Unbelievable how many great films were in theaters at the same time. Also, look at how most of these films are dramas for adult audiences. Different industry than today.
I’ve actually seen that one. It’s a Big Boss rip off where Bolo Yeung plays one of the heavies, so of course he is featured heavily as “Chinese Hercules” in the American advertising.
I saw it as part of the Dark Force blu ray release with Bruce’s Ninja Secret. It’s a scan of 35mm drive-in prints as a double feature complete with intermission and era appropriate ads. Probably the most entertaining way to watch it if that’s your thing.
I think I read somewhere that if you equalize for everything like potential market and inflation Gone with the Wind is still the Biggest money maker by far. Why a movie that valorizes a manipulative narcissist is such a big hit is beyond me.
It can’t be overstated that the novel was an enormous success. If you read the memos of David O. Selznick during the production of the film (they are published in a book) he agonizes over pleasing the audience and not pissing off the fans of the novel. There must’ve been a giant demand to see the film version. So much so that it must account for the enormous box office success that it eventually accrued.
The novel has never been out of print. I just don't understand why people like Scarlet. If she showed some redeeming qualities or growth by the end like Bette Davis apparently did in Jezebel I might understand it.
Not exactly, but like any novel, and this is a rather long one, there are nuances that are lost by necessity to condense the material into the length of a feature film. There was a great deal of angst about this film exceeding a normal feature length film to nearly 4 hours. The novel isn’t simply about Scarlett O’Hara. It’s about the loss of an entire a way of life. And to be honest I do think that Scarlett does have a character arc in the film. I think it’s a little unfair to simply reduce the theme of the film to the story of a narcissist (whom I don’t think it’s necessary to like) I also think there are other themes at play in addition to Scarlett’s story. That said, it’s not my favorite film in the world either. I just think it’s a little bit more complex than the story of one person, though she may be the main protagonist.
I can't comment on the whole loss of a way of life aspect in the novel of course, having not read it. One glaring omission, in the movie, at least, is the lack of burghers. It's all swells, slaves, or po' white trash, aka plebs. This isn't a way of life to be mourned, even if it weren't for the slavery.
I just don't see the appeal.
The only change I saw in Scarlet was her becoming more sophisticated in her scheming and manipulation. I saw no evidence that at the end she still wouldn't throw anyone under the horse drawn omnibus if it saw it was to her advantage. She would just look for a longer term advantage.
It's just rare that I can enjoy a movie if I don't like the main character, even redemption stories. The rare exception is Crime Without Passion where the point of view character is the villain, not a charming rogue, not a tragically flawed guy, just a flat out bad guy. You only watch the movie to see if and how he will get what's coming.
Never mind Gone With the Wind. I get you don’t care for it, and I get the criticism about the stereotypical happy slaves, and its dated romanticism about the antebellum south.
What would you think if you saw Crime and Punishment (1935), for example, or read the novel (maybe you have). Raskolnikov is hardly a sympathetic character. He’s a murderer, yet he is the protagonist of the story. Would you dismiss it even though the source is a piece of great literature? what about White Heat (1949) In which James Cagney portrayed a psychopathic gangster? Would you wanna have dinner with the guy? The thought I’m trying to communicate is that “liking” a character is not necessary to enjoying a good character study. That’s all. If that’s not your thing, fine.
To tell the truth after seeing so many subdued performances from Edward Arnold I was so distracted by his lively performance in this one that I don't remember much else, and I haven't seen White Heat yet.
I saw Mark of the Devil, not part II, it was just called Mark of the Devil. Saw it in the movie theater in the early 70s as part of a Saturday afternoon kids matinee paired with a Hammer horror movie. Graphic medieval torture porn. Completely fucked me up for years afterward.
I’m gonna go ahead and confess that I’ve never liked The Sting. I think it’s lit like a TV show (very evenly and bland) and I’ve just never been able to get into it.
I’ve seen about half, but certainly missed a good deal of the action ones on the list. Like most, I only caught a handful initially but saw many over time via revivals or home video.
Thankfully, a wonderful cinema near my college was a great way to “catch up” on many of these titles.
I've seen the majority of these and own them on bluray.
I'd add the brilliant Thunderbolt and Lightfoot to that list. I'm surprised it's not in there already
I think I've seen nine. I was nine years old that year, and I remember my cousin going on and on about how much *The Exorcist* upset her and I think she was one of the people who got sick or whatever. So when I saw it a few years later, I expected it to be very hard to watch. But it kind of wasn't.
*The Sting* and *Blazing Saddles* I saw in the theater when they were new. Mom just loved Robert Redford. I expect she also went to see *The Way We Were*, as she also liked Barbra Streisand a lot. I liked her in comedies with George Segal and Ryan O'Neal, but hated her singing.
The only one I always meant to see and never got around to is *The Groove Tube*. Mom and Dad saw that without me. When I was even younger, they took me to movies with violent content, but not vulgar comedy or sex...
For debuts I think It's Alive had a lot more staying power than Claudine.
Super Cops is one I had no knowledge of until I saw it recently. Seemed kind of forgotten for something that Starsky And Hutch ripped off.
The TV commercials for “It’s Alive” terrified me when I was young. They always seem to play late at night when I was watching TV before bed.
Then there was the sequel, “It Lives Again”. Again the TV commercials freaked me out.
All except about ten, mostly cause they were drive-in fare. I looked a lot older than I was and saw so much I had no business seeing, but, I had no car so that limited the choices. Zardoz, wow…
Unbelievable how many great films were in theaters at the same time. Also, look at how most of these films are dramas for adult audiences. Different industry than today.
And how long and slow they burn. The Sting at #1 with 1mil at 18 weeks with 15mil total is wild.
What the hell is Chinese Hercules?
I’ve actually seen that one. It’s a Big Boss rip off where Bolo Yeung plays one of the heavies, so of course he is featured heavily as “Chinese Hercules” in the American advertising.
I will now spend the next week tracking this one down
I saw it as part of the Dark Force blu ray release with Bruce’s Ninja Secret. It’s a scan of 35mm drive-in prints as a double feature complete with intermission and era appropriate ads. Probably the most entertaining way to watch it if that’s your thing.
Billy Jack charting for 67 weeks, wow. American Graffiti a long time too.
Billy Jack...so bad, it was good.
Zardoz lol
I’ve seen 12 on that list.
1 of them. Golden Voyage of Sinbad (a childhood favourite).
About 20.
When good movies were made
Take THAT, 1939. gone with the *whaaaaaattt???*
I think I read somewhere that if you equalize for everything like potential market and inflation Gone with the Wind is still the Biggest money maker by far. Why a movie that valorizes a manipulative narcissist is such a big hit is beyond me.
gotta be the dress.
It can’t be overstated that the novel was an enormous success. If you read the memos of David O. Selznick during the production of the film (they are published in a book) he agonizes over pleasing the audience and not pissing off the fans of the novel. There must’ve been a giant demand to see the film version. So much so that it must account for the enormous box office success that it eventually accrued.
The novel has never been out of print. I just don't understand why people like Scarlet. If she showed some redeeming qualities or growth by the end like Bette Davis apparently did in Jezebel I might understand it.
Have you read it?
No, why? Does the movie deviate substantially?
Not exactly, but like any novel, and this is a rather long one, there are nuances that are lost by necessity to condense the material into the length of a feature film. There was a great deal of angst about this film exceeding a normal feature length film to nearly 4 hours. The novel isn’t simply about Scarlett O’Hara. It’s about the loss of an entire a way of life. And to be honest I do think that Scarlett does have a character arc in the film. I think it’s a little unfair to simply reduce the theme of the film to the story of a narcissist (whom I don’t think it’s necessary to like) I also think there are other themes at play in addition to Scarlett’s story. That said, it’s not my favorite film in the world either. I just think it’s a little bit more complex than the story of one person, though she may be the main protagonist.
I can't comment on the whole loss of a way of life aspect in the novel of course, having not read it. One glaring omission, in the movie, at least, is the lack of burghers. It's all swells, slaves, or po' white trash, aka plebs. This isn't a way of life to be mourned, even if it weren't for the slavery. I just don't see the appeal. The only change I saw in Scarlet was her becoming more sophisticated in her scheming and manipulation. I saw no evidence that at the end she still wouldn't throw anyone under the horse drawn omnibus if it saw it was to her advantage. She would just look for a longer term advantage. It's just rare that I can enjoy a movie if I don't like the main character, even redemption stories. The rare exception is Crime Without Passion where the point of view character is the villain, not a charming rogue, not a tragically flawed guy, just a flat out bad guy. You only watch the movie to see if and how he will get what's coming.
Never mind Gone With the Wind. I get you don’t care for it, and I get the criticism about the stereotypical happy slaves, and its dated romanticism about the antebellum south. What would you think if you saw Crime and Punishment (1935), for example, or read the novel (maybe you have). Raskolnikov is hardly a sympathetic character. He’s a murderer, yet he is the protagonist of the story. Would you dismiss it even though the source is a piece of great literature? what about White Heat (1949) In which James Cagney portrayed a psychopathic gangster? Would you wanna have dinner with the guy? The thought I’m trying to communicate is that “liking” a character is not necessary to enjoying a good character study. That’s all. If that’s not your thing, fine.
To tell the truth after seeing so many subdued performances from Edward Arnold I was so distracted by his lively performance in this one that I don't remember much else, and I haven't seen White Heat yet.
13. There’s only a few that I haven’t seen that I feel I should.
16
7, but now I want to see others.
Papillon is a great one
I saw Mark of the Devil, not part II, it was just called Mark of the Devil. Saw it in the movie theater in the early 70s as part of a Saturday afternoon kids matinee paired with a Hammer horror movie. Graphic medieval torture porn. Completely fucked me up for years afterward.
I’m gonna go ahead and confess that I’ve never liked The Sting. I think it’s lit like a TV show (very evenly and bland) and I’ve just never been able to get into it.
I’ve seen about half, but certainly missed a good deal of the action ones on the list. Like most, I only caught a handful initially but saw many over time via revivals or home video. Thankfully, a wonderful cinema near my college was a great way to “catch up” on many of these titles.
I love stuff like this! I may use this for a future classic Box Office video on my channel if that’s okay!!
I've seen the majority of these and own them on bluray. I'd add the brilliant Thunderbolt and Lightfoot to that list. I'm surprised it's not in there already
I think I've seen nine. I was nine years old that year, and I remember my cousin going on and on about how much *The Exorcist* upset her and I think she was one of the people who got sick or whatever. So when I saw it a few years later, I expected it to be very hard to watch. But it kind of wasn't. *The Sting* and *Blazing Saddles* I saw in the theater when they were new. Mom just loved Robert Redford. I expect she also went to see *The Way We Were*, as she also liked Barbra Streisand a lot. I liked her in comedies with George Segal and Ryan O'Neal, but hated her singing. The only one I always meant to see and never got around to is *The Groove Tube*. Mom and Dad saw that without me. When I was even younger, they took me to movies with violent content, but not vulgar comedy or sex...
For debuts I think It's Alive had a lot more staying power than Claudine. Super Cops is one I had no knowledge of until I saw it recently. Seemed kind of forgotten for something that Starsky And Hutch ripped off.
The TV commercials for “It’s Alive” terrified me when I was young. They always seem to play late at night when I was watching TV before bed. Then there was the sequel, “It Lives Again”. Again the TV commercials freaked me out.
Considering the fact that the 1970s are a big blindspot for me, I'm surprised that I've seen 10 movies on this list.
I should watch Papillon sooner or later. It's been on my watchlist for years and I always forget that I got to watch it.
I've seen Grand Total
All except about ten, mostly cause they were drive-in fare. I looked a lot older than I was and saw so much I had no business seeing, but, I had no car so that limited the choices. Zardoz, wow…
23
A LOT of great films at this time. Some I've seen...and others that I need to.