Favorite Old Movies

[Arvestaked]

I checked out a classic to watch tonight.

Fellini's "La Dolce Vita" 1961

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Well...?

 

[Arvestaked]

I'll be watching "Touch of Evil" this weekend.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

Well...?

 

[Anileve]

Soooo, I have to say that I couldn't get through the film. And I was actually very surprised because it wasn't in the typical style of Hitchcock. I really liked the camera work, and I really enjoyed the lavender monotone. It definitely gave the movie a very haunting and mysterious feel. There was some witty repartee in the dialogues. But....except for the semblance of fluster the story didn't grab me. In addition, I find Charlton Heston extremely vexing. So I was annoyed by his character from the start, and the fact that his skin was darkened to turn him into a Latin American (for the reasons well known during that time in Hollywood) was very irritating. The movie didn't have a smooth flow, it was choppy, fast and disquieting without much substance. I think it was very unpolished. In other words I lost interest and just gave up. I do adore Hitches other work.

 

I guess I'll give Casablanca another chance, let's see if years later I will appreciate this move more than I did back when. I am a little surprised with your two choices: "Nosferatu" and "Citizen Kane." I know they are classics, but I find them completely unwatchable. There is something about that style of Hollywood films that bothers me, especially in the Citizen Kane. 2001:SO is my all time favorite, but I feel as if it's a very difficult film with someone, you should either watch it alone or with someone you know will appreciate slow, thought provoking and visually stimulating movies It can be mentally exhausting for some. I wanted to see the "Hustler" last night, but we got to the Blockbuster store after it closed. The little shrimp wouldn't let me in. I loooove Paul Newman!

 

Have you seen "Trouble in Paradise"?

[Arvestaked]

Soooo, I have to say that I couldn't get through the film. And I was actually very surprised because it wasn't in the typical style of Hitchcock. I really liked the camera work, and I really enjoyed the lavender monotone.  It definitely gave the movie a very haunting and mysterious feel. There was some witty repartee in the dialogues. But....except for the semblance of fluster the story didn't grab me. In addition, I find Charlton Heston extremely vexing. So I was annoyed by his character from the start, and the fact that his skin was darkened to turn him into a Latin American (for the reasons well known during that time in Hollywood) was very irritating. The movie didn't have a smooth flow, it was choppy, fast and disquieting without much substance. I think it was very unpolished. In other words I lost interest and just gave up. I do adore Hitches other work.

 

I don't know why you think that Hitchcock directed Touch of Evil. It was written and directed by Orson Welles (and chopped up and tortured by the studio). I hope this was the version you watched because they tried to undo studio meddlings. Charlton Heston was a strange choice to play a Mexican but that's the way old Hollywood was. Welles had nothing to do with that choice. Heston was chosen for the role before Welles was hired as writer/director.

 

I guess I'll give Casablanca another chance, let's see if years later I will appreciate this move more than I did back when.

 

It really is great to watch. It draws you in as long as you're open to it and it has some great images. Plus, it's Bogart!

 

 

I am a little surprised with your two choices: "Nosferatu" and "Citizen Kane." I know they are classics, but I find them completely unwatchable. There is something about that style of Hollywood films that bothers me, especially in the Citizen Kane.

 

Citizen Kane was absolutely amazing to me and that I feel without the help of all the hype. With Nosferatu, it is not even Murnau's best film. But I just love it to undeath. It's so fun to watch for me.

 

 

2001:SO is my all time favorite, but I feel as if it's a very difficult film with someone, you should either watch it alone or with someone you know will appreciate slow, thought provoking and visually stimulating movies It can be mentally exhausting for some.

 

Yes, it's not for everyone. Hell knows I've tortured several people with that film. But I can't help it. It excites the crap out of me. "Bliss, bliss and heaven...it was gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh...Oh, it was wonder of wonders... "

 

 

I wanted to see the "Hustler" last night, but we got to the Blockbuster store after it closed. The little shrimp wouldn't let me in. I loooove Paul Newman!

 

I recommend that you not see Color of Money for a long time afterwards so you don't risk retroactively ruining The Hustler.

 

Have you seen "Trouble in Paradise"?

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

No, I have not.

[Anileve]

Honestly? I don’t know why I thought it was Hitchock’s, I am getting old. Either way I didn’t like it, I couldn’t make it through and I told you Heston was giving me a twitch. Yup, same version.

 

Citizen Kane was one of those old movies that are so old that they are absolutely unwatchable, I think the concept is brilliant but I visually can’t take it. Shouldn’t they do a remake of it, that would be interesting to see, but with the right cast (but considering the garbage they are manufacturing maybe not). I am sorry, but I just don’t understand how you can say that watching Nosferatu is “so fun,” jeez, are we talking about the same movie here? It’s anything but fun…come on admit it…wrong choice of words.

 

Rented “The Hustler,” will be seeing this weekend and reporting it back to you. And no I haven’t seen the “Color of Money,” Cruise’s hair is a little hair raising, pun intended.

[Arvestaked]

If someone does a remake of Citizen Kane I'll kill myself. I can't imagine a producer even letting that happen.

 

For me, "fun" is the right word.

 

So you don't like anything prior to the 50's? You should come to L.A. for an extended period of time and go to The Silent Movie Theater. The experience of being there can really drag people into enjoying old silent pictures.

[Arvestaked]

A History of Violence was very good. 8/10

[vava]

Ummm let's please not go anywhere NEAR Citizen Kane. There is nothing to be changed about that movie - it's brilliant.

[Anileve]

A History of Violence was very good. 8/10

style_images/master/snapback.png

I don't know how I feel about Cronenberg, after seeing Crash I am a little skeptical. Was it a total Hollywood mush? The Fly is good, M.Butterfly was terrific... I don't think I've seen any others.

 

Oh vava, have you seen Citizen Kane lately? If not I suggest you try now and tell me if you can make it through the film. I don't quite know how to put it into words, but I am telling you it's unwatchable.

 

I love old movies, before 50's, but not all. Just the other day I watched "The Women" (1938). It was wickedly fun and quite revolutionary IMO. Trouble is, I am sure many people took the message literally. And I gotta say, I really enjoy Chaplin's films.

[Arvestaked]

I don't know how I feel about Cronenberg, after seeing Crash I am a little skeptical. Was it a total Hollywood mush? The Fly is good, M.Butterfly was terrific... I don't think I've seen any others.

 

Oh vava, have you seen Citizen Kane lately? If not I suggest you try now and tell me if you can make it through the film. I don't quite know how to put it into words, but I am telling you it's unwatchable.

 

I love old movies, before  50's, but not all. Just the other day I watched "The Women" (1938). It was wickedly fun and quite revolutionary IMO. Trouble is, I am sure many people took the message literally. And I gotta say, I really enjoy Chaplin's films.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

What do you mean by "a total Hollywood mush?"

 

My Cronenberg recommendations: Spider, Naked Lunch, Dead Ringers, Videodrome

 

I have seen Citizen Kane multiple times. I don't get why it's unwatchable.

 

Seems like you stick to the comedies if it's before the 50's.

[Anileve]

Where there really serious films before the 50'? Even drama back then was slightly comical. Same movie "Touch of Evil" was quite funny at times, I don't know but they have that distinct naiveness about them that makes a film very lighthearted. Anyway cinema was just developing at that time, so its beauty lies in the visual progression not the complex, art-house material, that's why I think movies of that time were a little bit on a fluffy side. I think that the cinematic exploration was rather restricted and tame, at times it can be so irritating because the films of that time focused on a specific class of society that was wearing beautiful clothes, falling in love, dancing, throwing lavish parties, meanwhile most people were fighting wars, suffering from oppression and discrimination or starving. That was projected mainly in Chaplin's films, but in a very mocking tradition, the reason I find him so brilliant. I also despise the portrayal of "Uncle Tom" in so many of those pre 50's movies, so ridiculous.

 

By the way I just remembered "The Swimmer" although it's a '68 movie, it's freaking great! Gotta see it again.

[Arvestaked]

Where there really serious films before the 50'? Even drama back then was slightly comical. Same movie "Touch of Evil" was quite funny at times, I don't know but they have that distinct naiveness about them that makes a film very lighthearted. Anyway cinema was just developing at that time, so its beauty lies in the visual progression not the complex, art-house material, that's why I think movies of that time were a little bit on a fluffy side. I think that the cinematic exploration was rather restricted and tame, at times it can be so irritating because the films of that time focused on a specific class of society that was wearing beautiful clothes, falling in love, dancing, throwing lavish parties, meanwhile most people were fighting wars, suffering from oppression and discrimination or starving. That was projected mainly in Chaplin's films, but in a very mocking tradition, the reason I find him so brilliant. I also despise the portrayal of "Uncle Tom" in so many of those pre 50's movies, so ridiculous.

 

By the way I just remembered "The Swimmer" although it's a '68 movie, it's freaking great! Gotta see it  again.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

Dramas have always had humor in them. They still do. But that doesn't mean they aren't dramas. You should see some of Renoir's old films like The Grand Illusion. And maybe other things by Murnau, like Tabu or Sunrise. How about Battleship Potemkin. Other Welles like Magnificent Ambersons or The Stranger. Haxan is also a very interesting movie -- a surreal pseudo-documentary on Satanic witchcraft. Dreyer's Joan of Arc or Ordet, which may contain things that appear funny because of its date and culture but all in all being quite serious. Try Fritz Lang's M from 1931 about a child murderer. Flaherty's Nanook of the North. Bunuel's early short films The Andalusian Dog and Land Without Bread. It wasn't all just excuses for pretty pictures and there were a lot of things that weren't focussing on that class, and that includes Touch of Evil. Of course there's all the other noir stuff from the 40's and the thrillers that Hitchcock was making too. Stories don't have to be super complicated to be good dramas anyway and the visuals and other directorial developments were often enough to keep them timeless.

[vava]

Oh vava, have you seen Citizen Kane lately? If not I suggest you try now and tell me if you can make it through the film. I don't quite know how to put it into words, but I am telling you it's unwatchable.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

Ok - I confess.... I don't buy (purchase) movies. At all. Never.

BUT! I own a DVD of Citizen Kane - and I have watched it MULTIPLE times. I love it. The entire movie ... it's riveting. I admit, it's not your everyday "smash-bang" hollywood blockbuster, with car chasing, dynamite exploding, special-effects morphing, (or even) heart-string pulling scenes. It's pure cinema - and I love it.

Edited November 9, 2005 by vava

[vava]

Touch of Evil was great - and so was Nanook from the North and Land Without Bread. For a more 'conventional' movie, try James Cagney in White Heat in 1949.

[Anileve]

Going to see The Wayward Girl / Ung Flukt/ Edith Carlmar, 1959 presented by Liv Ullmann. I believe that she was Bergman's favorite or one of. Has anyone seen this one?

 

http://www.filmlinc.com/wrt/showing/norway.htm

[ED]

this weekend I watched the "ROMAN HOLYDAY", again, I can watch this movie all day long and never get bored,

wonderfully made movie and for me.... Audrey Hepburn’s best movie.

akhh....... why they dont make movies like that anymore?

[Takoush]

this weekend I watched the "ROMAN HOLYDAY", again, I can watch this movie all day long and never get bored,

wonderfully made movie and for me.... Audrey Hepburn’s best movie.

akhh....... why they dont make movies like that anymore?

Ed jan:

 

You spoke my very heart. I love that movie also and I also wish that they make more movies like that.

[Arpa]

Ed jan:

 

You spoke my very heart. I love that movie also and I also wish that they make more movies like that.

It couldn't be because the other star of the movie was an Armenian(?), namely, Grigor Ipekian?

Noootttt!!!

Hush!

Don't let Khoja see this. He would let you know that Confucius is a Latinized/Chinified form of the Armenian Confuskian.

Speaking of confusion?? :)

Edited November 10, 2005 by Arpa

[Anileve]

Arvy, wheeeeeeereee areeeee yououuuuuuu?

[Arvestaked]

Elsewhere.