MovieChat Forums > CalvinJarrett > Replies
CalvinJarrett's Replies
He was one of those people who, despite all the years that he lived, always looked great. He was an actor and singer who stood for something, a very principled man, and it will be a serious loss not to have him among us any longer.
As my username indicates, Ordinary People is my favorite movie of all time. And, sadly, Hollywood and audience tastes have changed. Gone are the days when a movie like Ordinary People can be a blockbuster. But back in 1980, people were lined up outside the theater to see this, Robert Redford's directorial debut the same as they now flock to the new Mario movie.
I think the place to find contemporary movies with the sensibility of Ordinary People is Netflix. Netflix and these other major streaming services can afford to green light these types of projects because they make so much money with their more mainstream productions. I can't think of an example off hand, but if you do a simple search, you'll find some good, understated dramas available to stream for free.
Otherwise, Hollywood has gone to hell in a hand basket. They ought to rename is Marvelwood or something. Fortunately, the internet and streaming has become the new forum for the 'auteur,' and these services are inexpensive enough for everyone to enjoy.
Because dooovall knew that scene was not from Someone's Watching Me (1978), but s/he did not know the film that the scene was a part of. I'm 13 years too late, but I don't think s/he was un-helpful or rude in the least. And it's certainly no offense when another poster, redchief2001 provides the actual film immediately thereafter.
I think the movie is an indictment of children as much as it is men. Certainly children in an affluent suburb like Stepford, Connecticut. As another poster pointed out, Bobbie (Paula Prentiss)'s son welcomed the change and felt no desire to ask questions and have his 'old mom' back. If a child can be that dismissive before adolescence, imagine how aloof teenagers would be. The daughters would probably want to know mom's secret for not aging, and not care much about learning about their mom's past as a girl, young woman. The sons just wouldn't care at all as long as their rooms were picked up, cookies were baked for them, and any clothes and other goods were purchased for them. The kids are going to be spoiled whether or not their mothers go through the 'Stepford Wife' process. They're not going to ask questions as teens/college students because it would take time away from their own selfish endeavors, like getting laid, drinking, doing drugs, and seeing KISS, Zeppelin, Grateful Dead, Rush, and AC/DC in concert.
I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that they did not know if there would be an ex-wife/mother character when the show first aired in 1981. I think reviews were mixed after the first season. The audience had a hard time accepting Blake as both protagonist and antagonist. Yes, Cecil Colby could be seen as the antagonist/nemesis character, but he wasn't the kind of villain you love-to-hate as much as they needed him to be. When Alexis arrived, Blake's character was significantly softened. He was able to play more of a straight protagonist - hero, if you will - and Joan Collins stole the show as the show's antagonist while still evoking a sense of sympathy from the viewers. The rest is history. It was that new character and the change in Blake that made the show so popular for years to come.
I'm jealous that you are getting to discover this gem for the first time. You will see that even in its nadir, it was better than the reboots of the 2010's-2020's. I do commend the producers for trying, but the originals (Dynasty, Knott's Landing, Dallas, Falcon Crest, and The Colby's) were a watershed moment in television history. Never to be repeated.
I clicked on this post to see if anyone included Dummy as one of his Top 3. I'm glad you did, runemesa. I have nothing to add; you pinpointed exactly why Paul's performance was so impeccable. I still think of that movie; Paul gave an excellent closing argument. He did a great job imitating a deaf person without going so far as to lampoon the disability.
You're right - that is B.S. How dare they create the impression that they omitted Paul intentionally for production purposes. They were careless; I don't know why they wouldn't take ownership of that. Better to accept responsibility than to double down and claim it was deliberate because it was actually determined by people that an actor of Paul's obvious gifts ws not worthy of the In Memoriam montage. His daughter was perfectly within her right to attack them for it.
I always thought Mira had similar features to her father. I also never thought he was as horrible looking a person as your post indicates. I'm sure his wife was hot because he was a tremendous actor who was very marketable. It is sad that he passed away. I always liked Paul Sorvino and had he lived longer I think the world would have gotten to see him in at least a few more good roles.
Yeah, she was trying to be responsible for preserving it, doing what she thought was necessary (or her only option) to retain her youth and beauty. Plastic surgery can have varying effects on people. Some have it done, look young, and you'd never know they did a thing. Others don't even look human after going under the knife.
Network
The Thomas Crown Affair
Thirteen at Dinner (I know I'll catch hell for that one, but it was this role where I first fell in love with Faye.)
I adore her. She became my favorite actress in 1990 when I was 13. I saw her in a British-made made-for-TV movie adaptation of an Agatha Christie novel, Thirteen at Dinner. As low-budget as that production may have been, and as past her glory days as that film may have been made (1985), I thought she was marvelous. She did not phone in her performance; she stole the show ... and my heart. From then on, I rented or taped off of cable pretty much every other film of hers to date. I continued watching her films and television as they came out in the '90's, 2000's, 2010's, etc. Unfortunately, she seems to have all but retired, and I agree with other posters that she does not get he due she should from both the critics and mere mortals like us.
I think she was a big enough star even without the big boobs. And size isn't what's important anyway. If you saw her in Network, she disrobed and showed off a very nice, perky set of breasts for all of us to appreciate.
Thank you, Funnyboy73 for asking this question. And thank you, orbit_087 for answering it! I saw this movie over 20 times. It was my favorite movie in the early '90's, and you cleared something up for me over 30 years after! I always thought it was the oranges that were getting the "big, ugly looking bruises," and while unaesthetic, they were still edible. And I thought the insurance was on the produce. But that there was some commercial use for the still unharmed oranges (e.g., juicing). I thought the permanent damage and lousing up your insides came from the idea that sometimes the oranges aren't wrapped properly, and if someone eats any, they get some kind of bacteria that permanently screws up their GI track. Thank you for clearing this up. I must have never really heard that first line about "hitting a person."
Sydney Pollack also played the acquaintance/neighbor of the Faye Dunaway character when Redford abducted her. He said, "Hey Kathy." And then Redford was all curious about how well he knew her and that she should act naturally.
An Unmarried Woman (1978)
Interiors (1978)
Saturday Night Fever (1977)
Fame (1980)
Disagree. The space ship and space, itself, were the stars of the show. The humans (actors) were just along for the ride. That being said, their wooden performances fit the screenplay perfectly.
I think that was the point Cronenberg was trying to make. Shivers was a cautionary tale. Cronenberg was warning us that the spirit of free love and the swinging '70's could be a slippery slope. That if sex were so casual some highly objectionable situations (i.e., pedophilia, incest) could become mainstream. Once you look at it through that lens, Shivers makes a very effective point. I don't think Cronenberg was glamorizing the sex in this picture - just the opposite.
I think you make good points. But couldn't that scene be illustrating something else about her character than her contempt for Conrad? I don't think the movie discloses that Calvin was an orphan. The book does. As such, Calvin had a much more working class upbringing than his patrician wife, Beth. What this scene could be saying is that Beth is entitled and does not care about wasting food. Calvin, on the other hand, finds disposing of perfectly good French toast objectionable because it is edible even if it is not as sumptuous as when it first came out of the pan. Also, her attitude could be the offense any cook/chef feels when any patron does not eat/finish their creation. So she may have had the same reaction to Calvin not eating her French toast or, dare I say, Buck had he been alive.
That's pretty harsh. She may not have "redeemed" herself, but you can't hold that against her. The truth is you can't keep French toast. Have you ever tried reheating French toast? It's never up to the standard of coming fresh out of the pan or off of the griddle. And it's not one of those 'just as good cold' dishes like fried chicken or roast beef. Room temperature or cold French toast is unenjoyable. So if you must judge Beth (which is a whole separate argument) don't judge her on that early scene where she disposes of Conrad's uneaten French toast. She may know a little more about cooking than Calvin. Give her credit where credit is due.