tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166297507174717122.post2072007725609397858..comments2024-03-27T21:42:56.131-05:00Comments on 1001plus: Hello, I Love You, Won't You Tell Me Your NameSJHoneywellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550007053995112090noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166297507174717122.post-2754419382845050392017-06-02T11:10:35.596-05:002017-06-02T11:10:35.596-05:00I disliked Hancock for exactly this reason. If it ...I disliked <i>Hancock</i> for exactly this reason. If it had stayed on the basic story of a drunken, disheveled superhero trying to come back from that, I'd have loved it. I thought the twist pulled it out of something that could have been really original and interesting. <br /><br />If this had blended the drama and comedy, it would have worked. It doesn't at all, and so my mental/emotional gearshift just didn't handle the change at all. SJHoneywellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13550007053995112090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166297507174717122.post-37515412067736547522017-06-01T23:24:58.622-05:002017-06-01T23:24:58.622-05:00I haven't seen this film, but I don't nece...I haven't seen this film, but I don't necessarily object to a two-tone approach to a story. In fact, I'm beginning to suspect it's something of a subgenre or a subcategory in the list of story types. <br /><br />There's a Korean film called "YMCA Yagu Danji," which is initially a comedy about the arrival of baseball in Korea, but which then turns into a drama about the Japanese occupation. I thought the shift in tone was strange at first... but then I saw "Hancock," a superhero movie that also begins as a comedy before turning into a mythology-saturated cosmic drama. I really liked "Hancock" despite the critical hate it received, perhaps because of my religious-studies bias. The religious trope of the "divine pair" was given a twist when it turns out the pair can't remain with each other if they each hope to survive. Anyway, my point is that I thought the radical shift in tone actually <i>worked</i> for "Hancock" (and, arguably, for "YMCA"). <br /><br />That being said, I don't know how I'd handle a shift from drama to comedy, such as apparently happens in "Proper Stranger."Kevin Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166297507174717122.post-36110238813543718202017-06-01T23:21:16.215-05:002017-06-01T23:21:16.215-05:00I can see that, and really, it makes perfect sense...I can see that, and really, it makes perfect sense. If we're going to have a movie with Natalie Wood and Steve McQueen and we're going to imply that the two have knocked boots, well, we've got to end with them together. I don't really have a problem with that. Since that's going to be the case, though, maybe the first two acts shouldn't be so heavy and dark. There's a lot that can be done to lighten this up, because it feels like a gritty, realistic drama for about 75 minutes and then it becomes wacky romance pranks. <br /><br />Wood was absolutely the right call for this role and she nails the part of Angie perfectly. I tend to like Steve McQueen as a general rule and I don't hate him here, but this does seem out of his comfort zone in a lot of ways. When I think of him, I tend to think of <i>The Cincinnati Kid</i> as sort of the quintessential McQueen role. Smart, but reckless, dirty, and while easy to root for, perhaps not so deserving of being rooted for. That may just be me, though, because that description doesn't fit a lot of his more famous roles. It's how I tend to think of him, though, and maybe there is a little of that in Rocky Papasano. <br /><br />As for its obscurity, I don't really know. There are plenty of films that have been unfairly forgotten and now are unbelievably difficult to track down. SJHoneywellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13550007053995112090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166297507174717122.post-77549294536822224882017-06-01T22:21:01.918-05:002017-06-01T22:21:01.918-05:00I can see your point about the wavering tone but I...I can see your point about the wavering tone but I think the film's makers saw this as ultimately a romance between two superstars and assumed, probably rightly, that the public would expect an ending along the lines of what they give us. Had they stuck with the initial darkness and a more realistic ending it would have been an interesting but very different film that would have disappointed both stars fans and honestly with a title like this who could blame them.<br /><br />On paper I wouldn't have expected Natalie Wood and Steve McQueen to work so well together. Their onscreen energy is very different but that helps, his flintiness meshing with her grace but there's a spikiness to their interplay. McQueen does well by his character but the movie belongs to Natalie Wood. Love her though I do she could be a variable actress but when she connected with the character as she does here and in Splendor in the Grass she was extraordinary, you just can't envision anyone else doing the part as well as she.<br /><br />Though the focus is heavily on the leads the supporting cast, in particular Edie Adams and Herschel Bernardi, add flavor to the film and the location shooting in 60's New York City give the picture a distinctive feeling.<br /><br />I'm a bit mystified by the movie's obscurity, its leads could hardly have been bigger stars, both still have a lot of fans and it certainly has an Oscar pedigree to back it up. I wonder if it's some sort of rights issue that kept it from view for so long. joel65913https://www.blogger.com/profile/14526657073681774683noreply@blogger.com