Abandon Ship, The Dressmaker and now True Confession are just really all mediocre. I would be very surprised if any other film comes in last.



Yes because everyone else nominated classics and you didn't.
If I was in a Hall of Fame where everyone nominated classic films, I'd probably be a little disappointed. I like the HoFs because they've exposed me to films I haven't heard of, or otherwise wouldn't have watched. In my opinion, having only well-known, critically accepted films makes things boring.

I think it's more about you picking average films Waterloo Bridge, Bachelor Mother, Abandon Ship, The Dressmaker and now True Confession are just really all mediocre.
I just wanted to point out that opinions on film are quite subjective. People might love or hate films that you see as just average, or think that films you find amazing are quite bland. I quite liked Bachelor Mother and The Dressmaker, for example, and they both placed high on my lists.

But even if everyone did have relatively the same opinion on every film, not everything can be a Citizen Cane or Seven Samurai, but that doesn't mean that all those other films that aren't considered masterpieces don't still have value. More nominations are going to place in the middle of the pack than at the top anyway, so where's the harm in nominating films that you think are interesting, but aren't necessarily amazing works of art?

I think a lot of us nominate films we enjoy to share them with others, and not necessarily because we want said film to win. Yes it's nice when your nomination does well, but that's more of a bonus.



If I was in a Hall of Fame where everyone nominated classic films, I'd probably be a little disappointed. I like the HoFs because they've exposed me to films I haven't heard of, or otherwise wouldn't have watched. In my opinion, having only well-known, critically accepted films makes things boring.
It's not the hall of good it's the hall of fame

I just wanted to point out that opinions on film are quite subjective. People might love or hate films that you see as just average, or think that films you find amazing are quite bland. I quite liked Bachelor Mother and The Dressmaker, for example, and they both placed high on my lists.
I believe I ranked Bachelor Mother at #3 or #4 that was one of the better noms.

But even if everyone did have relatively the same opinion on every film, not everything can be a Citizen Cane or Seven Samurai, but that doesn't mean that all those other films that aren't considered masterpieces don't still have value. More nominations are going to place in the middle of the pack than at the top anyway, so where's the harm in nominating films that you think are interesting, but aren't necessarily amazing works of art?
Did you seriously misspell Citizen Kane? Perhaps you need to rewatch it a few more times. The key word in this statement is opinion because we aren't just watching the films but we also have to discuss them. Watching a film like True Confession and finding something to talk about that film is difficult. Actually I did leave out the big reason I hated the film because of spoilers if you and Citizen Rules want to know what hated about the film the most...

WARNING: spoilers below
The major plot point is that this wealthy gentlemen is killed. We get the trial for the murder and John Barrymore hanging around the periphery of the story. Well we get the reveal the killer was ...his brother in law, a character that is only referenced and guess what he's already dead. Don't worry honey you didn't do it some guy did it. Also how is this going to affect other people with watching this film if they go into it knowing that the killer reveal is just so breathtakingly stupid.And I said I did like the first act it was just the subsequent two acts that I took issue with.


I think a lot of us nominate films we enjoy to share them with others, and not necessarily because we want said film to win. Yes it's nice when your nomination does well, but that's more of a bonus.
What isn't a bonus is when you have to argue with someone because they think their is some grand conspiracy against them.



It's not the hall of good it's the hall of fame
I always thought the idea of the title was to give recognition to films, regardless as to whether or not they were previously well-known.

Though I'd probably like a Hall of Good more, since I'd prefer the films I watch to be enjoyable, rather than only watching things that are popular. Some things are even famous for being terrible, so name recognition doesn't really mean much.

Did you seriously misspell Citizen Kane?
I'd blame auto-correct, but that was all me.

What isn't a bonus is when you have to argue with someone because they think their is some grand conspiracy against them.
The way I read it, your response to CR seemed like you were calling him out for the films he's nominated in the past, rather than saying his theory was just a coincidence. Though maybe I got the tone wrong, since that's sometimes a hard thing to grasp through text alone.



I don't want to argue as I've learned that when two people argue a brick wall goes up and then the exchange of constructive ideas becomes difficult...And yes it can be hard to interpret another person's words on the internet, as we all tend to interpret what we read based on our own self view.

So I guess what I'm saying is...I'm not mad, though it does make me uncomfortable to have it suggested by the host that I should change my noms as they might not be good enough. I really put a lot of effort into deciding what movie I want to share with my fellow members. Winning an HoF is not on my mind. I try to select films I truly believe in and think are special enough for consideration for the HoF.

Yeah because I want your films to do better, you're spending time doing this Hall and I can imagine it being soul crushing to have your films come in near to last. I don't want you to stop participating.
That's nice of you to say, thank you. I won't stop participating as I might be addicted to HoFs I love movies and I love the opportunity an HoF affords me to have conversation, and to experience films that otherwise I'd never watch. That's all a good thing...But don't worry, I never get my 'soul crushed' if my film does poorly. Though I can get disillusioned at times, like I image everyone can.

Well you were the one who pushed me into hosting, unless you forgot that.
Sorry if you felt that way, I certainly didn't intend to make you uncomfortable. My only intention by suggesting you as a host of the 18th was to show respect and to show I had faith in you as you had joined several recent Hofs and been a solid member.



cricket's Avatar
Pimpin' ain't easy
I haven't had much time lately so I've miss a couple of HoFs. The clincher in not taking a chance on this one was figuring I would have already seen all or most. Sure enough, the only movies I haven't seen are the two CR noms. If I had joined, those would have been the two I'd be most excited for. Of course, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have ended up at the bottom of my list



Think you used enough dynamite there, Butch?




Trouble in Paradise

Lily Vautier: "Well, I'll leave you alone with that lady. But if you behave like a gentleman, I'll break your neck."


SPOILERS



While I have scarcely brushed the tip of the iceberg of films by Ernst Lubitsch, I have, I believe, have had the pleasure and honor of enjoying some of his greats; The Shop Around the Corner, Heaven Can Wait, To Be or Not To Be, Ninotchka, Angel, along with this film. Each of which were serious contenders, and, if I had remembered A Royal Scandal which he originally directed, grew too ill and had Otto Preminger to fill in, there is every likely hood I would have traded out my secondary nom, Harvery, for it. Simply because it is rather unknown and one I'd have happily introduced to this HoF.

Now, I am, as previously mentioned, VERY happy to watch this delightful and charming gem that I discovered during the 30s Countdown.
The three leading roles of Kay Francis, Herbert Marshall and Miriam Hopkins are ideal and play beautifully with one another and have a great secondary list of players to support them with C. Aubrey Smith, Charles Ruggles and Edward Everett Horton.

Two thieves, who's introduction to their love affair is a highlight of the opening of the film, have set their eyes on a rich widow and her money after "collecting" her very expensive purse. A reward that is four times what they would get propels them into finding the possibility of even greater fortune to be had is the basis of the, soon to be, love triangle and the juggling of keeping their covert intentions, just that.

All of this is paced and filmed with some adorable, clever cinematography. Using shadows, mirrors and the like to frame and attenuate scenarios and bringing a brisk pace to necessary moments with clever little "yes and no" montages.
The timing of all involved is quite excellent and the dialogue is witty, charming, bubbling with innuendo and delivered with absolute style. Which, from my little experience of Lubitsch, appears to me as a beautiful trademark of his work.

Very much deserving of one of my BRAVOs, @AlexWilder!