The Criterion Collection

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by atlantajoseph

It is a bit by-the-numbers but is done with so much style and heart that it transcends expectations, or at least it did for me. I highly recommend.

Originally Posted by llj

For those wondering, it's a populist movie with populist storytelling and cliches. It is not an "art" movie in the sense of the word that Criterion fans use. It is not subtle in its messages and characters really tend to boil down to "good guys" and "bad guys" as they often do in mainstream movies. It is a historical story distilled down to pure crowdpleaser entertainment. It's a GOOD movie of that type, but you're not going into this with the mindset "I'm gonna watch ARRRT!"

I did end up going to see Hidden Figures at the theater this afternoon, and I quite enjoyed it.

Hidden Figures compresses the time span of the achievements of these remarkable women for the sake of storytelling efficiency and for some heavy-handed feel-good moments, but I give it a pass because of its effectiveness with regard to telling an important story that does not short-change good old science and mathematics.

Hidden Figures would make a great double feature with the 1983 film, The Right Stuff. While The Right Stuff tells the well-known story of the seven military pilots who were selected to be astronauts for the Project Mercury program and who became national heroes, this film sheds light on some under-recognized heroes who worked behind the scenes on that project. The NASA space program is the last vestige of media culture where intellectualism is admired and celebrated, so I always enjoy seeing films that shed light on the early era of the program.

I'm still pulling for La La Land at the Academy Awards, though.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

Ohhhh. Thora Birch leaked this confidential information. I always suspected that she was working with the Russians.

You don't know it was Russia. It could have been China. It could have been somebody else. It could have been some four hundred pound guy sitting in his bed.

And to think we went to all that trouble getting in better shape only to find out now that Thora Birch has a thing for four hundred pound guys.

You just can't win, sometimes.

[The Great Owl]

Originally Posted by octagon

You don't know it was Russia. It could have been China. It could have been somebody else. It could have been some four hundred pound guy sitting in his bed.

And to think we went to all that trouble getting in better shape only to find out now that Thora Birch has a thing for four hundred pound guys.

You just can't win, sometimes.

True story: I had better luck on dating sites when I was 400 pounds than I did after I lost the weight. The world is strange sometimes. I dunno...

Back to Criterion topics... I'm definitely all in for Ghost World.

[Blu Titan]

I have been watching some of the Criterion releases I purchased in the July sale . The In Laws is fantastic...really funny and a great chemistry between the leads. Highly recommend that one.

The one I really want to discuss is Only Angels Have Wings I am a fan of Howard Hanks and a huge Cary Grant fan . In fact, for a long time, my favorite movie of all time was Bringing up Baby (IT NEEDS A BLU-RAY RELEASE...like years ago ). I have never watched a Cary Grant movie, that I did not enjoy...well until last night .

I love old movies, really old ones from the 20's, 30's and 40's, but Only Angels Have Wings feels old and worse, dated. Maybe it is because the movie was not that good to begin with?

Grant's on screen charm is nowhere to be found. His character is supposed to be a mean but actually goodie owner of a flight business. But there no chemistry between Grant and leading lady Jeam Arthur...ZERO. I guess Jean Arthur was supposed to be a "beautiful type"...imo, she was an average looking gal. Nothing wrong with being average looking but they really overhyped her supposed "beauty" in this movie. Anyways all of that is subjective on my part but the lack of chemistry between the leads is evident.

The film attempts to be a comedy/drama and fails miserable at both. Can't say there was a moment where I laughed or even where I found myself amused. There are attempts at contrived drama that fail as well. A plan crashes, someone dies, and everyone just plays it off...well not really. It really bothers them but they refused to show it. Hanks attempts to manipulate the viewers emotions but just falls in every instance.

The only scene that awed me was when Rita Hayworth makes her entrance...man oh man does she take the air out of the room. It would be easy to see that Rita Hayworth would become a star just from her part in this movie. Not because her part was great, but because she was an awe inspiring woman.

The film was nominated for special effects and the plane scenes were very well done. Technically it's a solid film with a weak story, bad script and a lack of chemistry between the leads...including a most annoying performance by Jean Arthur and an obviously disinterested Grant. 3/5 for the movie.

5/5 for Rita Hayworth...best thing about this very mediocre film.

[nitin]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

I have been watching some of the Criterion releases I purchased in the July sale . The In Laws is fantastic...really funny and a great chemistry between the leads. Highly recommend that one.

The one I really want to discuss is Only Angels Have Wings I am a fan of Howard Hanks and a huge Cary Grant fan . In fact, for a long time, my favorite movie of all time was Bringing up Baby (IT NEEDS A BLU-RAY RELEASE...like years ago ). I have never watched a Cary Grant movie, that I did not enjoy...well until last night .

I love old movies, really old ones from the 20's, 30's and 40's, but Only Angels Have Wings feels old and worse, dated. Maybe it is because the movie was not that good to begin with?

Grant's on screen charm is nowhere to be found. His character is supposed to be a mean but actually goodie owner of a flight business. But there no chemistry between Grant and leading lady Jeam Arthur...ZERO. I guess Jean Arthur was supposed to be a "beautiful type"...imo, she was an average looking gal. Nothing wrong with being average looking but they really overhyped her supposed "beauty" in this movie. Anyways all of that is subjective on my part but the lack of chemistry between the leads is evident.

The film attempts to be a comedy/drama and fails miserable at both. Can't say there was a moment where I laughed or even where I found myself amused. There are attempts at contrived drama that fail as well. A plan crashes, someone dies, and everyone just plays it off...well not really. It really bothers them but they refused to show it. Hanks attempts to manipulate the viewers emotions but just falls in every instance.

The only scene that awed me was when Rita Hayworth makes her entrance...man oh man does she take the air out of the room. It would be easy to see that Rita Hayworth would become a star just from her part in this movie. Not because her part was great, but because she was an awe inspiring woman.

The film was nominated for special effects and the plane scenes were very well done. Technically it's a solid film with a weak story, bad script and a lack of chemistry between the leads...including a most annoying performance by Jean Arthur and an obviously disinterested Grant. 3/5 for the movie.

5/5 for Rita Hayworth...best thing about this very mediocre film.

See for me this is the best Howard Hawks film.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

I have been watching some of the Criterion releases I purchased in the July sale . The In Laws is fantastic...really funny and a great chemistry between the leads. Highly recommend that one.

I loved this movie when I was in high school. It was actually pretty popular among my friends too. But I've only seen a time or two since and was a little worried about whether it would live up to all the nostalgia but I loved it every bit as much as ever.

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

The one I really want to discuss is Only Angels Have Wings I am a fan of Howard Hanks and a huge Cary Grant fan . In fact, for a long time, my favorite movie of all time was Bringing up Baby (IT NEEDS A BLU-RAY RELEASE...like years ago ). I have never watched a Cary Grant movie, that I did not enjoy...well until last night .

I was a little surprised by my 'meh' reaction to this as well. By all rights I should love it but I really wasn't feeling it. I got about a half hour in and decided I'd be better served giving it another shot down the road.

And who knows. Maybe I'll have to force myself to finish it that night but maybe not. Maybe it will hit me differently.

That's the hope, anyway.

Originally Posted by nitin

See for me this is the best Howard Hawks film.

For me Hawks movies are the ones with Bogie and Bacall, the ones with John Wayne and everything else.

In that order.

(though I really am looking forward to His Girl Friday. I haven't seen that in a loooooong time, in fact, I'm not even sure now whether I've seen it all the way through. I've got high hopes for that one)

[Rich Pure Doom]

Originally Posted by nitin

See for me this is the best Howard Hawks film.

I agree. It's one of his best.

[ChromeJob]

Only Angels Have Wings isnt a perfect film, but I think Grant does some great comedic and dramatic acting. Jean Arthur is great. A supporting cast of familiar and classic faces is outstanding.

Not every film has to be a winner for everyone. But OAHW is certainly a charmer for many of us.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[pedromvu]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

The one I really want to discuss is Only Angels Have Wings I am a fan of Howard Hanks and a huge Cary Grant fan . In fact, for a long time, my favorite movie of all time was Bringing up Baby (IT NEEDS A BLU-RAY RELEASE...like years ago ). I have never watched a Cary Grant movie, that I did not enjoy...well until last night .

I love old movies, really old ones from the 20's, 30's and 40's, but Only Angels Have Wings feels old and worse, dated. Maybe it is because the movie was not that good to begin with?

Grant's on screen charm is nowhere to be found. His character is supposed to be a mean but actually goodie owner of a flight business. But there no chemistry between Grant and leading lady Jeam Arthur...ZERO. I guess Jean Arthur was supposed to be a "beautiful type"...imo, she was an average looking gal. Nothing wrong with being average looking but they really overhyped her supposed "beauty" in this movie. Anyways all of that is subjective on my part but the lack of chemistry between the leads is evident.

The film attempts to be a comedy/drama and fails miserable at both. Can't say there was a moment where I laughed or even where I found myself amused. There are attempts at contrived drama that fail as well. A plan crashes, someone dies, and everyone just plays it off...well not really. It really bothers them but they refused to show it. Hanks attempts to manipulate the viewers emotions but just falls in every instance.

The only scene that awed me was when Rita Hayworth makes her entrance...man oh man does she take the air out of the room. It would be easy to see that Rita Hayworth would become a star just from her part in this movie. Not because her part was great, but because she was an awe inspiring woman.

The film was nominated for special effects and the plane scenes were very well done. Technically it's a solid film with a weak story, bad script and a lack of chemistry between the leads...including a most annoying performance by Jean Arthur and an obviously disinterested Grant. 3/5 for the movie.

5/5 for Rita Hayworth...best thing about this very mediocre film.

Talking about total opposite opinions, I thought Rita Hayworth was mediocre here, on an otherwise great film.

I really enjoyed Jean Arthur too bad she kind of gets lost in the middle of the movie, Rita had the looks but Jean had the charisma in this one.

[mja345]

On a Criterion-related note, I watched "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" last night and damn is it funny. It just goes completely batshit insane the last 30-40 minutes. The closing sequence is so hilariously absurd. It's not exactly high art, but I'm glad Criterion released it.

[ShellOilJunior]

Films like Only Angels Have Wings and To Have and Have Not are few and far between these days. These are films with a strong, masculine lead that is unapologetic and charismatic.

[Abdrewes]

Titan,

Back then a blond like Jean Arthur was classically more attractive than Rita Hayworth to studio heads. It's unfortunate to get into the racism of the day, but sometimes you have to. Early in her career, Rita Hayworth was considered too exotic for the roles she wanted to play. In fact, she changed her Spanish name, had her low hairline altered, and changed her hair color to red. It was after all that that she got a bit role in the Hawks' film.

So maybe you're partially justified in saying parts of it are dated (although I do find Jean Arthur charming as always in the film)

[Helikaon]

Originally Posted by mja345

On a Criterion-related note, I watched "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" last night and damn is it funny. It just goes completely batshit insane the last 30-40 minutes. The closing sequence is so hilariously absurd. It's not exactly high art, but I'm glad Criterion released it.

Indeed, a lot of fun! I'm thinking of getting this one myself. How's the extra material? Two commentaries right?

[ckt]

I'd like to start Wenders' Road Trilogy. Does this need to be watched in order? Thanks.

[The Great Owl]

I love Only Angels Have Wings. In any other year, it would have been my favorite Criterion release of the year, but In a Lonely Place, The Asphalt Jungle, Cat People, and Gilda got in the way this time. 2016 was right good!

[hoytereden]

Originally Posted by Blu Titan

I have been watching some of the Criterion releases I purchased in the July sale . The In Laws is fantastic...really funny and a great chemistry between the leads. Highly recommend that one.

The one I really want to discuss is Only Angels Have Wings I am a fan of Howard Hanks and a huge Cary Grant fan . In fact, for a long time, my favorite movie of all time was Bringing up Baby (IT NEEDS A BLU-RAY RELEASE...like years ago ). I have never watched a Cary Grant movie, that I did not enjoy...well until last night .

I love old movies, really old ones from the 20's, 30's and 40's, but Only Angels Have Wings feels old and worse, dated. Maybe it is because the movie was not that good to begin with?

[Show spoiler]

Grant's on screen charm is nowhere to be found. His character is supposed to be a mean but actually goodie owner of a flight business. But there no chemistry between Grant and leading lady Jeam Arthur...ZERO. I guess Jean Arthur was supposed to be a "beautiful type"...imo, she was an average looking gal. Nothing wrong with being average looking but they really overhyped her supposed "beauty" in this movie. Anyways all of that is subjective on my part but the lack of chemistry between the leads is evident.

The film attempts to be a comedy/drama and fails miserable at both. Can't say there was a moment where I laughed or even where I found myself amused. There are attempts at contrived drama that fail as well. A plan crashes, someone dies, and everyone just plays it off...well not really. It really bothers them but they refused to show it. Hanks attempts to manipulate the viewers emotions but just falls in every instance.

The only scene that awed me was when Rita Hayworth makes her entrance...man oh man does she take the air out of the room. It would be easy to see that Rita Hayworth would become a star just from her part in this movie. Not because her part was great, but because she was an awe inspiring woman.

The film was nominated for special effects and the plane scenes were very well done. Technically it's a solid film with a weak story, bad script and a lack of chemistry between the leads...including a most annoying performance by Jean Arthur and an obviously disinterested Grant. 3/5 for the movie.

5/5 for Rita Hayworth...best thing about this very mediocre film.

I like the film quite a bit but more for the story about early air mail and delivery service than the romantic twists and turns. I found the supporting cast more interesting than the leads but that's me and my character actor enjoyment. It was nice to see former leading man Richard Barthelmess, who starred in another Hawks' aviation film The Dawn Patrol, again.
I'd note two other films with similar plots from this era: MGM's Night Flight ('33): I actually like this film more that the Hawks' film. Even though a lot of the all-star cast doesn't interact with one another, it's filmed beautifully, and I found the individual story vignettes more compelling in this film.
RKO's Flight From Glory ('37) Complete opposite from the other two. This is strictly a "b" film with Chester Morris and a young Van Heflin being the most familiar faces in the cast. It's storyline is very close to OAHW and is a good example of how entertaining one of these programmers could be without either big stars or budgets.

As far as my favorite Hawks' films-I'd probably give the nod to Red River. I loved this Western as a kid and nothing has changed my affection for it in the 50+ years since.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by Helikaon

Indeed, a lot of fun! I'm thinking of getting this one myself. How's the extra material? Two commentaries right?

Yep, two commentaries, including Roger Ebert's. It's loaded with other extras as well and has a nice booklet. Great disc.

[jw007]

Originally Posted by Arawn

I walked out of Black Sheep. That's the only one. In my defense Gene Siskel also walked out ( of a different screening ).

My friend walked out of The Crying Game when

[Show spoiler]the guy's dick came out.

Just took off and left me there without even saying anything. It was ok because it was in college and I lived right across the street, but he never paid me back for the ticket!

Hilarious. Believe it or not, that was the first R rated movie I ever saw in a theater (I had just turned 14 years old!). Imagine the trauma and confusion I experienced as a pre-pubescent child when I saw that

[Show spoiler]woman's dick unveiled!

[jw007]

Originally Posted by The Great Owl

True story: I had better luck on dating sites when I was 400 pounds than I did after I lost the weight. The world is strange sometimes. I dunno...

Back to Criterion topics... I'm definitely all in for Ghost World.

I think I know why though... there were less people on dating sites back then and less of a saturation point, so people weren't as flaky or distracted and there was less competition. I've been on online dating sites since the year 1998, so I should know.

And ya, Ghost World is a fine film... but I just watched it about 6 months ago after having not seen it for over a decade, and its still fresh in my mind. Arghhh!

[llj]

Originally Posted by jw007

I think I know why though... there were less people on dating sites back then and less of a saturation point, so people weren't as flaky or distracted and there was less competition. I've been on online dating sites since the year 1998, so I should know.

Another theory is that being 400 pounds scratches a fetish or attract other fat people looking for an equivalent and you can draw those people in easier if you stand out on a dating site. But when you look more 'normal' you're just like everyone else.