The BellGab Classic Movie Playhouse

[ItsOver]

Wow.  I thought anybody born before 1975 would have seen this when they were young.  I kind of envy you just seeing it for the first time.  If you ever get the chance catch the Spanish language version made at Universal at the same time.  Most of the Lugosi Dracula dvd's have it as an extra.  In some ways, it is better.  Lugosi was the better Dracula and no one can replace Dwight Frye as Renfield but the ladies are easier on the eyes and I prefer the Van Helsing of the Spanish version.

Somehow, I just missed this movie.  I'm looking forward to enjoying it again, too.   Bela is "The Vamp."   I've seen about all of his other movies, including his last.



Yes, that was interesting last night, when Sven talked about the Spanish version.  It'll be hard watching somebody else other than Bela as Dracula, in this era of movies, though, especially speaking Spanish.

[21st Century Man]

   Ok,  so I just watched 2001: A Space Odyssey for the first time.  I had tried to watch the film in the 70's as a child and remember sitting through the lingering shots of space with the Blue Danube playing.  This is around 30 minutes into the film.  I was bored to tears at the time and turned the station to something else.  I haven't bothered to try and watch the film since because I heard from some reliable sources that it didn't get much better. Nevertheless, I have a copy of the film and felt it was past time to give it a well deserved shot.  After all, it is Kubrick, right?   Well, it turned out to be a very mixed bag and the main criticism that I have heard of the film still holds up.  The film is sloooowwwwwww.



    Let's start with the Dawn of Man sequence that takes up just about the first 25 minutes of the film.  I bet the people who run PETA hate ths sequence.  We see a bunch of herbivore primates going about their daily routines.  They get pushed out of a watering hole by another clan of primates.  Then the monolith shows up and teaches them how to kill.  They learn to eat meat and love it and they war with the other clan of primates that pushed them out of the watering hole.  All of this could have been told in 5 or 10 minutes but, no, this goes on for 25 minutes.



   Then we are treated to the Blue Danube sequence of which I wrote of earlier.  The film takes great pride in showing us the marvelous creations of the special effects team and the effects are marvelous but the sequence is agonizingly slow.  It reminds me of the original Star Trek: The Motion Picture.  That was another film that was slow and dull in stretches largely due to the fact it was in love with its own special effects.  I would add that we are nearly 40 minutes into the film and not a word has been spoken. We are introduced to Heywood R. Floyd (William Sylvester) who has been sent to the moon to examine an archaeological find which turns out to be another monolith.  Too much time is spent on Floyd's transport to the moon. Once the monolith has been completely dug up from the ground, it emits a high-pitched sound.  The signal has been supposedly sent to a beacon on Jupiter's moons (the movie doesn't tell us that but the book does apparently) and a crew is sent to Jupiter to determine what is going on. We are now nearly at the hour mark and finally we are introduced to the main characters of David Bowman (Keir Dullea), Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood) and their not so trustworthy pal, HAL-9000.



    What follows is the best part of the film but again it moves at a snail's pace and the dialogue is minimal.  We don't get to know much about Dave and Frank.  Their characters are underwritten.  It is hard to have much sympathy for the characters if you don't know much about them.  The most fleshed-out character is HAL and he's the computer!   You see, HAL is slipping into paranoiac lunacy.  He kills Frank and the other 3 crew members who are in suspended animation.  You would think Dave would be freaking mad and maybe a bit scared. We see no emotional outbursts at all. Dave dismantles HAL and then takes the final trip and I use that word in both literal and it drug-induced meanings.  We are treated to about 10 minutes of pretty colors and psychedelic images and then Dave finds his shuttle and himself in an ornate room.  He sees himself as an older man and the young Dave then disappears.  The older Dave sees a positively ancient version of himself lying in bed, waiting to die, I expect. The somewhat younger version of Dave again disappears.  The ancient old man reaches up and sees a new young Dave who happens to be the Starchild then the ancient old man disappears.  Next we see, the Starchild next to Earth and that is the end of the movie.  What the fuck did I watch?  What did it mean?  I am told that in the book, the Starchild destroys the Earth with the nuclear missiles that are orbiting the Earth.  If true, whatever alien presences were involved should have killed themselves while they were at it since they taught us how to kill in the first place.



   The film was nearly pulled after a few weeks as it was a resounding failure with many segments of movie-goers.  However, more and more hippies got wise to the film and started to go see the film and it ended up being a success.  The film's story could have been told in half the time that it took.  For the most part, this was a silent film.  If I were to have given Kubrick advice at the time he made this film, I would have urged him to watch as many silent films as he could.  Much more happens in most silent films.   With all that said, the film has a wonderful classical music soundtrack and if I was to grade the film based solely on its outstanding innovative special effects, I would give it a 5 out of 5.  However, special effects do not make a movie.  I'm going to give the film 3 stars and that is being kind. Kubrick has done much much better work than this.  Oh and the film clocks in at 2 and a half hours.  It felt more like a lifetime.  This just may be the most over-rated movie that I have ever seen.

[TigerLily]

Dear 21. I believe this may be the first time we disagree. I already gave a short review in Politics (don't ask why) but will now explicate my thoughts on the subject.

I have heard many people complain it is too slow. But I believe the pacing gives time for thought and reflection on the bigger picture the pictorial is presenting, instead of just intake and move to the next scene.  The opening follows our prehumans in their apelike existence until one is touched, or more accurately touches God - think Michelangelo's Spark of Life but replace God with the Serpent transmitting the Spark of Knowledge. In time our rudimentary weapons evolve into technology which includes spacefaring craft. Beautifully illustrated in only 25 minutes.

I think that HAL is more human and more a hero than Dave by Kubrick's design. The machine is conflicted, tortured, by its orders and suffers a mental and emotional breakdown. Dave is not burdened with such qualms. Just following his orders and performing his duties somewhat robotically. A brilliant juxtaposition.

Then we see Dave traveling through time and space (admittedly this sequence may be more enjoyable in a slightly altered mental state) to land one presumes close to the monolith on Europa - an interesting foresight in 1968 considering how much more we know about this moon being the most likely other place in our solar system to find evolved life. Or maybe through a wormhole to the makers of the monolith. As Dave ages he is changed/educated by the monolith until he transforms into the Starchild and brings the next evolutionary step to Earth.

This mostly is my supposition, not really spelled out in the movie. But the genius of Kubrick is he presents a beautifully illustrated map and allows the watcher to find his own way through the movie.

I would go on but don't want to be to slooow or boring (too late?). I think maybe I enjoyed the movie more than many because I read the book first which does give more detailed explanations than the movie does.  21, after some time elapses you may want to try watching it again

[FightTheFuture]

Just watched The Postman Always Rings Twice

First time I`ve seen it -- incredibly -- and I loved it! Lana Turner...Oh my.

[FightTheFuture]

Hey C21, re: 2001: A space Odyssey? Kubrick didn`t even understand it. You`re wasting your time trying to make sense of it.

[21st Century Man]

Dear 21. I believe this may be the first time we disagree. I already gave a short review in Politics (don't ask why) but will now explicate my thoughts on the subject.

I have heard many people complain it is too slow. But I believe the pacing gives time for thought and reflection on the bigger picture the pictorial is presenting, instead of just intake and move to the next scene.  The opening follows our prehumans in their apelike existence until one is touched, or more accurately touches God - think Michelangelo's Spark of Life but replace God with the Serpent transmitting the Spark of Knowledge. In time our rudimentary weapons evolve into technology which includes spacefaring craft. Beautifully illustrated in only 25 minutes.

I think that HAL is more human and more a hero than Dave by Kubrick's design. The machine is conflicted, tortured, by its orders and suffers a mental and emotional breakdown. Dave is not burdened with such qualms. Just following his orders and performing his duties somewhat robotically. A brilliant juxtaposition.

Then we see Dave traveling through time and space (admittedly this sequence may be more enjoyable in a slightly altered mental state) to land one presumes close to the monolith on Europa - an interesting foresight in 1968 considering how much more we know about this moon being the most likely other place in our solar system to find evolved life. Or maybe through a wormhole to the makers of the monolith. As Dave ages he is changed/educated by the monolith until he transforms into the Starchild and brings the next evolutionary step to Earth.

This mostly is my supposition, not really spelled out in the movie. But the genius of Kubrick is he presents a beautifully illustrated map and allows the watcher to find his own way through the movie.

I would go on but don't want to be to slooow or boring (too late?). I think maybe I enjoyed the movie more than many because I read the book first which does give more detailed explanations than the movie does.  21, after some time elapses you may want to try watching it again

It is a thought-provoking movie, of that there is no doubt.  I still find myself pondering it several days after watching the film.  I've come to the same conclusion as you regarding the characterizations of the main players in the movie.  HAL is the most human of all of the characters while Dave and Frank act more like automatons. Yet I read that Kubrick was warning against technology.  Which is it?  The movie has important things to say but I think the story could have been told in an hour and forty minutes.  The movie drags.  I'll give it another shot as I want to see it on my big tv.  The cinematography is beautiful and only my 65" screen could do it justice. We're redoing my man-cave and at present, I have to watch the movies on my smaller screen.

[21st Century Man]

Hey C21, re: 2001: A space Odyssey? Kubrick didn`t even understand it. You`re wasting your time trying to make sense of it.

I heard Kubrick ran out of money and had to make do with what he had filmed thus a satisfying conclusion was not made.

[Dr. MD MD]

I scanned through your 2001 review enough to get the gist but honestly, it's one of those films that benefits from increased viewing. The first time I saw it I was 10 and my dad (who took me) was in his late 30s. Both of us found it intriguing but beyond our comprehension. I really didn't even start to understand what it until about my 3rd or 4th viewing but even then the ending eluded and still mystified me. That didn't come together for me until sometime within the last decade. Now I think I finally get what he was trying to tell us. It's that deep of a movie. However, not everyone enjoys pondering these things and so it's just going to leave some cold. It would definitely make my top ten list though. 

[Rix Gins]

I got to see 2001 in one of those Cinerama theaters and it was quite a visual treat, I must say.  I did notice though that the edge of the screen was distorted.  One of the Russian, lady scientists in that room with the chairs and couches looked somewhat blurry and pin-heady.

Speaking of treats, one of my favorite scenes is where Floyd and the other astronauts are aboard a shuttle, heading for the moon.  They break out some ham and chicken sandwiches and start munching away.  Always makes me want a sandwich.

Lots of eating in the movie.  Even astronaut Dave, in one of his old age phases can be seen busily chowing down on something, shortly before he breaks that glass.

[21st Century Man]

I scanned through your 2001 review enough to get the gist but honestly, it's one of those films that benefits from increased viewing. The first time I saw it I was 10 and my dad (who took me) was in his late 30s. Both of us found it intriguing but beyond our comprehension. I really didn't even start to understand what it until about my 3rd or 4th viewing but even then the ending eluded and still mystified me. That didn't come together for me until sometime within the last decade. Now I think I finally get what he was trying to tell us. It's that deep of a movie. However, not everyone enjoys pondering these things and so it's just going to leave some cold. It would definitely make my top ten list though. 

I can't ever see it making my top 10 or even my top 200.  With that said,  I can see myself re-evaluating it in the future but I doubt nothing will change my critique in that it is far too slow a film.

[ge30542]

Just watched The Postman Always Rings Twice

First time I`ve seen it -- incredibly -- and I loved it! Lana Turner...Oh my.

Good for you! She is very hot in her shorts, dropping her lipstick.
How could she  and  Gafield even consider bashing poor old Nick in the head, as he took a bath?

[Ciardelo]

Good for you! She is very hot in her shorts, dropping her lipstick.
How could she  and  Gafield even consider bashing poor old Nick in the head, as he took a bath?

Who's Gafield? What are you trying to say? 

[ge30542]

Who's Gafield? What are you trying to say? 

You caught me C, s/b John Garfield.
I know you knew that, you know things.

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8t5JFeoesk&spfreload=1

[yumyumtree]

You might like Peyton Place, my favorite Lana Turner movie.

My thoughts about Kubrick--A Clockwork Orange far and away my most favorite. Try to get the DVD with Malcolm MacDowell discussing the whole film, many interesting tidbits.

Least favorites--Eyes Wide Shut and Dr. Strangelove. I don't hate them, just don't like them as much as his others. I wish Kubrick could have gone out on AI, a film I like a lot, instead of Eyes Wide Shut.

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ6BiRtGTAk

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-TZ5STSXtc

[albrecht]

TCM is showing "Panic In The Year Zero" (1962), not a great movie but I enjoy it (but I like apocalyptic, dystopian movies.) And considering the media is saying WWIII or some nuclear war is going to start soon due to Trump it is worth a watch, except that hockey is also on.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056331/?ref_=nv_sr_1

[21st Century Man]

TCM is showing "Panic In The Year Zero" (1962), not a great movie but I enjoy it (but I like apocalyptic, dystopian movies.) And considering the media is saying WWIII or some nuclear war is going to start soon due to Trump it is worth a watch, except that hockey is also on.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056331/?ref_=nv_sr_1

I bought that blu-ray a little while ago.  Ray Milland directed it.  Have yet to watch it but plan on it soon.

[21st Century Man]

In keeping with current hot topics, I watched Sam Fuller's Fixed Bayonets (1951) last night.  A tale about the Korean War where a platoon of soldiers are left in the rear to cover a US retreat.  Basically a suicide mission with wonderful acting turns by Gene Evans and Richard Basehart.  James Dean also makes an appearance at the end of the film with a couple of lines.  It would be his first film appearance. Skip Homeier also provides some amusement.   Probably about as realistic a war film as one could find in 1950.  You can see the tobacco stains around the soldier's mouths and the brutality of war is shown.  Lucien Ballard provides excellent cinematography.  Hard to believe it was mostly filmed on a studio set in Hollywood and in only 18 days!  Now that is some adept filmmaking. There is a nice joke about the war being a "police action".   I'm not a fan of calling war something else to sidestep Congressional approval.  However, since we were there anyway, I'm of the opinion that we should have let MacArthur finish the job back in the 1950's then we wouldn't be dealing with the crazy fat  Kim-Jong clan today.  Anyway, wonderful film. 4.25 stars out of 5.

[TigerLily]

TCM is showing "Panic In The Year Zero" (1962), not a great movie but I enjoy it (but I like apocalyptic, dystopian movies.) And considering the media is saying WWIII or some nuclear war is going to start soon due to Trump it is worth a watch, except that hockey is also on.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056331/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Great minds, albrecht. I was stopping by to post about this movie. I happened upon it yesterday. I had never seen it before. According to Ben it was produced and directed by Milland as well as starring him. It obviously was produced on a tattered shoestring of a budget. The use of stock footage was jarringly spliced in. The production values would put Plan 9 from Outerspace to shame. Despite all that it was chilling in light of current events. Especially the first half or so. Very unsettling

On a related note. Since the waning influence of our dearly departed Robert Osborne, TCM feels less like a place for older folks to reminisce and more like a place for younger film buffs

[ItsOver]

TCM is showing "Panic In The Year Zero" (1962), not a great movie but I enjoy it (but I like apocalyptic, dystopian movies.) And considering the media is saying WWIII or some nuclear war is going to start soon due to Trump it is worth a watch, except that hockey is also on.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056331/?ref_=nv_sr_1

That is one of my favored end of the world movies.  Milland is enjoyable in this film, too.

[albrecht]

That is one of my favored end of the world movies.  Milland is enjoyable in this film, too.

I haven't seen that but will check out. He was in some dozzies, like "Frogs!" This is one of my favorite "end of the world" movies, "The Day the Earth Caught Fire" (1961):
warning spoilers, especially in the wiki:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054790/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Earth_Caught_Fire

[TigerLily]

Mind if I geek out for a minute? I just turned on the tv a little while ago and it was on TCM (what else?).  Ben Hur was going to start in a few minutes but first they showed one of my favorite film shorts. It shows how a horse is trained to be in the movie. It goes from "discovery" of a horse pulling a farm cart to being one of Charlton Heston's chariot horses. No dialogue. Just Ben Hur sound track. A star is born!

Speaking of stars. In the movie the Star of Bethlehem is a UFO traveling through the night sky. Cool

Also for those interested on TCM at 7:15pm e and 10:15 p is the 1924 silent film. Ben Hur: Tale of the Christ. One of the things I found interesting is the difference in acting styles between the two leads. "Messala" is all funny makeup and grand theatrical gestures. While Ramon Navarro as "Ben Hur" is natural and subtle as any actor today.  And the Charleston Heston Ben Hur ripped off this version's chariot race scene by scene

[21st Century Man]

Mind if I geek out for a minute? I just turned on the tv a little while ago and it was on TCM (what else?).  Ben Hur was going to start in a few minutes but first they showed one of my favorite film shorts. It shows how a horse is trained to be in the movie. It goes from "discovery" of a horse pulling a farm cart to being one of Charlton Heston's chariot horses. No dialogue. Just Ben Hur sound track. A star is born!

Speaking of stars. In the movie the Star of Bethlehem is a UFO traveling through the night sky. Cool

Also for those interested on TCM at 7:15pm e and 10:15 p is the 1924 silent film. Ben Hur: Tale of the Christ. One of the things I found interesting is the difference in acting styles between the two leads. "Messala" is all funny makeup and grand theatrical gestures. While Ramon Navarro as "Ben Hur" is natural and subtle as any actor today.  And the Charleston Heston Ben Hur ripped off this version's chariot race scene by scene

Plus the silent version has a bit of male nudity on the galley sequence that I'm sure you can appreciate too.  Too bad there is none involving the other sex  for me to appreciate. 

[21st Century Man]

John Ford's first feature length film from 1917.  Starring Harry Carey. This is the best copy on youtube and it is good.  Don't let the over two hour running time fool you.  It is only 57 minutes and is looped twice.  Why, I don't know.  Most of Ford's early films are lost so this is a rare treat.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0yoDTMte_s

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbY6QIJJWYg

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMx6ToStHms

[Dr. MD MD]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d40BU1NXB_Q

[Zetaspeak]

I just borrowed 1960s Bullitt on  DVD, going to watch it for the first time  when I get a few hours during the week.