Can't tell you. But can say that I loathe that film. it is one of the most slushy movies ever, the only good thing in it is Stewart's performance.
Slushy? I'd go for 'depressing'. I don't hate this film at all, but it does have a tendency to make me want to slash my wrists while the end credits roll.
yet another overhyped American 'phenomenon' (like Thanksgiving) we are all supposedly meant to find essential. The overacting is almost painful to watch and the concept is cribbed from Dickens' Christmas Carol. Give me a version of that any day.
O M G
Heres me thinking IM the only person on the earth who cant see what all the fuss is over this film.
Over the years people have said its a brilliant film. So I finally got to watch it one Sunday. I turned it off after 45 mins. Now dont get me wrong I love a good xmas film. Even the ones with Dolly Parton in .. But this one leaves me cold.
You must be very young to make such a sweeping statement. ;-)
I would rather watch a 60 year old Classic film than any current release, but then I am very old.
Au contraire mon brave. I am not very young. In most fields of human endeavour modern stuff is better than old stuff (although painters and composers especially, and one playwright get away with being old.) Modern movies are pound for pound far better than old movies. ,in particular the production valus and special effects are nothing like as good in old stuff.
Some are watchable, but most arent. I like many of the old english kitchen sink dramas. Spring and port wine, a kind of loving and so on, but if they had made many of the old films nowadays, they would have a completely different look and feel.
I know film is different to tv, because film lasts better. Most old tv is hardly watchable. I watched a couple of episodes of day of the triffids on bbc4, and gave up.
Au contraire mon brave. I am not very young. In most fields of human endeavour modern stuff is better than old stuff (although painters and composers especially, and one playwright get away with being old.) Modern movies are pound for pound far better than old movies. ,in particular the production valus and special effects are nothing like as good in old stuff.
Some are watchable, but most arent. I like many of the old english kitchen sink dramas. Spring and port wine, a kind of loving and so on, but if they had made many of the old films nowadays, they would have a completely different look and feel.
I know film is different to tv, because film lasts better. Most old tv is hardly watchable. I watched a couple of episodes of day of the triffids on bbc4, and gave up.
Personally, I couldn't care less about special effects, what I want is a good story, and there were some brilliant screenplays in the 1930's and '40's, often from great writers like Raymond Chandler, James M Cain, and F. Scott Fitzgerald, which is why they have remade so many of the Classics, and they are never as good as the original.
I used to go to my local cinema's at least four times a week in the 1950's. I haven't been for the last two years and have no wish to, especially as I have enough of my favourite films on tape and DVD to last me for the rest of my life.
I think it's a beautiful film. Pretty dark for a lot of the time, and it's one of my favourite performances by a favourite actor. Stewart absolutely acts his socks off in it.
I thought it was great, the first time I saw it. Sat down in eager anticipation the next time it was on and after about 30 mins was shouting at the TV "Get on with it!"
It's a bit like Hitchcock's "The Birds"; I forgot just how long it is before the action starts :-)
I thought it was great, the first time I saw it. Sat down in eager anticipation the next time it was on and after about 30 mins was shouting at the TV "Get on with it!"
It's a bit like Hitchcock's "The Birds"; I forgot just how long it is before the action starts :-)
Action? Oh, that's right; the bit where George
strips to his vest, gets tooled up with loads of guns and goes blazing into Old Man Potter's bank to get his money back.
And the bit where Clarence
arrives on earth, beats up a gang of bikers before taking a biker's clothes and Harley and tells George "come with me if you want to live".
I was rather surprised when I finally saw it to find the bit with George and Clarence, which I thought was the main story, occurs quite late in the film, as does Sophie's Choice.
Comments
I agree, for me one of the mot overrated films ever, and a deserved flop when it was first released, I remember, because I was around then. ;-)
11/10
Slushy? I'd go for 'depressing'. I don't hate this film at all, but it does have a tendency to make me want to slash my wrists while the end credits roll.
Heres me thinking IM the only person on the earth who cant see what all the fuss is over this film.
Over the years people have said its a brilliant film. So I finally got to watch it one Sunday. I turned it off after 45 mins. Now dont get me wrong I love a good xmas film. Even the ones with Dolly Parton in .. But this one leaves me cold.
Thanks for that. Seems to have been scheduled for 2 Saturdays running - yesterday was supposed to be 3.50pm.
Seems this film rather divides opinion to say the least!!
Yankee doodle dandy is worth a watch.
For sure. My mum absolutely won't allow me say a bad word about this film in her house. Not even on my birthday.
You must be very young to make such a sweeping statement. ;-)
I would rather watch a 60 year old Classic film than any current release, but then I am very old.
Well, I like it. This thread's reminded me to watch it again next week.
Having said that, James Stewart was very good, as always.
Au contraire mon brave. I am not very young. In most fields of human endeavour modern stuff is better than old stuff (although painters and composers especially, and one playwright get away with being old.) Modern movies are pound for pound far better than old movies. ,in particular the production valus and special effects are nothing like as good in old stuff.
Some are watchable, but most arent. I like many of the old english kitchen sink dramas. Spring and port wine, a kind of loving and so on, but if they had made many of the old films nowadays, they would have a completely different look and feel.
I know film is different to tv, because film lasts better. Most old tv is hardly watchable. I watched a couple of episodes of day of the triffids on bbc4, and gave up.
Personally, I couldn't care less about special effects, what I want is a good story, and there were some brilliant screenplays in the 1930's and '40's, often from great writers like Raymond Chandler, James M Cain, and F. Scott Fitzgerald, which is why they have remade so many of the Classics, and they are never as good as the original.
I used to go to my local cinema's at least four times a week in the 1950's. I haven't been for the last two years and have no wish to, especially as I have enough of my favourite films on tape and DVD to last me for the rest of my life.
It's a bit like Hitchcock's "The Birds"; I forgot just how long it is before the action starts :-)
Action? Oh, that's right; the bit where George
And the bit where Clarence