MovieChat Forums > ElizabethJoestar > Replies
ElizabethJoestar's Replies
I seem to be the only one who doesn't mind this scene. Gloria is a neglected kid, she's bullied at school, she has a crush on Sam and feels threatened by Susy, who's beautiful. Susy is frustrated by her circumstances and sometimes takes that out on the kid, hence Gloria's outburst (remember, her dad just left the family-- doubtful that put her in much of a good mood).
I generally prefer the movie to the play, but this is a case where the play clarifies Gloria's behavior better... because Susy is more of a witch towards the kid in the play, blaming her for things she didn't do (while knowing she didn't do them) to mask her own mistakes. The bad blood is set up better there.
Roat's entrance in the doorway is also reminiscent of Ivor Novello's in Hitchcock's THE LODGER.
In a sense, WUD has already been remade, albeit unofficially. It's called PENTHOUSE NORTH, a Netflix movie about a blind woman who gets terrorized by two thugs out to find stolen diamonds in her NYC apartment. It's modernized, throws out the con man charade for more physical torture from the start, and... is honestly boring compared to the 1967 movie, lacking the colorful characterizations and slow burn quality that make the Terence Young film so beloved.
To be honest, WUD is unlikely to be remade in any official capacity. Firstly, it's too old-fashioned-- or at least, it tends to be perceived as such. The attempt to revive it on Broadway in the late 1990s was met with negative reviews, mostly for Quentin Tarantino as Roat but also because the critics saw the story as too "dated." While the enduring popularity of the film version among classic movie geeks and the ongoing revival of the play on community and school stages shows that it's apparently not too "dated" for everyone, I don't think that's enough to warrant Hollywood's attention for a remake.
Secondly, it has no nostalgia value for the audiences Hollywood wants to court. Most remakes are of properties from the 80s and 90s now. A thriller from the 1960s is less likely to merit interest.
And-- I am totally okay with this. I love WUD. I think it's a near-perfect film and it's not being "modern" is part of its appeal. The changes Hollywood would make would likely just spoil it. Adding more jumps and "scares" would ruin the way Knott paces the action and builds tension. WUD works so well because it is a slow-burn thriller, made before horror movies had to have several jump scares to keep the attention-challenged audience from looking down at their phones. And I think having several jumps only dillutes their impact: that last scare in WUD works as well as it does because there is no other moment like it in the entire movie. That is why it is a shock.
So no remakes, please.
Exactly this!
Leia and Han are his closest friends. He's already lost his aunt and uncle, and then Obi-wan. Also, he's young and rash. It would make less sense for him not to rush to the rescue.
STAR WARS was meant to be evocative of older adventure serials in general and for the score, Lucas wanted something in the vein of Holst's The Planets as well as the grand, sweeping music of Classic Hollywood (you can also hear bits similar to Stravinsky's Rite of Spring during the desert scenes). I have no doubt LOA was an inspiration (not just in the music, but in some of the desert visuals as well), but Williams isn't stealing so much as paying homage.
Here's an interesting video essay on whether or not Williams is a "thief":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Jc9z-b-Hw
Nah, for me it's still EMPIRE. However, this movie is a close second. Both of those films are the height of the series: this one is a classic adventure and the second one is like a dark fairy tale.
For that reason, yes, but also because Cruise is much more "golden boy" than Ford.
--
Spot-on. I have no great love for Cruise as an actor, but I think his casting works because of that sense of "golden boy" naivete at the start of the movie. Ford in his 50s would not have pulled off that quality. He comes off as too worldly wise, whereas Cruise evokes an overconfident charisma and unknowingness.
I also liked Kidman in the film, even if her "stoned" scenes are shaky. Tbh, as far as "stunt casting" goes, this worked out pretty well. I can understand finding EYES WIDE SHUT slow and ponderous, but the casting was well-conceived IMO.
No, I didn't. I didn't hate the movie but I did it find a bit uneven and overly sentimental.
Pretty much this. I think he knew both lifestyles were not for him, but didn't know what he was going to do outside those categorizations.
I'm an Arkin fan so I might be a little biased, but considering that I went into this movie expecting it was going to be pure cringe, I ended up thinking it was not that bad. Arkin does a decent job with middling material and is good at making the part his own. If anything, I miss Blake Edwards' more inspired direction more than I miss Sellers, genius that he was.
I enjoy this one. I think it's a bit jarring because it's the one PP movie where Clouseau is not the main attraction. It's a lot more old school and mellow. And I actually liked the ending?
That being said, A SHOT IN THE DARK is better and my favorite. This one is about a 7/10 for me.
I actually saw the film shortly after having read the book for class in 6th grade. I enjoyed both tbh. I get why people hate the magic in the movie, but it honestly doesn't bother me that much. I still think the conflict regarding Timmy's illness and the in-fighting among the rats were very well-done.
Definitely a memorable score. Probably my favorite from Goldsmith, though he made so many classic soundtracks that it's hard to single out a favorite.
By modern ratings standards, this would be a hard PG. But back then, the system was way more lax. Even pre-1968 movies like PINOCCHIO, when reviewed under the MPAA system, get a G despite having very dark and disturbing themes and scenes.
All the Marvel superheroes make big bucks for THOSE movies, but Robert Downey Jr. totally flopped with Dr. Doolittle.
--
To be fair, the trailers for DOOLITTLE looked awful. However, I do agree with your general point. I have to wonder why this has happened. Even in the 2000s, it felt like people would go see movies for the stars. I recall people going to see things because people like Johnny Depp, Brad Pitt, or Angelina Jolie were in them when I was in middle school, for instance.
I'm a bit cynical about this kind of thing, but I don't think any movie will come close to ENDGAME's numbers within the next decade. In fact, I would not be shocked if ENDGAME marks the end of an era-- the end of the blockbuster era ushered in by JAWS and STAR WARS.
I mean, I could be wrong... but I don't see any buzz or hype for upcoming blockbusters, not like ENDGAME had.
Run for the Sun is a loose 1950s remake. It incorporates escaped Nazi war criminals and a more developed romantic subplot. I actually enjoyed it quite a bit, but it's not as thrilling as this 1932 movie.
As a writer, I too get a lot of inspiration from this movie. It's just so tight and full of great characters. I mostly write fantasy, but it's still a master lesson in building suspense.
On-stage, I'm sure those scenes are so much more intimate-- and considering how intense they are in the movie, I can only imagine the impact in a live theater setting!
PS The only actor carried over from the play was Julie Herrod (Gloria). I think this was her only film and she retired from acting soon after.
Well it didn't happen much. Arkin was such a cool cat as Roat; in this one, he is YELLING a lot of the time. But then, Roat yelled at Hepburn a bit in Wait Until Dark, too: "DON"T TOUCH THAT!" I dunno, I think it is that I usually think of Wait Until Dark and Roat quite separately from Freebie and the Bean. And yet -- same actor, 7 years later. "Versatile."
--
One of the things that makes Arkin's WUD performance interesting is that he rarely yells, unlike many of his comedy roles, where the humor comes from him regularly losing his cool (THE IN-LAWS does that the best since his character there is already uptight). For the most part, he's very calm and confident, only resorting to shouting when he seems to have lost control of the situation (ex. being temporarily blinded with the hypo and trying to get Susy to stop from cutting off the emergency light or stopping Susy from splashing gasoline on him while he has a lit match in hand). That lack of shouting actually makes him very intimidating as a villain and it also makes those moments where he does lose his cool jarring in a dramatic way... there's the sense that behind the coolness and plotting, he's a bit cowardly and small.
But anyway, I liked FREEBIE AND THE BEAN a lot. It definitely came from another era, but that old school "don't give a damn" attitude is part of the appeal. My favorite part might actually be the car chases. Reminded me a bit of the insane chases in BLUES BROTHERS years later.
But alas, the whole thing felt rather like Scottie trying to bring Madeleine back to life through Judy, trying to bring back a past that was gone. Hitchcock was too old, his TV show was long off the air, Frenzy wasn't as fun as Psycho(nor nearly as big a hit)...it was a nice try at nostalgia, but rather a futile one.
--
Hard to argue with that. I do wonder though, what do you make of Truffaut's statement that FRENZY feels like "a young man's film"? For me, it doesn't feel tired or nostalgic really-- just mean-spirited as hell.