I guess shouldn’t have said anything.

LOL, no it's a legitimate point. I think we all develop those subjective standards with performers to a degree or another for whatever reason. Some other examples I can think of. I dislike George Carlin because of bigoted things he said about Christians and Christianity and the only things I watch of him are from his clean-shaven pre-hippie period. I haven't seen a Woody Allen movie post-Radio Days because of his stuff too (and for decades I stopped seeing earlier Allen films until relented in recent years with "Zelig"; eventually I'll see "Radio Days" again but I'm still loathe to revisit his later work whereas when I see him as What's My Line? panelist in the 60s or a Carson guest then, I have no problem).

I think everyone has at least one performer and/or director that gets on their nerves due to their personal conduct. I know I have a small handful , but will also concede that I admired some of their work (I think Mia Farrow is a very dubious woman at best and her claim that Woody Allen had his way with the 7-year-old after taking off with Soon-Yi 7 moths earlier has more than a few holes of credibility in it, but I still watch the films they made together, plus the Peyton Place TV show and a couple other films. I think Roman Polanski is a sick man, but also think that Chinatown is a devastatingly heartbreaking film, and Tess was good too).

I don't think that I ever completely stopped myself from watching something because someone was in it or someone made it, but at the same time, I hesitated for a long time to watch another Miramax film after the Weinstein scandal broke, even the ones his company bought premade without his being involved before,and I watch some other things quietly noting in my mind that while they are a perfectly fine or even great performer on screen, their offscreen personality is not appealing (Barbra Streisand, Jane Fonda, Robert De Niro, etc.)

I did see an episode of the Cosby Show after the scandals broke, but the disconnect between hum onscreen and offscreen had a very repellent feeling.

As for OJ Simpson, I'll confess that his presence does take me out of things, and will also admit that it was rather perversely satisfying seeing him get gunned down in The Cassandra Crossing or ending up under a car with one item after another hitting him in between the legs in The Naked Gun 2½.

TaranofPrydain wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 10:23 pm As for OJ Simpson, I'll confess that his presence does take me out of things, and will also admit that it was rather perversely satisfying seeing him get gunned down in The Cassandra Crossing or ending up under a car with one item after another hitting him in between the legs in The Naked Gun 2½.

That gag in the Naked Gun remake trailer where Nordberg's son is supposed to be prostrate with grief looking at his dad's picture, then looks at the camera and shakes his head, made me chuckle.

Probably the only genuinely funny thing about that remake!

Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 10:43 pm Probably the only genuinely funny thing about that remake!

We've seen 90 seconds so far.

Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 2:31 pm

Paul MacLean wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 11:11 am But I think it's fair to say we all have a line which taints a performer once it's been crossed -- certainly in regard to certain types of roles. It's hard for me to look at the childlike Pee-Wee Herman after Paul Reubens' "movie theater incident". It's hard to accept John Lennon waxing lyrical about the perfect world of "Imagine" when he beat his first wife.

Jane Fonda in her prime I think was one of the sexiest women to ever grace a movie screen, but the two films of hers from the 70s that are forever off-limits for me are "Julia" and "Coming Home" because that's Fonda the political activist which IMO is something her other roles of that era manage to conceal (not that I'd see "Julia" if it had anyone else, since Lillian Hellman was a Stalinist toady of the first order who likely made that whole story up).

Even Fred Zinnemann, who directed Julia, later admitted that he started making the film thinking Hellmann's story was real, but thought that by the time it was released, that the story was a complete fiction.

Monterey Jack wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 11:00 pm

Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2025 10:43 pm Probably the only genuinely funny thing about that remake!

We've seen 90 seconds so far.

Ive seen enough. That trailer is lame other than the OJ joke. This thing is going to be far crasser and explicit than ZAZ and wont have its style or humor.

Its far more likely to be like one of those stupid SCARY MOVIE 5 spinoffs than AIRPLANE.

Okay, I've been making my way through the Connery Bond Ultra 4K set. It's reminding me that I've gone some time since I've seen the movies.

Dr. No (1962) 9 of 10
-Succeeds in establishing the franchise which is why I'm a bit more generous than I usually am since I tend to save 9 and above for an elite category of films. Of course the film is remarkably low-key and low-stakes compared to what the Bond films would become as things remain in just one location once Bond arrives in Jamaica. Indeed, the film has more the aura of a police investigation type procedural than it does a spy adventure until Bond ends up in Dr. No's lair (and of course we have no gadgets yet either). But it's that outsized villain's lair and an iconic Bond girl entrance by Ursula Andress that sets the tone in major areas for what is to come and had these elements been bobbled, who knows if we would have had the most successful movie franchise of all time?

-The new transfer let me pick up details I'd never seen before like the fact the photographer at the airport is seen conversing with the bogus driver while Bond is watching from the phone booth (which clarifies why Bond remembers her later at the club). And you can now more easily make out that it's stuntman Bob Simmons firing the gun in the barrel moment (Connery didn't do it until "Thunderball")

From Russia With Love (1963) 7 of 10
-Curiously, I discovered that this film suffers from the fact that its storyline is REALLY muddled as it unfolds and takes forever to kick in. This has been obscured by the great Istanbul location photography and the solid supporting performances and spectacular set pieces like the train fight scene etc. but when you analyze it, I realize that the decision to incorporate SPECTRE into this and have them playing the Russians and Brits against each other makes the storyline far too complicated (and with hindsight this decision rooted in a desire to avoid causing offense to the Soviet bloc really seems lame; SPECTRE's introduction in "Dr. No" is far less obtrusive by contrast) and in the end, other than the fact that it introduced the gimmick of Blofeld and the cat, I think it was a mistake. Case in point. Is it SPECTRE or is it the Russians targeting Bond in the helicopter (a scene that was by their own admission stolen from "North By Northwest")? The frustrated reaction of the captured driver who was waiting for Grant would indicate SPECTRE, but how could SPECTRE have known that Bond was alive in the truck since in the later Blofeld scene that wasn't known until the train arrived and Grant's body discovered? The film is certainly great, but I'm discovering now it doesn't hold up as well as "Dr. No." The Sylvia Trench scene is too repetitive and I'm frankly glad that element was dropped after this film.

Goldfinger (1964) 9 of 10
-And this of course made the franchise iconic and whereas "From Russia With Love" needlessly complicated Fleming's original plot by bringing in SPECTRE, the script for "Goldfinger" effectively simplified Fleming's plot by fixing Fleming's problematic idea of Goldfinger wanting to rob Fort Knox (which was totally impossible as Bond sums up before he realizes what the real purpose is), dispensing with Tilly Masterson quickly (and more effectively), and also thankfully toning down the overt lesbianism of Pussy Galore. The only thing that doesn't hold up well is the poor process photography and obvious sets for any scenes involving the principals in the opening Miami sequence (only Cec Linder and the actor playing Mr. Simmons went to Miami for location shooting). Desmond Llewelyn's "Q" comes into his own after his brief scene in FRWL so we now have all the elements of the classic Bond formula in place.

-Honor Blackman's history as Cathy Gale on "The Avengers" clearly explained why she got the part despite being five years older than Connery (she was 39 when the film came out). But her age actually works in terms of her allure because the part of Pussy requires a good deal of gravitas and that she has. She remains the oldest lead Bond girl in a movie (Maud Adams was 37 when she did "Octopussy")

Chinatown (1974) 7 of 10
-I'd never seen the film before. It's well-made, well-acted and holds my attention for the most part but when it takes a detour into the distasteful category (incest) and the downer ending that was a downer simply because that's what Polanski wanted (until now the only film of his I'd ever seen was "Frantic" years and years ago. That boycott was deliberate but I made an exception for this film only), I took a point off.

Thunderball (1965) 7.5 of 10
-Continuing through the 4K set. It's great to have both audio tracks at last with their tiny variants on one release. The film would have rated a point higher from me but for (1) Bond's distasteful behavior with Pat Fearing which really is a case of forcing himself on her (2) the tedium of all the underwater scenes at the climax capped off by some sloppy editing work especially with the ridiculously sped-up film of the yacht (3) Rik Van Nutter is an absolutely boring Leiter. Too many reference books keep rating him the best Leiter because they're written by Fleming purists who swoon over the fact he's physically closer to Fleming's description of Leiter but they don't seem to realize that Van Nutter has the personality of a piece of wood and is just a "yes-man" for Bond whereas in "Dr. No", Jack Lord played a Leiter who you could tell was an equal of Bond (The miscast Cec Linder also had more gravitas in "Goldfinger" than Van Nutter). The film shows how in the wake of "Goldfinger", the producers were really trying to push things to the next level by going to Cinemascope, increasing the sense of travelogue and gadgets and making the stakes very high all the time (no more low-key stuff like in "From Russia With Love" in the Connery era).

-The transfer is excellent. During the SPECTRE briefing you can even make out Anthony Dawson's head through the blinds in his second go-round as the uncredited Blofeld.

Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 4:18 am Chinatown (1974) 7 of 10
-I'd never seen the film before. It's well-made, well-acted and holds my attention for the most part but when it takes a detour into the distasteful category (incest) and the downer ending that was a downer simply because that's what Polanski wanted (until now the only film of his I'd ever seen was "Frantic" years and years ago. That boycott was deliberate but I made an exception for this film only), I took a point off.

I agree incest is a disturbing topic, but it does happen -- and not necessarily in Southern hick towns. When younger I actually attended a screening of Chinatown with a girlfriend -- who I later learned was herself an incest survivor; of course I wouldn't have taken her to see the film had I known this. She also instantly understood what Evelyn Cross was trying to express when she said "She's my sister / my daughter", and I remember her whispering "she's both".

My girlfriend actually admired the film however. Had I been more astute at that age I might have realized her reaction was a symptom of her own experience. But of course at that age I was naive enough to believe "that doesn't go on in communities like ours". She lived in an upper middle-class neighborhood and her father was well-respected in his scientific field. So it does go on -- in places you might not expect. Because of this, I respect and admire Towne and Polanski's courage in addressing the topic of incest.

I think it is to be somewhat expected that Polanski would lean towards "downer" endings. He is a Holocaust survivor (and his mother was murdered in the gas chambers). As a child he was hidden with a farm family for his protection, and one day when he was out walking, two SS officers saw him from across the field and decided to use him for target practice (they didn't even know he was Jewish; they just thought it would be fun to fire their Lugers at some polish kid). Years later of course, Polanski's wife Sharon Tate and unborn child were slaughtered by the Manson family -- and initially Polanski was even a suspect in the murder investigation, and derided by much of Hollywood's "old guard" who felt he and Tate had somehow "brought it on themselves" due to their lifestyle.

So I can cut him some slack.

Going back to Chinatown, I also just consider it one of the greatest American pictures ever made. I rate it a 10/10 -- something I reserve for very few movies. Chinatown's script is (rightly) required reading in every screenwriting class. I also think Polanski's re-written ending is better than Town's. A tragic ending is to me the more fitting (and plausible) conclusion to the film. Polanski also wrote the film's iconic final line of dialog "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown".

Apart from the script, the performances are all top-tier -- and Nicholson was never better. John Alonzo's photography is among his best work (he had all the sets painted brown or tan to reinforce the omnipresent drought -- which I think is genius). Jerry Goldsmith's score is likewise among his best efforts -- which is all the more amazing considering it was a last-minute replacement score written and recorded in ten days!

I think you're missing out by boycotting Polanski's films. I find his body of work somewhat hit and miss, but he is nevertheless a favorite of mine. I highly recommend his adaptation of Macbeth (which is the finest adaptation of "The Scottish Play" to date). The Pianist is also phenomenal.

Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 4:18 am Thunderball (1965) 7.5 of 10
The film would have rated a point higher from me but for (1) Bond's distasteful behavior with Pat Fearing which really is a case of forcing himself on her (2) the tedium of all the underwater scenes at the climax capped off by some sloppy editing work especially with the ridiculously sped-up film of the yacht (3) Rik Van Nutter is an absolutely boring Leiter.

Bond's seduction of Fearing is, lets say "problematic", but see it as Bond knowing intuitively she finds him attractive (and he does quickly win her over). That said, I do wish that scene was handled differently. Goldfinger is objectively the "best" of the Connery films, but I find Thunderball the most entertaining. I agree Van Nutter is bland, but I find him adequately serviceable as Leiter -- and I'm so distracted by everything else in the film being so entertaining, he doesn't matter to me!

I rate John Barry's score as one of his best for the series. As an album I find it far-more listenable than the often-repetitive (and brief) Goldfinger soundtrack. Thunderball's title song is also my favorite of the entire series. Again, Goldfinger's title song is "the best", but even though Thunderball's song is obviously modeled on Goldfinger, I like it better.

Paul MacLean wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 12:50 pm I think you're missing out by boycotting Polanski's films. I find his body of work somewhat hit and miss, but he is nevertheless a favorite of mine. I highly recommend his adaptation of Macbeth (which is the finest adaptation of "The Scottish Play" to date). The Pianist is also phenomenal.

Well we were talking earlier about people we feel a need to boycott because of their off-camera actions re: Barrymore, Simpson, Fonda etc. and Polanski for me is at the top of the list because of his cowardly refusal to be a man and acknowledge responsibility for his actions, plus the fact that for 40 years the industry gave him a free pass for his actions, including a standing ovation when they gave him an Oscar he couldn't show up to accept yet those same people sat on their hands for Elia Kazan and treated him like dirt because he told the truth (and frankly every friendly witness to HUAC has been treated shamefully by the industry in contrast to how they treated some people guilty of really heinous behavior). Then only a decade later did they finally decide it was time to condemn Polanski for his actions. It's no longer the sordid nature of the deed he committed it's his brazen refusal to face responsibility and use his prestige as an "artist" to escape justice that no one from a poor community facing the same thing would be able to. It's not that I think he should spend decades in jail for his offense. If he were to ever return and straighten things out then fine. But until then, I have no reason to budge. It was more for the sake of seeing one of Goldsmith's biggest films and a chance to justify listening to the CD at last that I finally relented on this one. =

I will agree that Barry really comes into his own as the composer for the series in "Thunderball".

Eric Paddon wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 1:19 pm Well we were talking earlier about people we feel a need to boycott because of their off-camera actions re: Barrymore, Simpson, Fonda etc. and Polanski for me is at the top of the list because of his cowardly refusal to be a man and acknowledge responsibility for his actions, plus the fact that for 40 years the industry gave him a free pass for his actions...

I do respect your position, Eric, but I am not sure that's entirely true. Polanski's career did suffer. It is difficult (if not impossible) to maintain A-list status in Hollywood when you're living in exile (with a stained reputation). Many opportunities were lost to the director as a result. And his life in the United States (where he most wanted to live) was of course taken away from him.

I personally feel Polanski was railroaded. I don't defend his having sex with a minor, but he was under the impression she was 19. Her mother gave full consent to the photo shoot -- alone with an man they didn't know (except by professional reputation).

The judge trying the case, Laurence Rittenband, had a lot of friends who were "old Hollywood" and had an attitude towards Polanski ever since the Manson murders, and pressured Rittenband to throw the book at Polanski.

Dino DeLaurentiis urged Polanski to take flight and shoved a couple grand in his pocket, and told him "Get to to the airport now!" So, that makes DeLaurentiis arguably something of an enabler (and perhaps in need of boycotting as well?).

As far as Drew Barrymore, I don't boycott her films (in fact I tried to to re-watch Ever After last weekend, based on Andy's recent review). I just don't like seeing her in the role of "wholesome characters". I'd be fine with her playing a wicked witch or hooker!

Paul MacLean wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 6:12 pm I just don't like seeing her in the role of "wholesome characters". I'd be fine with her playing a wicked witch or hooker!

Appearing in BOYS ON THE SIDE is not, I repeat, NOT as bad as statutory rape

AndyDursin wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 6:29 pm

Paul MacLean wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 6:12 pm I just don't like seeing her in the role of "wholesome characters". I'd be fine with her playing a wicked witch or hooker!

Appearing in BOYS ON THE SIDE is not, I repeat, NOT as bad as statutory rape

I certainly wasn't trying to draw that parallel! I'm just saying I don't find her convincing as the "nice girl".