Posts by ejgreen77

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!


    Hi guys,


    With all due respect, I believe there are too many Pinned topics in this forum already. There are so many now that only six threads that are not Pinned will display on the first page of this forum. I'd like to humbly suggest that perhaps the "100 Post Club" "500 Post Club" ect. as well as "Happy Anniversary" and "Happy Birthday" could all be moved into a separate forum called "Congratulatory Posts" or something like that.


    Also I think that ethan's "Pals Of The Saddle" threads with biographies of various costars could use a separate forum all their own. There's lots of good stuff there, but they are getting pushed down way too quickly.


    Thanks,


    E.J.

    Well, the perfectionist in me strikes again!!! The name of this film is simply 3 Godfathers not "The 3 Godfathers." Sorry ethan, I just can't help myself!!!!


    This is a great Christmas movie. JW played his role very well, as did Carey and Armendáriz. Ward Bond was also very good here too, as was Ben Johnson, who got his first major film role here as one of the members of Bond's posse. I'd agree with Ringo in putting it right up there with It's a Wonderful Life on my list of Christmas favorites.


    I also liked the fact that in this one, JW was paired with a love interest his own size. Dorothy Ford was 6' 2" and it destroyed her career. She was taller then most of the leading men in Hollywood at the time (though she was paired with Mickey Rooney in Love Laughs at Andy Hardy to great comic effect). In the 6' 4" Wayne, she finally found a partner her own size. It's too bad they never worked together again (she did have bit parts in Sands of Iwo Jima and The High and the Mighty, though in those ones she and the Duke didn't share any scenes together). She and JW don't have a lot of scenes together here, but what they did have showed some definite chemistry between the two of them. It's too bad it was never explored further in another film.


    3 Godfathers is a great film featuring the talents of a great group of players filmed by a great director. No Christmas is complete without it.


    E.J.


    PS: BTW Ringo, your avatar isn't showing up. For every one of your posts, it just displays a blank box with an "x" in it. Maybe it's just my computer, though I did try it on two different browsers.

    Robbie,


    As I understand it, most 3D films were generally pretty short. The reason being because the audience had to sit during the film holding a pair of 3D glasses and looking through them. After a while, people's arms and eyes started getting tired!


    Plus with the added cost of shooting in 3D, you can be sure that they weren't going to shoot anything more then was absolutely necessary.


    E.J.

    Quote

    Originally posted by CoriSCapnSkip@Feb 4 2006, 05:48 AM
    Um...is that the place where they supposedly all got cancer? Is the cause all gone now? Better watch yourselves. :unsure:

    [snapback]26506[/snapback]



    No, the "place where they supposedly all got cancer" was St. George, Utah during the filming of The Conqueror (1956).

    WaynamoJim,


    The 1936 version of The Last of the Mohicans starring Randolph Scott is not currently available on DVD. There is a DVD of the 1932 version with Harry Carey, Sr. There are also some episodes of a 1957 TV Series called "Hawkeye and the Last of the Mohicans" starring Lon Chaney Jr. that are available on DVD.


    Of course the 1992 version is also available.


    Here are the Url's:


    http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/dvd.cfm?itemID=ALP004618


    http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/dvd.cfm?itemID=ALP004929


    http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/dvd.cfm?itemID=ALP004899


    http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/dvd.cfm?itemID=ALP004619


    http://www.deepdiscountdvd.com/dvd.cfm?itemID=FXD001088


    Carl,


    You can order both The Howards of Virginia and the Gary Cooper collection at deepdiscountdvd.com


    As I said before, if you liked Allegheny Uprising, you'll like The Howards of Virginia. It was directed by Frank Lloyd (of Mutiny on the Bounty fame) and featured Cary Grant, Martha Scott (In Old Oklahoma), and Sir Cedric Hardwicke. Once you get used to the idea of Cary playing a backwoods hillbilly (he was really cast against type here), you'll enjoy it.


    E.J.



    Well, now that ethanedwards has set up this nice thread for us, I can review my review of Dark Command!!!!!


    What I meant in comparing Dark Command and Santa Fe Trail was that they are both set in the same time and place (pre-Civil war "Bleeding Kansas"), but they come from two different points of view about the war (Dark Command showing a pro-Northern view and Santa Fe Trail a pro-Southern view).


    Just look at who the heavies are. In Santa Fe Trail it's abolitionist leader John Brown, played by Raymond Massey. Brown was an anti-slavery zealot, who often did use force and violence to achieve his ends. To the South, he was a lawbreaker and anarchist, while in the North, he was seen as a man ahead of his time, a foreshadowing of the war that was to come. There's even a scene where some black folks tell Flynn they're fed up with Brown's violence. VERY pro-Southern, there!


    In Dark Command, the heavy is the Southern guerilla leader Quantrill (called "Cantrell" in the film), played by Walter Pidgeon. Quantrill was another brute of the war, he and his men continued to raid and pillage the Kansas-Missouri border country long after it had lost any strategic importance to the Southern cause. To the North, he was nothing but a renegade and outlaw, while in the South, his actions and contributions received the silent approval of the Southern government (think, the reception Flora Robson gives to Errol Flynn in The Sea Hawk: "I can't officially recognize this, but thanks just the same" [paraphrase]). In fact, I believe there is a scene in Rooster Cogburn where Duke's character proudly tells Kate Hepburn about his service with Quantrill during the war.


    To sum it up, I like both Dark Command and Santa Fe Trail equally. They are two good films with two very different points of view on American history. As with everything, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, as both sides were equally guilty of what they are accused here. In today's era of political correctness, Dark Command probably holds up better, but they are both well worth seeing in their own right.


    E.J.

    Ringo,


    How could I forget about Unconquored? That was a good one. Too bad it wasn't included in the Cecil B. DeMille Collection that Universal is releasing on DVD on May 23. Bummer. I'm pretty sure The Howards of Virginia is available on DVD, though.


    E.J.

    Ringo,


    If you liked Allegheny Uprising, you may also want to check out Cary Grant in The Howards of Virginia (1940). That one, along with Drums Along the Mohawk, are the only other movies I can think of that cover the American Revolution/Colonial period in American History.


    I liked Allegheny Uprising. It's a good movie, and also one of the Duke's rarest (here in the US, its not available on any home video format). It was also Duke's first film on the RKO contract he signed soon after the success of Stagecoach. He and Claire Trevor worked well together, as always. The setting of this one isn't too far from where I live here in Buffalo.


    E.J.

    Senta,


    Well, we probably don't want to get too far off topic here. Maybe ethanedwards can set up a new thread for Dark Command soon so we can discuss it there.


    I'm glad you liked my reviews. I'd do more of them if I had more time. You should also check out the IMDb reviews of my fellow Buffalonian bkoganbing. He's a fan of JW as well and has written many good reviews of the Duke's films at:


    http://us.imdb.com/user/ur2483625/comments

    Not to get too picky here, but the name of this film is simply Flying Leathernecks (1951), instead of "The Flying Leathernecks."


    Boy, that was picky!!!!!


    This was an OK film that borrowed elements from both Sands of Iwo Jima and Flying Tigers (which in its turn borrowed from Howard Hawks' Only Angels Have Wings). Not that that's a bad thing, though.


    Duke and Robert Ryan were at polar opposite ends of the political spectrum, yet this probably wasn't a bad thing considering the tension between their characters in the storyline. They played off each other well and both gave good performances.


    The actual combat footage wasn't cut in nearly as well on this one as was done on Sands of Iwo Jima. The combat footage is very scratchy compared to the rest of the film. Maybe this just stands out more because this film is in color.


    E.J.

    Quote

    Originally posted by ejgreen77+Nov 28 2005, 09:45 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ejgreen77 @ Nov 28 2005, 09:45 PM)</div>


    <!--QuoteBegin-ejgreen77@Nov 29 2005, 03:34 PM
    If you ever read Kirk Douglas' autobiography, you'll see he agreed with you on Preminger's directing. He said that (in his opinion) Preminger was a good producer, but not a very good director (Preminger's two Academy-award nominations notwithstanding). I would tend to agree, but for a Preminger film, I find this to be a good one. Yes, Otto did put in a good bit of "adult" themes and scenes, but unlike many of his other films (Advise and Consent comes immediately to mind) in this one he did a much better job of working them into the storyline. But, that's just my opinion.

    [snapback]23459[/snapback]




    I posted this about In Harms Way on another thread a few months ago.


    E.J.

    Quote

    Originally posted by ejgreen77@Aug 3 2005, 10:18 PM
    Now, as for Desert Command, I said that this film should be removed from Duke's filmography, and have made several (in my mind) good, solid arguments as to why. What I have not received from anyone is just why this film should have been included in the first place. Sure, IMdB lists it, but as I said in my previous post, IMdB lists several fake films. It is a good and worthwhile source, but should not be accepted without question as the ultimate authority on these matters.

    [snapback]19890[/snapback]



    Just to update everyone, IMDb has just updated their site, and removed Desert Command from JW's filmography (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0000078/). They are, however, now including his appearences on "Rookie of the Year," "Wagon Train," "Flashing Spikes," and "The Dick Powell Show."


    E.J.

    Of course, everyone knows the story of this one. The original plan from the brain trust at RKO was to borrow Marlon Brando from 20th Century Fox and have him star in this one. When Fox refused to cooperate, Howard Hughes apparently remembered that John Wayne still had one more picture left on the RKO contract he signed back in 1939. And so, one of the most dubious casting decisions in Hollywood history was made. It deserved its spot in the "50 Worst Films of All Time" list. This one is for Wayne completeists and die-hard bad film junkies only.


    This is the one film John Wayne made that is truly terrible. All the others (even the lesser ones) at least have something to recommend them. But the thing that sets The Conqueror apart from all the rest is how extremely pedestrian everything is. Let's start with the script, which is the overriding problem throughout the whole film. It's written in a sort of mock-Shakespearian lingo and is filled with dialogue that anyone on earth would have a hard time saying with a straight face.


    Next we have the casting. John Wayne and Susan Hayward, both at their career peak, were cast in this one. Neither one looks the least bit Asian (Hayward doesn’t even try to). You get the feeling throughout that both of them know this thing is a joke, and they are both just trying to make it through. Wayne drawls his way through the role of Genghis Khan, while Hayward is alternately dumb/boring as Bortai, his red-headed wife. Even the lower billed actors look uncomfortable in gaudy costumes that look like they were borrowed from a high school play.


    Of course, we can't forget the music. Victor Young (The Quiet Man) wrote some of the greatest scores in Hollywood history, but this one certainly ranks as one of his worst. Here he seems to be repeating the same few bars of the melodramatic theme over and over again throughout the film with little to no variation.


    Next we come to the cinematography. This was the one thing that could have made the film worthwhile. It didn't. While the on-location battle scenes were well-suited to the CinemaScope photography, too much of the film took place inside tents and palaces (i.e. on soundstages), giving it a cluster phobic look at times. Most of the action takes place in the middle of the frame, the director doesn’t even come close to tapping the full potential of the widescreen technology he was working with. Other Wayne films from around the same time (The High and the Mighty, The Sea Chase, Blood Alley) made much better use of CinemaScope photography.


    Last we have the direction by Dick Powell. This was just the second film Powell directed (the first was Split Second, a 1953 noir film also for RKO that starred Stephen McNally and Jan Sterling), and it showed. In all fairness, he was saddled with a impossible script and a meddling boss (Hughes). Powell would later go on to direct some good war movies over at Fox with Robert Mitchum (The Enemy Below, The Hunters). I guess Powell learned his lesson with this one and stuck to twentieth-century wars after this, leaving the ancient history alone!


    Of course there were other problems during shooting (Sue's erratic and irrational affection for Duke) and the cancer cases that occurred later were an unintentional tragedy of this film. Hughes personally bought back the rights to this film (along with Jet Pilot) when he sold RKO in the late 50's. Legend has it that in his last days, he watched this film over and over while in bed. Maybe his strange behavior before his death was the result of seeing a little too much of the The Conqueror. Viewers, Beware!!!!!


    E.J.

    Jet Pilot. What can you say???


    Once again the familiar old Ninotchka plot gets dusted off and updated for the cold war situation going on at the time. I will say this though, Jet Pilot may be a bad movie, but at least it is interesting to watch. It definitely falls into the category of "lesser Duke," yet at the same time it is entertaining.


    Poor Josef von Sternberg was one of the best directors of the 1930's, but by the time this one was made, he was reduced to directing B-pictures for RKO. The seven-year layoff between the time this was shot and the time it was released also meant that it officially went into the record books as von Sternberg's last picture.


    Folks who criticize Duke for making this movie have to remember that he had a contract with RKO at the time and likely had no choice about what pictures Howard Hughes assigned him to.


    By the way, for those of you who enjoy this movie (and even those who don't), you may want to also check out The Iron Petticoat (1956), starring Bob Hope and Kate Hepburn. The plot is very similar to Jet Pilot, but it is written as straight comedy. It works much better that way.


    E.J.

    Bob,


    Your list is a good one. I only have one name I'd like to add to it (but it's a big one). Remember, in 1960 Gary Cooper was still around. I don't think that any "ideal Western cast" would be complete without him. Someday (when I have more time) I will type up a longer post about Cooper and his contributions to the Western genre. But, I definitely would have Wayne and Cooper as the stars of my "Perfect Western."

    Hondo,


    Widescreen movies weren't shot until 1953, when Fox released The Robe in CinemsScope. So, any movie made before 1953 should be released in fullscreen. The only exception to this that I know of is The Big Trail, which was shot in an experimental widescreen process. In fact, it was the financial failure of The Big Trail that lead to Fox abandoning widescreen for over 20 years.


    All I ask for in a DVD release is that the release remain true to the original aspect ratio of the film. (Just as a side note, a few years ago, there were some people making a lot of money off the internet selling bootlegged "widescreen" copies of Gone With The Wind. Of course, all they had done is cut off the top and bottom of the film! So, if anyone ever tries to sell you one of those, it's a fake!). For my money, this is one area where DVD is a big improvement over VHS (remember all those "reformatted" titles). As I was saying my three criteria for a good DVD release is as follows:


    1) The release remain true to the original aspect ratio of the film (as I said this was a major problem with VHS)


    2) The release present the film in its original color (if it was shot in black & white, release it in black & white; if it was shot in color, release it in color. This too was a problem with VHS tapes from some studios).


    3) The release should take advantage of digital restoration processes to present the best audio and video experience possible.



    As I said, my feeling about this is that if a movie was originally shot in widescreen, release the DVD in widescreen; if it was originally shot in fullscreen, release the DVD in fullscreen.



    E.J.