It wasn’t as pumpy, but she was wearing combat boots, so that adds points?
Her last name is Potente. Married with two kids for the last 12 years; living in L.A. with her husband, according to online sources. Not that I’m into looking for that kind of info, and I’ve only seen bits and pieces of one or maybe two of the Bourne films, but there is something about her. I took notice the first time I saw her and thought she must be the actress you’re all talking about.
Sounds wonderfully awful, but the year was 1959, not 1939. In 1939 most people weren’t talking about atomic bombs. I’m going to have to watch this one.
Remionds me in some ways of another film from the same period – The 27th Day(1957). They’d make a helluva double feature.
Oops on the date. The flick is on YouTube. Now that I think about it, the “special effects” are really ST:TOSish. If I was ambitious I’d compile an hour or so of crappy sci-fi scientists and their bullshit explanations of otherworldly phenomena. This movie has that.
Well, some were:
Yeah, I know. And John Campbell got visited by government men for printing stories about the atomic bomb. But you wouldn’t be expecting people to be making movies about it in 1939.
(Although, of course, H.G. Wells was writing about the “atomic bomb” in The World Set Free (1913-1914), although his conception was different, based on Frederick Soddy’s ideas. And he wrote Star Begotten about “cosmic men” in 1937. A Man Ahead of His Time, that Wells.)
Inherit the Wind (1960) Free on Amazon Prime. A lightly fictionalized account of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, with Spencer Tracy as Clarence Darrow, Fredric March as William Jennings Bryan, Gene Kelly as H.L. Mencken, and Dick (“Bewitched”) York as Scopes…but not with those names.
I used to think this was one of my favorite films…but now, not so much. The themes are more relevant than ever these days, but the direction by Stanley Kramer is way over the top, with a fondness for weird dramatic camera angles, extreme closeups, and lots of shouted speeches.
Although Tracy’s line in reference to where Cain’s wife came from – “Do you think somebody pulled off another Creation over in the next county?” is pretty good.
No singing and dancing from Kelly, but he does wear a straw hat at the same jaunty angle as in An American in Paris.
It ends with Tracy hinting that he may not be a hard-core atheist after all (to Kelly’s dismay)…and walking out the courtroom literally clutching both the Bible and Darwin to his chest. Not exactly subtle.
I was in a high school production of Inherit the Wind (a small role - I played the Reuters reporter in the press gaggle to which Brady speaks) and have always had a soft spot for the play. I also like that there’s a passing reference to Oberlin College, my alma mater. But the movie is no great shakes, as I remember.
Agreed. I thought she was terrific, and otherwise only saw her, I think, in two of the Bourne movies.
More than lightly fictionalized, but I won’t go into that here. The movie is based on the popular and successful play of the same name by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee (yes, really), who were responsible for the fictionalization, and pretty clearly changed the named (Bert Cates for John Scopes, E.K. Hornbeck for H. L. Mencken, etc.) because they were aware of how much they’d changed.
Great movie. They made a few changes from the play, but I can’t complain. Casting was pretty close to perfect. Although I think I’d like to have seen Tony Randall repeat his Hornbeck from Broadway instead of Gene Kelly in the part.
Oh, that’s a shame. I haven’t seen it in decades, but I have very fond memories of it. Too bad it didn’t pass the test of time. But Kramer always was a bit of a hack.
I’m quite curious about the differences…will do some research.
I saw The Deer Hunter a long time ago and didn’t like it. Thought I’d give it another shot. Still didn’t like it. Half the damn movie is a wedding party, and while I’m sure they enjoyed shooting it, it became tedious in short order. Everybody in this thing seems to be an asshole trying to outdo other assholes, other than Meryl Streep’s character. In the context of the time (it was released in 1978), Vietnam was still being analyzed by all and sundry and there were a number of bad movies made that supposedly depicted how things were.
I’m ambivalent about the film, but I think the idea was to show this closed-knit Russian immigrant Eastern Penn. community. You have to lay the foundation for WHY these people care about each other so that later you aren’t asking WHY they’re going through all of that crap to help one another. If you didn’t do that the film would have to be filed with heroics, explosions and band music to convince the audience why anyone is bothering.
I loved the Deer Hunter. Then I read the original script and I wish they’d stuck with how that went. Originally, it was Michael who stayed back in Viet Nam to play Russian Roulette and Nick who came home, and eventually went back after his buddy. It actually makes more sense as before they went to Viet Nam Michael and Linda (Streep) didn’t really have anything going, but she and Nick did.
Public Enemies, Johnny Depp, Christian Bale on Netflix. Not bad as gangster movies go, but I dislike the attempt to turn a murdering SOB into some sort of folk hero.
So you’re not a fan of gangster movies in general, eh?
This is me. I have never liked a show that tries to make a horrific criminal a hero. I never watched things like Dexter, The Sopranos, or The Punisher because I couldn’t stomach that aspect of it.
Of which, I just rewatched PLATOON, and came away thinking that Oliver Stone made a crucial error in telling the story from the perspective of Chris Taylor, his admitted alter-ego. Taylor is inessential to the story he tells (and editorializes over), the struggle between Sergeants Barnes and Elias, which is emblematic of the U.S.'s struggle between good impulses and bad ones in their foreign policy. Stone tells it as Taylor’s story, when he is just a witness to the story, and by doing so, makes it preachy and overlong.
Loved Dexter, hated the Sopranos, for the reasons you state. Dexter was heroic in his way, killing those who had wrongly evaded justice. But Sopranos was just glorifying mobsters, as far I could tell. (Eventually, Dexter fell apart, but the first few years were great.)
I think I walked out on it the first time around (when it first came out), but I’ve watched it a couple of times since then.