|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
or as Mike Celizic might say…Hatari!
In the end, I suppose it doesn’t matter—Jeter has been robbed in previous awards voting. He wasn’t robbed this time. This is more a cri de coeur against misapprehensions about the replacement value of a great shortstop season versus a good season by a first baseman. Before anyone jumps on me for saying Teixeira’s season was “good,” not “great,” it’s not meant as an insult. It’s just that the hitting standards at first base are so ridiculously high that to call Teixeira’s season great would be ludicrous given the existence of Albert Pujols.
In the end, we should probably be thankful that Jeter did not get a career-achievement MVP award. That John Wayne got an award for “True Grit” doesn’t change the fact that he didn’t even get nominated for “The Searchers” (indeed, “The Searchers” was not nominated for a darned thing), “Red River,” or even his gritty sergeant with a heart of gold in “The Sands of Iwo Jima” (he was nominated but lost to Broderick Crawford chewing up the drapes in “All the King’s Men”). Henry Fonda getting a deathbed for “On Golden Pond” doesn’t forgive the lack of notice for “Young Mr. Lincoln,” “The Grapes of Wrath” (nominated but lost to Jimmy Stewart for “The Philadelphia Story”), or “Fort Apache,” among others. Cary Grant’s honorary award doesn’t make up for the lack of recognition for “His Girl Friday” or “Only Angels Have Wings,” to name just two. These are apologies, not awards that carry the power of in-the-moment recognition.
As I said, Mauer deserved the award, but there is a certain sadness that Jeter, one of the most-celebrated players of his day, will never get an MVP award despite playing excellently on five World Series winners.
Repoz
Posted: November 24, 2009 at 02:59 PM | 197 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
awards,
yankees
|
Support BBTF
Thanks to
Tuque
for his generous support.
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Maddon on Red Sox beaning Luke Scott: 'I think it's ridiculous, I think it's absurd, idiotic' (5 - 8:03am, May 26)Last: Obi One Kenobi NilNewsblog: YESNetwork: A look at five Yankees' cases for enshrinement in Monument Park (1 - 7:55am, May 26)Last: bjhankeNewsblog: HP: Baseball is leaving the human factor behind (60 - 7:55am, May 26)Last: Designated Sitter (GGC)Newsblog: Wilmoth: Nate McLouth Designated For Assignment (13 - 7:52am, May 26)Last: RussNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread, May 2012 (1835 - 7:45am, May 26)Last: thokNewsblog: The Hall of Very Good: Former Cards Slugger Critical of "LaRussa's Regime" (6 - 7:16am, May 26)Last: Shooty: Applying to be Fearless LeaderNewsblog: Matschulat: Did I Miss The "Paul Konerko Is So Overrated OMG" Bandwagon? (30 - 7:15am, May 26)Last: baudibNewsblog: CSN to host ‘Phillies at the Beach’ on Memorial Day (19 - 7:11am, May 26)Last: GodNewsblog: T.R. Sullivan: Of Frank Robinson, Milt Pappas and Jim Palmer (10 - 7:09am, May 26)Last: GodNewsblog: Bud Selig -- No need for more MLB replay for now - ESPN (88 - 6:12am, May 26)Last: LassusNewsblog: Himrich’s Top Ten Target Field Foods (8 - 2:43am, May 26)Last: Long John McCaine Mutiny on the Bounty (scott)Newsblog: Boston.com: Curt Schilling’s 38 Studios lays off all staff (119 - 1:28am, May 26)Last: Swedish ChefHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1973 Discussion (15 - 12:13am, May 26)Last: DanGHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1972 Ballot (28 - 11:25pm, May 25)Last: lieiamSox Therapy: A Winning Ballclub? (20 - 11:24pm, May 25)Last: Dan
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
If Gibson were cast, I could see riffing on King Lear. That actually could be fun. You could also have Gibson killed by a gang of savage biker Jews. There might be some fun there, too.
When Silverado came out, IIRC, there had not been a lot of westerns lately, and it was a very enjoyable movie. I loved the sly performance by Linda Hunt, Kevin Kline, John Cleese and Brian Dennehy, while everybody else was largely playing it straight.
But it was seriously cheesy. And I'm talking limburger cheesy.
But that's why it's so fun! It's got all the tropes, man. All of them! the Kurt Russell version of Wyat Earp is also good, cheesy Western fun. Director: OK, when I say action, everyone emote wildly!
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
Thanks. There's already so many abbreviations on the web, that I was flummoxed. Get off of my lawn and spell things out!!
Awesome.
One of the greatest lines ever, but you have to say it so the back row can hear you.
I've been rooting for this for years.
John Ford is a god as a director for me, but Sergio Leone is my favorite director for westerns.
The Searchers? I think it's rated just fine. Even like the hokey parts.
It's a good film and I would give it a B+, but it's really not The Good, The Bad and the Ugly good.
I love CGI, as long as it's not a substitute for a good script and/or acting.
They're different flavors. The Good... is a steak dinner with a fine scotch afterwards, Silverado is a dog with all the fixins at a baseball game.
But Mad Max should, essentially, be about machines running into each other. Low-fi, baby. I'd hate to see them ruin it with that Fast and Furious cartoon bullsh!t. (Though I admit I found The Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift kinda fun.)
I not only have seen (and love) the movie, but my father owns an actual Winchester '73 that he inherited from his granduncle.
Funny, most people think of Jimmy Stewart from his movies during the Thirties and Forties, but he didn't hit the top-ten at the box office until he started playing these type of roles. He was much more popular during the Fifties and Sixties than he was before that.
Not a bad description of both films, Shooty.
If you can do it without CGI and also not bust your budget, then I'm all for it.
From the article, it looks like they have $100 million to play with. Hopefully that means real cars getting all blowed up so you see hub caps and nuts and bolts flyin all over the place and stuff.
I don't know what Primey category this belongs in, but I hope it wins
Not to mention the fact that Kurt was the spittin' image of the man himself in that movie.
The bridge sequence in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly DOES slow the whole pace down. They couldn't just cut it (because it provides the excuse later for Eli Wallach's revelation at the duel -- "triel"?) but man I wish they had trimmed about ten minutes of it down. On the other hand, there are several sequences like that in Once upon a Time in the West whereas that's the only one of its kind (for me) in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
My Darling Clemetine would be better if they'd cast someone -- anyone -- other than Victor Mature. He's Kim Basinger bad. He's Freddie Prinze jr bad. If they'd replaced him with the cross-eyed boy from Shane, they woulda gotten a better performance. If they'd replaced him with John Wayne playing Genghis Khan, I woulda believed him more. Lord, what an awful performance in an otherwise good movie.
Well he's not charismatic to me, he's over-acting. "Stella!!, Stella!!", it's a freaking caricature. The whole "method acting" thing is an abomination.
I chalk his popularity up to the same baby boomer self-indulgence that made them consider the Beatles to be great. Basically our generation's stuff must be the best ever.
There are 500 movie actors in the 20th century better than Brando, and most of them no one remembers.
I like Mature in the role (even though I can't imagine him as the real Doc Holliday at all anymore), but you had me laughing at that last sentence.
BTW, when did Kim Basinger become a bad actress (there will be no defense of Freddie from me)?
Hyperbole alert! :-)
Okay, you can argue that they weren't the greatest ever, but you lose me when you state that they weren't even great. BTW, I was five when they broke up, so I'm not a baby boomer.
Read the thread, ya polecat varmint.
I think it's the closest to what actually happened back in 1881, though it's not as beautiful to watch as My Darling Clemetine is. I give it an A-.
Brando could overact at times, but I can't think of a performance better than his in On the Waterfront. Look at the talent lined up in that film, yet his Terry Malloy blows them all off the screen.
Sigh, they are acronyms.
Sure, GGC.
Oh, she was that way at one time. Certainly during the '70s. However, she developed into a capable actress by the mid-Eighties, IMO.
Try The Long Goodbye. Eliot Gould! Also features Jim Bouton!
Seriously? This criticism is really nuts. I mean, it's hilarious, but it's nuts. Not that you need to like Brando: to each his own.
You really hate the whole method acting thing? Do you hate DeNiro and Daniel Day-Lewis? James Dean?
When I learned about Brando in a film class the professor used this clip to illustrate the point of it all. Method acting isn't yelling "STELLA" as loud as possible. It's these spontaneous introspective gestures that Brando uses to round out his character. It's not acting like Clark Gable and just broadly projecting moviestarness in every scene.
Harmonica: "Did you bring a horse for me?"
Snaky: "Looks like we're shy one horse."
Harmonica: "You brought two too many."
Gable still kicks ass, though.
Early DeNiro, or "Meet the Parents" DeNiro?
Sometimes that style is perfectly appropriate and wonderful.
I think it's just me, Shooty. Being a "party of one" as Andy calls me.
Okay, you can argue that they weren't the greatest ever, but you lose me when you state that they weren't even great. BTW, I was five when they broke up, so I'm not a baby boomer.
They were a nice little pop band before they got all weird with the drugs. Not particularly good musicians. They have some catchy toons, but I've never been able to listen to one of their albums straight through.
The killer is they introduced multi-track recording, which I loathe with all my being. Put your damn band in front of a microphone and play. Anything else, and its not real music.
You really hate the whole method acting thing? Do you hate DeNiro and Daniel Day-Lewis? James Dean?
Yes. The English stage acting tradition is far, far superior. As is the classic Hollywood studio tradition. IMHO you can't even compare the modern actors to the stars of the 30's-50's. Stewart, Grant, Tracy, Fonda, Gable, Bogart, Cagney, William Holden, Walter Brennan, it's not even close.
Can't stand Daniel Day Lewis or James Dean. DeNiro depends on the movie. When it's an over-the-top character, his schtick works, and he's awesome (Godfather II, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas). In other cases, he's "playing DeNiro" way too much. Pacino is the same way. He works in Dog Day Afternoon, or Scarface, b/c it's a wacky over the top character. Scent of a Woman was an embarrassment. I think his Godfather performances are highly over-rated, though I love G1, and the half of G2 with DeNiro. The non-flashback half of Godfather 2 I found completley unbelievable.
The best modern actors to my eye are probably Anthony Hopkins, Robert Duvall, and Gene Hackman. Then you've got guys I like, like Harrison Ford, Sean Connery, Clint Eastwood and Mel Gibson. But they're definitely great movie stars, not great actors. Clearly in the Charlton Heston/John Wayne mode of playing a single "character" as opposed to legitimately skilled actors.
Well, you're certainly not a party of one here - talk to Repoz.
IMHO you can't even compare the modern actors to the stars of the 30's-50's. Stewart, Grant, Tracy, Fonda, Gable, Bogart, Cagney, William Holden, Walter Brennan, it's not even close.
Can't stand Daniel Day Lewis...
...as opposed to legitimately skilled actors.
Yeah, this doesn't even come close to scanning. Bogart played ONE character his entire damn career (and many do the same these days, but I blame him for all of them now), and while that may be less true of some of the others you mention, it is incredibly common for that era.
Daniel Day-Lewis is as much an artisan, an actor in the true tradition of people playing different characters than anyone on that list. And better than most - if not all - of them. I can't fathom how you'd question this. I can see your point on Pacino, however, and DeNiro as well. But those two are the Bogarts of the era and STILL have greater range.
And
and DeNiro as well. But those two are the Bogarts of the era
I see these three great DeNiro roles as three different character types, if in a somewhat narrow range of an INTENSE character.
In G2, he's a guy who's either going to get to the top or die trying, because if he doesn't, he's going to be nothing but a squashed bug anyway. And he isn't so different than you and me, maybe just more of a risk-taker. He's not evil per se, but the only way to succeed for him is to be evil. The only other path to success for someone with that background would be the priesthood, and Vito ain't cut out to be any priest.
In TD, he's a good enough guy at heart, spinning wildly out of control -- close enough to somebody we might know but taking it farther than we want to imagine that person could go.
In GF, his character is evil. Oh, he's Jimmy the Gent and early in the picture actually lightens the mood a bit. But as his character is revealed, we see just how bad of a guy he is. He has a lighter touch in this movie, as Pesci gets to be over-the-top character.
You are correct that Bogart belongs with the movie stars, not the actors. Mis-statement on my part.
Daniel Day-Lewis is as much an artisan, an actor in the true tradition of people playing different characters than anyone on that list. And better than most - if not all - of them. I can't fathom how you'd question this.
Scenery-chewer. He often over-acts in ways that makes his character seem silly. Bill-the -butcher was absurd. Didn't see the movie, but from the clips I saw of "There will be blood", it looked like more of the same.
I thought he was good in "In the Name of the Father", though.
That makes sense. I think DeNiro's problems (and Pacinos too) is that they play every character as that intense. No sublety at all. I sense a similar trend with Daniel Day Lewis.
This is the whole crux of the problem with method acting. There's no understatement.
I can see [barely :)] that you could dislike Brando in Streetcar but in On The Waterfront, oh boy, just what he does with his eyes and mouth in the "Contender" scene knocks me out. Every time. "I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am, let's face it. It was you, Charley." gets me teary-eyed every time. At least give Waterfront one more chance.
This statement is not entirely without merit. Let's go to the career list!
1985: My Beautiful Laundrette. Played a gay man in a film I saw over 20 years ago. I know I loved it at the time, but I can't remember if I thought it was over-acted.
1985: A Room With a View. A flummoxed proper gentleman utterly overwhelmed and sadly cowed by the intensity of his arranged bride. Was not a caricature and actually made you feel sorry for him in his portrayal.
1988: Unbearable Lightness of Being. Again, I remember liking it, but it's been SO LONG since I saw it, I have a hard time remembering what I thought about it. But it's a pretty subdued film. I doubt there's much scenery-chewing there. Maybe?
1988: Stars and Bars. Never saw it.
1989: Eversmile, NJ. Never saw it.
1989: My Left Foot. I'm not sure you can claim overacting here, as it's simply an intensely physical role. I really doubt anyone else could have done the job he did. You need a special level of skill to do such a thing that well.
1992: Last of the Mohicans. Hee! Day-Lewis swallows all the scenery, which is considerable, considering it's the entire Catskills.
1993: The Age of Innocence. An awesome period film, and I wouldn't say over-acted.
1993: In the Name of the Father. Didn't see it.
1996: The Crucible. Didn't see it, but given the story, I can see some chewing going on here.
1997: The Boxer. Saw it - did not make an impression. A little over-acted.
2002: Gangs of New York. Well, I can see how this can be seen as scenery-chewing, but it kinda works for me, so oh well. Also, the true character is really over-sized by all historical accounts.
2005: Ballad of Jack and Rose. A unique, creepy, understated, uncomfortable movie and performance. No scenery-chewing at all, in my opinion.
2007: There Will be Blood. I haven't seen it. But then again, neither have you.
2009: Nine, the musical - unreleased. You can't really overact in a musical.
SOOOOOO there you have it. I think he comes out pretty well.
Stuff like this puts you into the Not Worth Arguing With category.
This statement is not entirely without merit. Let's go to the career list!
My reaction to Lewis is primarily based on Gangs of New York, and Last of the Mohicans. Haven't seen a lot of his more obscure work.
Also, I'm not saying he's terrible, just that I don't care fro the "emotive" style that everyone praises, and don't consider him a great actor.
Stuff like this puts you into the Not Worth Arguing With category.
Fine. To me the idea that a band can't recreate their songs live annoys me. All the oversampling, and one guys playing a dozen instruments on a synthesizer, it's just not genuine to me.
It like a cartoon.
I will say this - for as incredibly skilled an actor that I feel he is, I do think his lack of output is a count against him when compared to other great actors.
Everyone go see it.
I too always thought she was bad. But how about Comeback of the Year for Groundhog Day. She carried her own weight in that one. And Bill Murray never had/has to do another decent movie for me to remember him as a great actor after this.
Best actors of more recent vintage, well, you are talking Daniel Day Lewis I guess. But personally I think DiCaprio is the (BEST ("ACTOR,")) you know, hey, look at me, I'm acting, but in a good way, while of course Tom Hanks is the best actor. And then there's Johnny Depp. Over-acting or not, he's just good fun. Pirates of course. But Sleepy Hollow is CRIMINALLY underrated. CRIMINALLY.
I'm worried it will be like "No Country for Old Men". Some much hype, Oscar award.
After I saw it I wanted to beat someone to death. It was so stupid it made my brain hurt.
Maybe you shouldn't go see it. You clearly don't like awesome movies.
C'mon! "No Country for Old Men" made zero sense. There's this guy with an air-compressor riding around Texas killing people by the dozen and there are no roadblocks, no police reaction except this one hick sheriff?
He's blowing up cars, and raiding hospitals, and the whole state isn't up in arms? Texas has more guns than entire continent of Europe, and the people know how to use them.
He walks into a room with a half dozen Mexican gangsters and kills them all with out getting a scratch? Who is he, the Terminator?
Do you know what you odds are survival are walking through a door with even one armed man waiting for you on the other side, much less six? Zero. He'd be dead before he even saw them.
Then he hunts down the wife to kill her out of principal? A professional assassin takes that kind of risk, out of principal?
Pure absurdity. "It's a Wonderful Life" was more believable.
After I saw it I wanted to beat someone to death. It was so stupid it made my brain hurt.
snapper, I love you man, but you have even worse taste in popular entertainment than my girlfriend.
(By the way, fellas, Les Paul invented multi-track recording, mostly so he could play his own instruments. Les Paul is awesome.)
It was a diversion, but an interesting diversion and statement on the waste of war.
Hey, this is even the thread that started with westerns, so there you go. Did you see that one, Shooty?
I just personally didn't feel like the narrative held together through all the acts in No Country. I thought it was written incredibly, and well-acted, but I wasn't as impressed as everyone else with the finished product.
He walks into a room with a half dozen Mexican gangsters and kills them all with out getting a scratch? Who is he, the Terminator?
Then he hunts down the wife to kill her out of principal? A professional assassin takes that kind of risk.
Pure absurdity. "It's a Wonderful Life" was more believable.
All true, yet as a purely macabre bit of entertainment, it had its moments. Until that "ending", which might as well have been out of My Dinner With Andre, it was so fucking lame.
That's one I haven't gotten to yet, but I've heard nothing but good things about it.
No Country is a great film. In fact, I'm shocked it won an Oscar because it's actually good. That last scene with the killer and the guy's wife is as good as it gets. "It's not God, it's just you..."
Except for the fact that she wasn't.
That is one of my absolute favorite films. It is almost impossible to follow at times, but the atmosphere and the characterizations are marvelous.
And it gave us Rollo Tamasi.
It's worth seeing solely for Casey Affleck, who is awesome.
As far as There Will be Blood, I've been meaning to see it since it came out, but I missed the release, then I just haven't gotten around to it. HOWEVER, I've got it slated for my retired parents new 60-inch flat screen when I scope out their new snowbird home over christmas.
Yes. I also enjoyed him (and the movie) in Gone Baby Gone.
edit: It's actually called The Class. The same guy who did Human Resources and Time Out.
Non. Quoi encore?
No, he didn't. He got his start playing snarling gangsters, then developed his iconic anti-hero persona during the Forties. Then you have his roles in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and The Africa Queen, which deviate from those two styles. He might not have been Paul Muni, but give him a little more credit.
For me, this movie was so very close to being amazing, but it didn't quite make it. Too slow? Too long? Something like that. But the director is obviously from the Terrence Malick school of expressive visuals, which I love, and everything else about the movie was superb. The plot was interesting, the acting was good, the art direction was wonderful. I will be paying attention to him in the future, although his Wiki page makes it sound like we shouldn't expect anything in the near future.
I liked Pi.
I am not much of a Daniel Day Lewis fan, personally. My favorite role of his is probably Last of the Mohicans. He was a bit over the top in There Will Be Blood and Gangs of New York, though I did somewhat enjoy both.
No, he didn't. He got his start playing snarling gangsters, then developed his iconic anti-hero persona during the Forties. Then you have his roles in The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and The Africa Queen, which deviate from those two styles. He might not have been Paul Muni, but give him a little more credit.
This is probably a lot more fair than what I said. I'm still not impressed by him as an actor as opposed to an icon, but there was indeed more range than I initially gave him credit for.
I might disagree with just about everything else snapper has said in this thread, but he's got NCfOM pegged pretty well. It's a decent monster movie until it goes off the rails in the last 3rd, but that's about it.
The worst part of the motel scene, which is the most egregious example of how lazy the plotting and logic is in the movie, is the fact that 6 gangsters spend 12 hours in a room where they know for dead certain there's a tracking device, most likely contained in a bag with 2 million dollars in it ... and they don't even bother to look for the bag?
Seriously, this is how this would have gone in real life.
Enter.
Check the drawers and closet.
Check the bed.
Is it in the shower?
Hmm, where else could it be??? Oh, how about that air vent?
Leave with money.
You guys are so wrong about No Country for Old Men it makes my head hurt. YOU ARE HURTING MY HEAD! Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving everyone!
edit: Humphrey Bogart was a great actor. I think he had tremendous range. He could play insecurity, rage, hopelessness, vulnerability and on and on. He also had a quick wit. He was incredible.
Drag Me to Hell was a very good genre movie, much better than I expected.
Javier Bardem has Casey Affleck's Oscar.
Seriously, Affleck's performance is one of the best of this decade. Just stunning. You loathe him for most of the movie, he's a creepy little ####, hell, even the title of the movie tells you what you're supposed to feel about him, but by the end, in a way that feels completely organic and natural, you come to have empathy and a grudging affection for the character.
The movie as a whole isn't as good as the performance, but it's worth watching.
Seriously.
Humphrey Bogart was a great actor. I think he had tremendous range. He could play insecurity, rage, hopelessness, vulnerability and on and on. He also had a quick wit. He was incredible.
The kids have invented a word for how I feel here. I believe it's "meh".
Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes.
A bit?
David Wells is a bit overweight.
Curt Schilling is a bit opinionated.
Albert Pujols has a bit of talent.
By the time DDL got done in Gangs of New York, he had not just chewed the scenery, he had carved it up, roasted it on a spit, and downed it all with some Fava Beans and nice Chianti.
Not that I didn't enjoy the performance. Sometimes "that kind" of acting is a load of fun.
"They were a nice little pop band before they got all weird with the drugs. Not particularly good musicians. They have some catchy toons, but I've never been able to listen to one of their albums straight through.
The killer is they introduced multi-track recording, which I loathe with all my being. Put your damn band in front of a microphone and play. Anything else, and its not real music."
"C'mon! 'No Country for Old Men' made zero sense. There's this guy with an air-compressor riding around Texas killing people by the dozen and there are no roadblocks, no police reaction except this one hick sheriff?
He's blowing up cars, and raiding hospitals, and the whole state isn't up in arms? Texas has more guns than entire continent of Europe, and the people know how to use them.
He walks into a room with a half dozen Mexican gangsters and kills them all with out getting a scratch? Who is he, the Terminator?
Do you know what you odds are survival are walking through a door with even one armed man waiting for you on the other side, much less six? Zero. He'd be dead before he even saw them.
Then he hunts down the wife to kill her out of principal? A professional assassin takes that kind of risk, out of principal?
Pure absurdity. 'It's a Wonderful Life' was more believable."
I'm gonna have to borrow these at some point.
Oy. I admitted he had more range than I initially stated already and I even like African Queen.
I think he had a bell-curve character he played very very often, and this is why I'm not overwhelmingly impressed with his career. I feel the same way about a number of actors. Bringing up one, two, or five roles out of the roughly 65 films in which he had a major role (and probably more, I certainly haven't seen all of them, that's an estimate) does not really put any kind of dent in my point.
I'm way late but Shane was a serious letdown for me. It's so dry and dull and lacks any sort of interesting style and you want to punch that stupid little kid in the face.
I think that unfortunatly this happens to so many actors- they are just playing themselves on the screen. Harrison Ford once remarked that when he was fired from the first studio he worked for the executive told him that basically he did not have star power. The exec said that the first time that Tony Curtis appeared on film, (in some small role as a bell boy I think) you looked at him and thought there is a star. I thought that you were supposed to see a bell boy, Harrison said.
True, and according to wikipedia:
Why, thank you.
I'm gonna have to borrow these at some point.
Feel free. My feelings about "No country..." are tame compared to my wife's. She was actually visibly angry after seeing the movie.
6:00 AM Love Affair (1932) An heiress' affair with an aeronautical engineer threatens his career. Cast: Dorothy Mackaill, Humphrey Bogart, Hale Hamilton. Dir: Thornton Freeland. BW-68 mins,
7:15 AM Big City Blues (1932) A country boy finds love and heartache in New York City. Cast: Eric Linden, Joan Blondell, Humphrey Bogart. Dir: Mervyn LeRoy. BW-63 mins,
and ending on the 29th with his last movie, one of many fine boxing films from that period:
4:30 PM Harder They Fall, The (1956) A cynical press agent exposes inhuman conditions in the boxing game. Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Rod Steiger, Jan Sterling. Dir: Mark Robson. BW-109 mins
I think that with most actors you either like their overall persona (both on-screen and off) or you don't, which is why I like Bogart. And anyone who thinks that Bogart wasn't a fine and versatile actor is nuts, unless you're holding him to a standard that only about a dozen actors in history can live up to.
I am more or less with you on this. I feel like I should watch it again since I know now that it's not really to be taken seriously and is more of a jokey horror film. I'll probably like it better if I approach it with that mind-set.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main