What's new

My Fair Lady 50th Anniversary Edition (Blu-ray) Available for Preorder (1 Viewer)

Mike Boone

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 19, 2014
Messages
907
Location
Norton, Ohio
Real Name
Michael
TravisR said:
No because, in general, audiences always want more. I saw the first two Fast And The Furious movies and thought they were terrible and I've seen all the Marvel movies once (they're OK but I don't even feel a need to see them a second time) but I think a lot of it has to do with the age of the viewer. If you or I were 13 watching those movies today, we'd probably love them and in 25 years, we'd be griping that whatever was new wasn't as good as the old days of F&F and the Marvel movies. I'm sure that movies that I grew up loving like Star Wars or Jaws or Raiders Of The Lost Ark or Back To The Future were thought as 'not as good as the old days' or just passable or total junk to many people who were kids in the 1950's or 1960's.

I would point out that the 4 movies you mention that you loved while growing up, all got mostly excellent reviews. In those times only five movies each year made the cut to be nominated for the Best Picture Academy Award, and Star Wars, Jaws, and Raiders of the Lost Ark were all nominated for that Oscar. And even though I'm a former marathon runner myself, I still thought that Raiders of the Lost Ark was a better example of skillful movie making than Chariots of Fire which beat Raiders to win the Oscar. Of course I realize how political Oscar voting can be, and also how Academy members sometimes seem to be over-awed by period pieces that include British accents. Now, such a film of that type, like A Man For All Seasons, IMO, richly deserved it's win for Best Picture, and the Oscars it gained for Paul Scofield's towering performance, and the brilliant writing of Robert Bolt. But the totally magical film, E.T., being denied Best Picture, in deference to the award being given to a standard, by the numbers, biopic, like Gandhi, was a real travesty. As a movie reviewer mentioned, one would hardly suspect that director Richard Attenborough had fought for 20 years to be allowed to make Gandhi, because little evidence of his passion showed up on screen. Certainly, though, Ben Kingsley's performance in the title role was strong, and his efforts partially redeemed what, IMO, is an otherwise pretty mediocre film. I usually have an excellent memory for individual scenes in films, but though I can remember where I took my daughter to see Gandhi after it received its Oscar nominations, I could not even give a rough description of 15 minutes of scenes in Gandhi if such a task was required to prevent me from going before a firing squad. I recently bought the Blu-ray of Gandhi, and I'm determined to give the film another chance, sometime. But I tend to think that many who have only seen Gandhi once, as I did, probably now look back on the film as being about as unmemorable an experience as my one viewing has proved to be. IMO, Steven Spielberg was cheated 2 years in a row by the Motion Picture Academy, because its members were impressed by the noble themes contained in Chariots of Fire and Gandhi, and not because those themes were brought to the screen through any great quality of film making.
 

JohnMor

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
5,157
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Real Name
John Moreland
Mike Boone said:
But the totally magical film, E.T., being denied Best Picture, in deference to the award being given to a standard, by the numbers, biopic, like Gandhi, was a real travesty. As a movie reviewer mentioned, one would hardly suspect that director Richard Attenborough had fought for 20 years to be allowed to make Gandhi, because little evidence of his passion showed up on screen. Certainly, though, Ben Kingsley's performance in the title role was strong, and his efforts partially redeemed what, IMO, is an otherwise pretty mediocre film. I usually have an excellent memory for individual scenes in films, but though I can remember where I took my daughter to see Gandhi after it received its Oscar nominations, I could not even give a rough description of 15 minutes of scenes in Gandhi if such a task was required to prevent me from going before a firing squad. I recently bought the Blu-ray of Gandhi, and I'm determined to give the film another chance, sometime. But I tend to think that many who have only seen Gandhi once, as I did, probably now look back on the film as being about as unmemorable an experience as my one viewing has proved to be. IMO, Steven Spielberg was cheated 2 years in a row by the Motion Picture Academy, because its members were impressed by the noble themes contained in Chariots of Fire and Gandhi, and not because those themes were brought to the screen through any great quality of film making.

Now there you lose me. I loathed ET and I find Spielberg as a rule one of the most ham-fisted, maudlin and obvious directors, along with Ron Howard. I would much rather watch Gandhi than E.T. And while I love Raiders I would give the (rather wide) edge to Chariots of Fire.
 

MatthewA

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
9,727
Location
Salinas, CA
Real Name
Matthew
Sorry, I'm on Mike's side. ET should have won. Gandhi was a snow-job of his life and legacy that only works because of Ben Kingsley's performance.


Not sure how I feel about the 1981 race. Chariots of Fire is not a bad movie in any tangible way, and neither is Raiders of the Lost Ark. But the bias against the type of material Spielberg was paying homage to worked against it with Oscar voters.
 

JohnMor

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
5,157
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Real Name
John Moreland
Virgoan said:
And Richard Burton gave the most spectacular performance in1966 for "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" Scofield was pedestrian in comparison. IMO, naturally.

Disagree with this, too. LOL. I find both Burton and Taylor way over the top in WAOVW. But I find the piece a bit on the ridiculous side as well.


But this is what makes the world go 'round.
 

Mike Frezon

Moderator
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2001
Messages
60,773
Location
Rexford, NY
Mike Boone said:
But I know this thread is supposed to be about My Fair Lady, so what I would like to say is that at least if you compare MFL to ridiculous crap like the Furious movies, characters suddenly bursting into song in My Fair Lady actually seem like examples of real life, compared to the ridiculous garbage that is being dumped on audiences each year now from about April all the way til the fall.


I just have one question for my fellow members: Do any of you folks hold out any real hope that audiences will finally grow tired of seeing cars and comic book super heroes smashing through buildings? Because, to me, this nonsense only seems to be getting more prevalent. Surely, Hollywood, as it proved with movies like Back To The Future, can be a lot more creative than it has shown, lately.

Yes. This thread is supposed to be about the 50th anniversary release of My Fair Lady.


And, yes, I realize that we often allow a fair amount of latitude in certain threads for side discussions.


But to purposefully start a side discussion about the popularity of over-the-top action films in this thread is just plain wrong.


Let's stop this discussion here now. I will entertain a motion to move the discussion into it's own thread if people think it's a good idea.
 

john a hunter

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
1,462
Have been travelling overseas so haven't been through all of this thread but last I saw was when the release date is to be.


While in Paris I picked up a home theatre magazine( yes they still have them) and the release date for the restored version in Europe is 27 May next.


Sorry if this info is a repeat.
 

Joel Arndt

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2009
Messages
4,107
Location
The Western Reserve, Cleveland, OH
Real Name
Joel Arndt
john a hunter said:
Have been travelling overseas so haven't been through all of this thread but last I saw was when the release date is to be.


While in Paris I picked up a home theatre magazine( yes they still have them) and the release date for the restored version in Europe is 27 May next.


Sorry if this info is a repeat.

I don't believe this information has been posted before and thanks for bringing the thread back on topic.


Are you saying the magazine mentioned a European release date of May 27, 2016?
 

john a hunter

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
1,462
JoelA said:
I don't believe this information has been posted before and thanks for bringing the thread back on topic.


Are you saying the magazine mentioned a European release date of May 27, 2016?
Sure was. Hopefully not to long after for the rest of us.
 

David Weicker

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
4,675
Real Name
David
When did this get pushed out to Next year (2016)?

The last I remember seeing was this fall/winter (2015).
 

trajan

Screenwriter
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
1,198
Real Name
lar
I have just one question. Is the restoration finished and we're just waiting for the Fathom events?
 

john a hunter

Screenwriter
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
1,462
john a hunter said:
Sure was. Hopefully not to long after for the rest of us.
Sorry but I must have had jet lag when reading your post.

The article says 27 May 2015.

My French is not that good but it also seems to say that the date could change but at least we know that NEXT MONTH is a possibility.

Perhaps someone wants to see if Paramount France has any further info.

Apologies again for misleading everyone.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Sign up for our newsletter

and receive essential news, curated deals, and much more







You will only receive emails from us. We will never sell or distribute your email address to third party companies at any time.

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
357,074
Messages
5,130,186
Members
144,283
Latest member
mycuu
Recent bookmarks
1
Top