?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Rear Window

In last night's post about Rear Window, I mentioned that it's always a treat to see James Stewart on the big screen.

Silly me.

While that's true, it would be totally irresponsible for me to neglect to mention that it's also a treat to see Grace Kelly on the big screen. It's a shame that my generation doesn't have equivalents for the likes of Kelly or Hepburn. Really, it's a shame that they no longer make movies like they did back in the day.

The older I get, the more of a film snob I become. That's OK with me.

Tags:

Comments

( 22 comments — Leave a comment )
arcticturtle
Jan. 10th, 2006 03:45 pm (UTC)
>random<I heard a radio spot last night for a coming Derek Trucks Band appearance in Indianapolis, and thought of you.>/random<
drmellow
Jan. 10th, 2006 03:57 pm (UTC)
Excellent.

<commercial>If you get a chance to check them out, you should do it. Here's their schedule. ;-)</commercial>

OK, based on your location listed in your LJ profile, it looks like catching them in Indianapolis would be a 2 hour drive, so even though it would be a no-brainer for me, I don't expect most people to drive as much as I do to see the band.

It's really cool to hear that they're getting promotion on the radio, though.
(Deleted comment)
drmellow
Jan. 10th, 2006 04:35 pm (UTC)
Gwyneth Paltrow?

I don't think so. I just reviewed her filmography on IMDB and wasn't terribly impressed.

more than its fair share of crap cinema

Sure. But Rear Window, e.g., was made 50 years ago. It's as engaging a movie now as it was then. Many of Hitchcock's movies stand that same test. And then there's movies like High Noon, Casablanca, or, of course, Citizen Kane. I can't think of a single movie that came out in the past five years that I expect to be as (or more) engaging in 2050 as it is now.

I blame special effects and short attention spans. While it might have been easier to get a script green lit back in the day, at least the scripts had a better chance of being witty or intelligent because they couldn't rely on snazzy CGI or [insert technology of the day] to bail them out.
(Deleted comment)
drjekyll
Jan. 10th, 2006 07:11 pm (UTC)
Amen.
drmellow
Jan. 10th, 2006 07:49 pm (UTC)
OK. I'll concede some of my point. As far as the timelessness of the movies you chose, I've not seen Lost in Translation or Sideways, so I'll reserve judgement on those. Of the other thee, I don't see them in the same timeless category as the ones I've mentioned from days of yore. Maybe Chocolat.

Of course, the test of time actually requires time to pass before making the decision -- you can't really aproximate it since the future is unknown.

CGI vs. Star Power

I'll take Star Power over CGI pretty much any day. You could chalk that up to personal preference if you like, though, and that's fine with me.

I agree with you that there was some high quality storytelling way back when. But there's still some of that today, you just have to look for it.

Yeah, and with ticket prices what they are, it's not a lot of fun looking for it. whine, whine, whine.

I'm still looking for today's answer to Kelly, Hepburn, Grant, Cooper, etc. The closest thing we seem to have is the Action Hero, which isn't nearly as interesting as a good Drama Star.
drjekyll
Jan. 10th, 2006 08:12 pm (UTC)
So far as actors go. I think you will have a hard time comparing the actors of film's Golden era to the actors of today. A lot of the older films feel over-acted to me. And that's how they were meant to be. These older films are much more akin to just a filming of a play than the movies of today.
drmellow
Jan. 10th, 2006 09:01 pm (UTC)
Exactly. And theater is so much more interesting than a movie flick.

OK, I guess I'm a theater-snob. ;-)
(Deleted comment)
drmellow
Jan. 10th, 2006 09:05 pm (UTC)
I probably agree with you on Douglas, Alda, and Foster. I'm not sure about the others.

I definitely agree with you about the rise of the ego and the entourage.

I'll have to look into "The Usual Suspects." I think I'm all in favor of the writers having more power. What usually impresses me about movies is that they're well-written, directed, and/or filmed, not so much that they're well-acted.
drmellow
Jan. 10th, 2006 09:42 pm (UTC)
Maybe Sandra Bullock. I enjoy watching her in everything I've seen her in. But it's not really 'cause she's a great actress, it's more because she's a great "girl next door."
drmellow
Jan. 10th, 2006 07:52 pm (UTC)
P.S. I'm enjoying this line of chat with you. Should I be elected President, I'll see if I can get you some sort of appointment related to film if I can find one.

Then I'll probably abolish the appointment, 'cause there's really no reason that the federal government should be involved in film.
(Deleted comment)
drmellow
Jan. 10th, 2006 09:06 pm (UTC)
One down. Several billion to go.

This is going to take some time.
(Deleted comment)
drmellow
Jan. 11th, 2006 04:03 am (UTC)
Yeah. I want to win by a landslide.
(Deleted comment)
drmellow
Jan. 11th, 2006 04:17 pm (UTC)
Re: By a landslide
*rimshot*
drmellow
Jan. 10th, 2006 09:31 pm (UTC)
P.S. This thread has cemented my idea that you and I need to figure out how to hang out in real life sometime.
drmellow
Jan. 10th, 2006 09:34 pm (UTC)
Maybe Dirty Dancing. I sure do love that movie. Nobody puts Baby in the corner, you know.

It's been a little while since I've seen it, but I might have to give Red Dawn a chance, too.
neebs
Jan. 10th, 2006 05:14 pm (UTC)
NO equivalents you can think of? Between Lindsay Lohan, Tara Reid, Paris Hilton, Hillary Duff.....


Never mind.
yesimthegirl
Jan. 10th, 2006 09:23 pm (UTC)
But they do make movies like they did back in the day, but they are remakes of all those great movies. Hollywood hasn't really come up with an original idea for awhile. I've seen several movies where I kept thinking "I've seen that" only to realize that the version I've seen is older than I am. Although, I admit I want to see King Kong (2005), but Ann Darrow will always be Fay Wray for me.

I saw someone mention Lost in Translation as a timeless movie. Personally, I want my money back for that one. Sorry to whoever said that, but the movie just didn't do anything for me.

And I'd like to toss Julia Roberts up there to join the ranks of Kelly and Hepburn. I think she may have that classic and timeless quality.
drmellow
Jan. 10th, 2006 09:36 pm (UTC)
And I'd like to toss Julia Roberts up there to join the ranks of Kelly and Hepburn. I think she may have that classic and timeless quality.

I'd like to toss Julia Roberts, too. Right out the window. The Pelican Brief is about the only thing of hers I could stand to watch her in. Now, I haven't seen that Erin Whatever movie that everyone seems to like her in, but after having been burnt on Runaway Bride, I gave up on her.
yesimthegirl
Jan. 10th, 2006 10:33 pm (UTC)
I forgot about Runaway Bride. Yeah, that one wasn't one of her best. I enjoyed Erin Brockavich, it was entertaining. Although, if you really want reason to toss her out the window, then the movie that does it all by itself is America's Sweethearts.

There has to be somebody in the past 20 years that is equal to Kelly or Hepburn. I'm going to go think about this one and report back later.
drmellow
Jan. 10th, 2006 10:57 pm (UTC)
I'm looking forward to a serious contender to Kelly or Hepburn.
yesimthegirl
Jan. 26th, 2006 08:53 pm (UTC)
I nominate
Jodie Foster
She is superb even if the movie tanks.

I've been having a difficult time finding a female who could join the ranks of the greats. I think Jodie fits the bill. Even after a little IMDB research, she still makes the grade. I can't find any fault with her.
(Deleted comment)
yesimthegirl
Jan. 14th, 2006 12:36 am (UTC)
You have a point there. But is there really anyone in the last 20 years who gets close enough to count?
( 22 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

June 2013
S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow