MovieChat Forums > Some Came Running (1958) Discussion > I must have seen a different movie then ...

I must have seen a different movie then you--


I have to admit I could not take my eyes away from the tv yesterday when they played this movie....I kept waiting for it to get somewhere.

I must also confess that I would give it a C at best.

The romancing of Miss French and the immediate head over heels love and subsequent "love lost" was too much to bear.

I thought the acting was comical (i.e. thug from Chicago and Miss French), the storyline sophmoric and the characters unbelievable.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

You obviously don't know anything about the author or where he came from. If you did, your opinion might vary about the movie.

reply

There is somethig very riveting about this movie...it sucks you right in from the beginning and makes you care about the characters almost immediately.

reply

I saw this movie when it first came out when Dean Martin was struggling
to free himself from the reputation of being the straight man for comedian
Jerry Lewis. When Shirley MacLaine was struggling to make a name for
herself and emerge from the shell Hal Wallis put her in in a series of
nondescript roles. When Martha Hyer was then just another pretty face.
When author James Jones was attempting to prove he wasn't just a one-
book morning glory. Well...after seeing it I was not disappointed.
Vincent Minnelli managed to turn an unfilmable novel into a pretty
package that looks even better seen today. From the opening credits
with the wonderful Elmer Bernstein score, you know this will be a
stunning Hollywood gem from the days when they knew how to make them.
Sinatra was never better as the writer trouble always seem to follow
around. Notice how he gets through the finale with not a word of dialogue.

This movie was heavy stuff for its time. The ending one of the best put
on film and quite rewarding. One of the best examples of why M-G-M in
those days was No. 1 in class. Bravo Frank, Dean & Shirley!








- - SoundTrak

reply

I read the main backers of this were a group of Mormons. That is very funny, but those guys do know how to make money!

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

reply



See Sinatra as Star of the Month on TCM starting May 4th!







- - SoundTrak

reply

I read the main backers of this were a group of Mormons. That is very funny, but those guys do know how to make money!

Whatever you read, wherever it was, if you did, was wrong. It's an MGM production. MGM produced the movie, meaning they footed the bill for making the movie. They do, and did, so themselves - they didn't need to go outside for backers.

reply

Okay, I finally saw this movie after years of hearing about it. I liked it. I'm glad that I can cross it off of my list. The acting was good. I've never loved Shirley more. BUT! I have to agree with a point the original poster brought up. The speed at which Frank fell "in love" with Martha Hyer was laughable. We couldn't help but burst out with shocked laughter. Let's face it. Her character had almost zero appeal.
Falling instantly in love with her would be like falling in love with the policewoman that writes you a parking ticket. It was out of the blue silliness. The first responder to the original poster said something like, "You obviously don't know the story of the writer." Knowledge of the author's biography shouldn't be a pre-requisite to enjoy a story. I admit it helps, but? I realize this was a HUGE story that was cut considerably for the sake of a decent running time but there were glaring holes in the logic of the narrative. All in all, though, still a film to see.

reply

[deleted]

I just finished watching this after many years of trying to see it and I couldn't agree more with the OP and jervistetch.
I was really let down by the movie and the 20 minute doc that follows it on the dvd is embarrassing for all involved. I was also not impressed with the ending and the cartoonish gangster and the way Shirley eats it. I couldn't help but laugh. I respect all involved (Jones, Sinatra, Minnelli, Deno etc.) but I just was not moved by any of this silly melodrama and they all came off unsympathetic and well I just didn't care for anyone by the end.
What a disappointment.

reply

I agree with previous posters. Interesting story, but wrong director, and wrong leads (except for the wonderful Shirley MacLaine).

Minnelli was too busy watching his color schemes (as usual) and never was able to visually transfer the tragedy and the tension of the main characters and the relationships between them.

Frank Sinatra, wholly miscast as a charismatic, hard-drinking, intellectual, rebellious writer. I never bought the ladies falling for him in zero seconds.
And talking about zero charisma, what about Martha Hyer? The scene in which Sinatra undoes her hairdo to unleash her 'wild side', followed by their kiss was just funny, not passionate.

Shirley MacLaine however was great. She did the best she could with the material, and the scene where she visits Hyer in her classroom to discuss their relationship with Sinatra is her shining moment.

Overall a pity, especially considering the enormous potential of the source material.


voting history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=629013

reply

Another disappointed person here. I found Sinatra lifeless and uninteresting and agree that his romance with Hyer was unbelievable. Martin does nothing. There was also too much time devoted to Frank and his adultery - I didn't care about the character at all, and the story with his daughter felt much more interesting in, say, WRITTEN ON THE WIND with Dorothy Malone. Now if Sirk had handled this movie, he'd have hyped it all up as the trashy material really calls for (and cut that two and a half hour length - too long).

The only bright spot is Shirley MacLaine who brings the whole thing to life in vivid color and wrings as much pathos from the part as possible; she is in another league to everyone else in the movie - she's a real actor with charisma and is a flashing red signpost towards a new style of acting and star. I agree with the previous poster about her classroom scene being a standout.

reply

Something wrong with falling in love with the policewoman who wrote you a parking ticket? Stranger things have happened...

reply

You saw the same movie as I did. I love old movies and particularly love Shirley MacLaine, Frank Sinatra and Dean Martiin, but this film was pointless. Frank Sinatra's character especially was baffling. Was he a con man or a lover? Neither, I suspect. this was like a very bad episode of "Dynasty" (or is that redundant?).

reply

WarpedRecord says > this film was pointless
You may not have gotten it but that doesn't mean there was no point. I found it to be an entertaining movie. What makes it interesting are the issues presented for consideration. I often wonder how some people drive their lives into a ditch and never realizing they're the ones who did it.

Watching this movie was a revelation. The main character, Dave, is just such a person. He's a fairly nice guy who has a lot of potential and people in his life who are willing and able to help him. But he's carrying around anger from his past, he associates with a lot of the wrong people; people who are basically losers who have nothing going for them and who can only drag him down to their level; and he gives in easily to impulses.

He's at a crossroads but doesn't realize his own behavior and choices are slamming the door shut on the kind of life he wants and could have. I think the movie is a harsh reality check. People are people and we're all equal as human beings but it would be a mistake to think that we're all on the same level. There are plenty of people who 'poison the punch.' The movie illustrates that point really well. It's not as if all the bad influences were on one side. Ginny and Bama were certainly negative influences on Dave but both Agnes, Frank, and Frank's secretary did things to negatively influence others too.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

[deleted]

A clunker indeed.

Martin made his dramatic debut in 1958 with two back-to-back features. The first was The Young Lions, followed by this. They both had enormous potential, given the pedigree of their respective crews and their source materials (Shaw's and Jones' acclaimed novels). They both ended up being middling, lackluster disappointments.

Martin would have to wait until the following year, with Hawks' classic western Rio Bravo, to attain cinematic glory.

"...if that was off, I'd be whoopin' your ass up and down this street." ~ an irate Tarantino

reply