|
|
Post by hi224 on Aug 9, 2018 21:37:27 GMT
Thoughts on this movie here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 21:43:58 GMT
I think its a very overrated movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Aug 9, 2018 21:56:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Aug 9, 2018 22:01:24 GMT
Top notch cast at the top of their game.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Aug 9, 2018 22:09:20 GMT
The pleasure is in watching the actors - although Jimmy's oscar was for THIS?
The "problems" of the rich upper class seem so trivial.
Never been a fan but it's decent entertainment for a couple of hours,
|
|
|
|
Post by mattgarth on Aug 9, 2018 22:14:27 GMT
Even Jimmy voted for BFF Fonda.
|
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Aug 9, 2018 22:25:28 GMT
Was it Bette Davis who said something like "The right people win the oscars, but for the wrong roles"
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Aug 9, 2018 22:31:41 GMT
The pleasure is in watching the actors - although Jimmy's oscar was for THIS? The "problems" of the rich upper class seem so trivial. Never been a fan but it's decent entertainment for a couple of hours, Not to mention I prefer Grant as well. |
|
|
|
Post by marshamae on Aug 9, 2018 22:43:39 GMT
One of Cary Grant’s best performances
One of Hepburn’s great performances and great use of her clout and persona to inhabit a role.
One of Stewart’s great performances although I think most people agreed the Oscar was for Mr Smith Goes to Washington the year before.
One of little Virginia Weidler’s great performances.
A great chance to see Mary Nash in a sympathetic role, not torturing poor little Shirley Temple
John Halliday and Roland young always good.
Ruth Hussey in her best part and she did it well, but it’s a pretty thankless role.
I love Philip Barry. He’s mocking the rich without robbing them of their individuality and humanity. If you like this ,see Holiday, and the Animal Kingdom
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2018 22:47:36 GMT
I think its a very overrated movie. I agree with our Norwegian correspondent. I couldn't even finish it. And for some reason, I assumed it was in color. |
|
|
|
Post by timshelboy on Aug 9, 2018 22:49:09 GMT
Top of the range comedy of the period with notable script and performances down the line. I may even like the musical remake more.
Sources for TV versions 1954 (Dorothy McGuire) and 1959 (Diana Lynn) would be good if anyone has them |
|
|
|
Post by marshamae on Aug 10, 2018 16:11:58 GMT
There are things I like about the musical version and Well Did you Evah is worth the price of admission. But no single cast member , with the possible exception of Margalo Gilmore, was better than the actor in the Philadelphia Story playing the same role. Crosby was good, Sinatra was really good ,and edgier than Stewart , more of a change of class. Celeste Holm was good .none of them was better than Grant Stewart and Hussey.
Kelly was significantly less adept than Hepburn. She was less pushy in the first act, not believably drunk in the second act, and the silly dialogue in the garden scene only worked because of Sinatra’s romantic vibe. She was actually rather chilly throughout, maybe holding back because of her fiancées disapproval of her career. The child who played Dinah , Lydia Reed ( Hassie on the Real McCoys), was not in the same class as Virginia Weidler. One of the Corcoran kids, Sheila James ( probably too old) , maybe Patty McCormack or Evelyn Rudie should have been considered. Dinah is a key player and the little Reed could not deliver. Every one of her wise cracks fell flat.
|
|
|
|
Post by teleadm on Aug 10, 2018 16:52:47 GMT
I liked this movie, not raising it to the skies, but liked it.
It's sophisticated dialog, even if some get's lost in translation, like the librerians amish-english, something I've gotten explained later.
Since it is about the "commoners" fascination about knowing "everything" about the rich and famous, even if most of it is just specualtions, made up stories and a few photos so we could see a bit of their fancy carefree lives. Nothing has changed in that aspect, but that is the spur of the story.
|
|
|
|
Post by snsurone on Aug 10, 2018 17:27:45 GMT
The pleasure is in watching the actors - although Jimmy's oscar was for THIS? The "problems" of the rich upper class seem so trivial. Never been a fan but it's decent entertainment for a couple of hours, Jimmy Stewart's Oscar was a "consolation" prize for losing it the year before (for MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON). It was the same with Bette Davis five years earlier, when she lost out for OF HUMAN BONDAGE, but won the Oscar the following year for a far lesser effort in DANGEROUS. |
|
|
|
Post by divtal on Aug 10, 2018 19:06:05 GMT
I once watched High Society, then The Philadelphia Story, on two successive nights. My first surprise was that I hadn't realized how much longer TPS is, and how much more goes into character identification, and depth of scenes of dialogue. Of course the scripts are very close. My second surprise came when I looked at the IMDb "stats," for the films. The Philadelphia Story is only one minute longer than High Society.
I think that, as others have said, there's more sophistication to the cast of TPS. But, it's very clear that much was sacrificed when HS had to move quickly through the story, in order to accommodate the musical numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by petrolino on Aug 10, 2018 19:23:52 GMT
Enjoyable movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Aug 10, 2018 22:45:07 GMT
Another "forever film" that has been watched multiple times .... sometimes from start to finish with a planned viewing and sometimes from whenever it is discovered to be playing while channel surfing.
Great fun paired with High Society for a double feature night.
|
|
|
|
Post by louise on Aug 15, 2018 18:17:57 GMT
I don't care for it much. the way everyone keeps lecturing Katherine Hepburn I find tiresome, and particularly when her father blames her for his adultery, which I find creepy. I like James Stewart's character the best, wish he and Hepburn had ended up together.
|
|
