|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 229 responses total. |
remmers
|
|
response 177 of 229:
| 
Feb 29 16:46 UTC 2000 |
I'm not familiar with a made-for-tv "Casino Royale". The 1967
film version had at least Peter Sellers, David Niven, and Woody
Allen as Bond.
|
krj
|
|
response 178 of 229:
|
Feb 29 18:29 UTC 2000 |
void is correct about the made-for-tv version. Author Ian Fleming
sold the dramatic rights to "Casino Royale," his first Bond novel,
back in the 1950s. The makers of the 1967 film spoof bought those
rights and thus had a legal claim to use the "James Bond" name.
|
void
|
|
response 179 of 229:
|
Feb 29 20:45 UTC 2000 |
right, krj. i'm not talking about the spoof version of "casino
royale" with peter sellers, david niven, et cetera. there was a
serious, as in non-comedic, black-and-white production of "casino
royale" made for american tv in about 1959 or so. most, if not all, the
actors were americans and the characters all referred to bond as
"jimmy." i'll see if i can find a reference to it somewhere, since krj
and i seem to be the only people who have heard of this version.
|
void
|
|
response 180 of 229:
|
Feb 29 20:49 UTC 2000 |
hmmm. this is why i love google:
Casino Royale (1954)
The screen debut of James Bond, broadcast live on CBS-TV in the U.S. on
October 21, 1954 as part of the "Climax Mystery Theater." Running time
50 minutes.
Starring Barry Nelson as Jimmy Bond, Linda Christian as the Bond girl,
Peter Lorre as the villain, Le Chiffre, with Michael Pate as Clarence
Leiter.
In a nationality twist, "Jimmy Bond" is a CIA agent, and "Clarence
Leiter" is Bond's British ally.
(from http://www.mcs.net/~klast/www/cr54.html)
|
gelinas
|
|
response 181 of 229:
|
Mar 1 03:07 UTC 2000 |
Peter Lorre as Le Chiffre. . . . Interesting.
I've not seen the movie, but I can't see Mr. Lorre in the book's role.
|
remmers
|
|
response 182 of 229:
|
Mar 1 15:15 UTC 2000 |
Oh my. Now that void has entered the details, I can recall seeing
that TV production. I believe it was the premiere production of
"Climax Mystery Theater".
|
md
|
|
response 183 of 229:
|
Mar 1 21:24 UTC 2000 |
From http://www.eonline.com/
"Leni Riefenstahl, 97, once famed as Hitler's
favorite filmmaker, survived a plane crash in
the Sudan with only broken ribs, a German source
said Wednesday."
I had no idea she was still alive.
|
richard
|
|
response 184 of 229:
|
Mar 1 22:24 UTC 2000 |
leni reifenstahl, not only still alive at 97, but coming out with
her autobiography soon, should be good as she's had some life-- also
movie of her life with her played by Jodie Foster
|
remmers
|
|
response 185 of 229:
|
Mar 1 22:31 UTC 2000 |
I had no idea she was still alive either. Must be in pretty
good health if she's flying around in planes in the Sudan.
|
md
|
|
response 186 of 229:
|
Mar 10 13:25 UTC 2000 |
Recent rentals:
EYES WIDE SHUT (C) - A beautifully detailed production
but as shallow as a pizza pan. It can be helpful with a
movie by a Kubrick to imagine that it was directed by
someone else -- say, James Cameron -- and then ask yourself
what your opinion of it would be. Eyes Wide Shut flunks the
Cameron test dismally. Even the sumptuous visuals got on
my nerves after a while. In mean, how many curtains of
white Christmas lights do I have to be shown before I shout,
"I get the idea!"? And how many times does Nicole Kidman
have to dissolve in naughty-schoolgirl giggles before you
want to put duct tape over her mouth?
|
remmers
|
|
response 187 of 229:
|
Mar 11 01:23 UTC 2000 |
If James Cameron had made "Eyes Wide Shut," I'd have said that he'd made
a major breakthrough in his development as a director and that I didn't
know he had it in him.
|
otaking
|
|
response 188 of 229:
|
Mar 11 05:55 UTC 2000 |
"Eyes Wide Shut" might prove to be the breakthrough film for Leelee Sobiewski,
who I really enjoyed in the "Joan of Arc" TV mini-series.
|
richard
|
|
response 189 of 229:
|
Mar 11 22:19 UTC 2000 |
as steven spielberg said, he used to hate Kubrick's films-- he particularly
disliked The Shining. But a funny thing happened, he periodically watched
them again, and with each viewing saw different things and different details.
Kubrick made his films with such detail that you simply cant "get it" watching
it once. Spielberg now says The Shining, which he once hated, is now one of
his absolute favorite movies of all, and that he came to be in awe of
Kubrick's talent. He says that in time, people will come to realize "Eyes
Wide Shut" for the masterpiece that it is.
|
aaron
|
|
response 190 of 229:
|
Mar 12 01:01 UTC 2000 |
Any "masterpiece" that must be studied over and over again to be appreciated
is unlikely to ever gain widespread recognition as a "masterpiece," no
matter how adored it may be by those who take the time to study it.
|
flem
|
|
response 191 of 229:
|
Mar 12 01:08 UTC 2000 |
Perhaps. On the other hand, there are a great many "masterpieces" that never
achieve widespread recognition except among specialists.
|
aaron
|
|
response 192 of 229:
|
Mar 12 01:14 UTC 2000 |
Any that the typical person cares about? ;)
|
void
|
|
response 193 of 229:
|
Mar 12 01:22 UTC 2000 |
drift: does anyone else find it disturbing that the census
commercial showing various school rooms and the numbers of students
they were built to hold/currently hold uses the same beethoven
recording which was used in "a clockwork orange" when alex was
undergoing the ludovico treatment and being shown films?
|
other
|
|
response 194 of 229:
|
Mar 12 01:28 UTC 2000 |
disturbing? i didn't notice, but now that you mention it, i find it very
amusing, actually.
|
jazz
|
|
response 195 of 229:
|
Mar 12 01:28 UTC 2000 |
I'm a fan of many of Kubricks' films, and I really didn't think that
there was all that much to Eyes Wide Shut, either. Perhaps someone who did
like it might explain what they liked about it, so that I might benefit from
a deeper appreciation?
|
remmers
|
|
response 196 of 229:
|
Mar 12 12:41 UTC 2000 |
Re resp:190 et seq: Don't neglect the effect of advocacy.
Not *everybody* has to study a work over and over again.
If a few do, and those few publish their opinions, this
can over time change public perceptions. Various Hitchcock
films have been elevated to "masterpiece" status in this
way, for example.
|
md
|
|
response 197 of 229:
|
Mar 12 15:41 UTC 2000 |
Some things I liked about EWS:
The exploitation of various societal strata. Dr Harford
and his wife are first presented as a couple of rich and
wordly New Yorkers, invited to the best parties, collectors
of art, all-around BPs. Then, as they are exposed to people
from other social and economic levels, we see a prostitute
more beautiful -- inside and out -- than either of them;
and, in the end, we get Ziegler's comment to Harford that
Harford was immediately identified as an outsider at the
orgy because, "you arrived in a cab, and everyone else came
in a limo."
The first and least effective example of this is the oily
Hungarian who tries to hit on Alice at Ziegler's big party.
We're meant to think of him as an aristocratic European taking
advantage of the silly naive American girl we'd been taking
for an upper-class sophisticate just two minutes ago.
Unfortunately, not only does Kubrick ruin it by making Kidman
too drunk for her coy giggles to mean anything, but also the
Hungarian himself is first cousin to Zoltan Carpathy, that
figure of fun who "oozes charm from every pore as he oils his
way around the floor" trying and failing to unmask Eliza
Doolittle at the Embassy Ball in "My Fair Lady." It's
practically the same guy. But a director like Kubrick can't
possibly have done something like this by accident, so maybe
the message is: *even* a Zoltan Carpathy can knock over a
ditz like Alice.
The last scene between the Harfords has been justly criticized,
even by the movie's admirers, for some really dreadful writing.
But the very last word of the movie is right on the money. The
way couples trying to be faithful to each other can deal with the
kinds of temptations the Harfords have been agonizing pointlessly
over is -- to be faithful to each other. When Nicole Kidman says
the word "fuck," you feel like saying, "THANK you!" For more
than two hours, it looked like they'd ever figure it out. The
fact that Kubrick presented it as if it were some great final
illumination is symptomatic of the over-all puerility of the movie,
however.
I like the general idea, if not its execution in EWS, of the
director making ironic little comments, visible only to the
audience. The NY Post headline "LUCKY TO BE ALIVE" is one obvious
(too obvious) example. The various references to Kubrick, his
family, and his other movies scattered throughout EWS is another.
There is an undeniably so-what quality to all of this, but it
helped pass the time, at least for me.
|
jazz
|
|
response 198 of 229:
|
Mar 12 15:49 UTC 2000 |
I'd thought the "LUCKY TO BE ALIVE" headline was a bit corny in that
context; in a movie that was less realistically shot, it might've worked
quite well.
It also occured to me that whomever was writing the film had some
seriously confused ideas about the ritual magic and bondage communities, and
sex clubs.
|
danr
|
|
response 199 of 229:
|
Mar 12 18:46 UTC 2000 |
Sweet and Lowdown
2.5 stars out of 4
Sean Penn is really great in this movie, but about every ten minutes or so the
movie is interrupted by Woody Allen and some other folks supposedly
knowledgeable about Emmet Ray to tell stories. These interruptions really
prevented you from really getting into the movie, imho. And sometimes when
Woody was on it was almost as if he couldn't bear to make a movie in which he
didn't appear.
|
flem
|
|
response 200 of 229:
|
Mar 12 20:31 UTC 2000 |
I have a fond place in my heart for Sweet and Lowdown, not because I
enjoyed the movie so much (though I did rather like it), but because
after walking out, I had such an urge to go listen to some jazz music
that I went to the Bird of Paradise for the first time. I'm rather
quickly becoming a regular there. :)
|
richard
|
|
response 201 of 229:
|
Mar 12 20:57 UTC 2000 |
Remember, Citizen Kane was panned when it first came out-- Orson Welles
didnt even get nominated for best director, best actor, or best picture.
Like fine wine, good films age well with time-- maybe it didnt win any
academy awards, or even get nominated, but Welles' film is now widely
considered the greatest american film ever made. People just had to
watch it a few times ya know....same thing with Kubrick
|
