One thing I forgot to comment on last time - Val, I love It Happened One Night too. So fun, light-hearted, and romantic. Have you watched many other screwball comedies? Infinitely prefer them to most (note, not all ) of the romantic comedies of other eras. The best of the rom-coms today have screwball elements, too. BTW, have you seen How To Steal a Million before, or would this have been your first time? That's been on my to-see list for some time now. How can you go wrong with Audrey Hepburn, Peter O'Toole, and William Wyler?

Thanks for the recommendation, SnowAngel; I've not seen any of Lee's other films, but given his beautiful work on S&S, I'll definitely be looking into more of his work.

The original was a good movie until they got to the factory, then it was just lame.

But that's when Gene Wilder appeared! Lameness and Gene Wilder cannot coexist. (Actually, they can ... ever seen Sherlock Holmes' Younger Smarter Brother or whatever it's called? ... but still, my point stands.) Anyway, I don't have much to say regarding the two versions, mostly because I've only seen the Burton once and would only do so again for Freddie Highmore, who did make a very good Charlie Bucket. Otherwise, I'll simply agree with everything bkey and StudyMate said ... and leave it to Shadowlander to join the defense next.

Glenstorm, must you always prefer the newest adaptations of Jane Austen novels? It's most aggravating. Of course, I suppose I tend to go with the 90s versions in general, so I am guilty of the opposite sin.

I still think Garai's Emma is one of the most disappointing performances I've ever seen from a favorite actor or actress. I'd been wanting to see her in the role since I saw her in Daniel Deronda years before, and was incredibly excited when it was announced she would be playing it (yeah, take that, BBC - I got the idea first ). In the end, however, I would characterize her Emma as vulgar and over-the-top - two words I never expected to associate with this actress. Don't get me wrong, there were occasional moments of brilliance, but they were totally overshadowed by all the shoulder-slumping, eye-popping, and grimacing.

Regarding the Willoughby scene you mentioned,

Over the past few days, I have watched - in chunks and pieces - the 1945 film version of And Then There Were None. It is based off of the Agatha Christie novel and play of the same name, directed by Frenchman Rene Clair, and features a cast made up mostly of British character actors and 'B' movie stars, with a few Canadians and Australians mixed into the cast. If nothing else, the movie demonstrates what a talented and versatile bunch they were. I knew of Barry Fitzgerald, Walter Huston, and Judith Anderson (the fabulous character actress whose most famous role was Mrs. Danvers in Alfred Hitchcock's Rebecca) going in, but although I didn't recognize their names, it turned out that, with the exception of Huston and leading lady June Deprez, I had seen all of the main players in various movies before. Some I didn't even recognize when they were on-screen! Given the lighter, more comic interpretation of the story that they were performing, I thought all ten did a stellar job in their parts, although Huston was a little over-the-top. Particular shout-outs go to Anderson as a bible-thumping spinster, C. Aubrey Smith as a retired general at the end of his life (and sanity!), and Louis Hayward as the dashing Philip Lombard.

Rene Clair directs with style and sneaks some fabulous shots in, too. I just wish I could have told him and the screenwriter to keep a little darker, that's all. I wish I knew more about Christie's revised stage version of the story so I could tell what was Christie and what was Hollywood, but I get the feeling that there's a bit too much of the latter in the final version of the film. I appreciate that for the purposes of entertainment, a few touches of humor could go a long way, and changing the ending sounds fine in theory. But there is so much lightness about this version that much of the suspense is lost, one can't believe that any of these people could ever be murderers, and the ending strikes me as simply lame. Watch it if you like light-hearted mystery films, or have a particular fondness for old-time character actors, but I can't recommend it very highly to fans of the book. A pity, since none of the other adaptations seem to be very good either.

Glenstorm, must you always prefer the newest adaptations of Jane Austen novels? It's most aggravating. Of course, I suppose I tend to go with the 90s versions in general, so I am guilty of the opposite sin.

I don't always- I like both versions of P&P about the same . And yes, you always prefer the 90s versions so you're no better .

What you said about Romola's preformance as Emma saddens me . I really did like her alot. Oh well. I don't think we'll ever agree .

I guess I just wanted to hear it from Willoughby. It makes him more personable I guess. You don't feel as mad at him afterwards. But yes the other scene they kept was better I suppose...

I was just watching the behind the scenes for the movie "Apollo 13" and it's so amazing! I love that movie!

I love that movie "And Then there were None",

I saw it, I was in a play version of it, I saw another play version of it and I have the game to it. It's such a fun murder story <-- I hope this doesn't sound creepy.

I really want to do a murder mystery game thanks to this movie, I haven't done one yet.

Ah ... but have you read the book?

It's the little things in Garai's Emma that bother me, Glenstorm. For instance, why can't she stand up properly? She's always slumping, and that certainly doesn't help convey the image of the wealthiest and most important young woman in Highbury. She doesn't do this in the other period films that I've seen her in, so one can only surmise that the director is to blame.

The first time I read S&S, I thought that scene with Willoughby made him more likable too, but I've come to the conclusion that he's really just the same Willoughby as ever there - so charming and passionate you want to like him, but really almost completely self-centered, thinking only of the relief the visit will bring his guilty conscience, and not how it might affect those he's visiting. So, if anything, Thompson made him more sympathetic by showing the horesback scene at the end instead.

*Enters for the Willy Wonka discussion*

I greatly prefer the old Gene Wilder version as well. Yes it's campy and dated, but it's so much fun! Wilder is great at the delivering his lines in an almost nonchalant way, as though he was expecting everything that happens to happen.

The Oompa Loompa songs are also classic. As for the all the singing.... It's a musical, what do you expect? I think I'm secure enough in my manliness to say that I enjoy a small hand full of musicals, this one included.

As far as the newer Tim Burton/Johnny Depp version goes, I've never been a fan of Burton's style, so that's already a strike against it. I have seen bits and pieces of the film and not really cared for what I saw. Nothing really stuck out to me like with the old one.

So, I prefer the old one to the new version.

--------------------

I also want to say that I'm quite tired of movies "humanizing" the Bad Guy. The best villains (IMO) are the ones that you don't get any information on except that they are bad. Michael Myers (Halloween), TDK's Joker, The Hit Man from No Country For Old Men, Frank from Once Upon a Time in the West, all great creepy villains that just exist. No backstory, they just are.

Way more creepy than some guy with a bad childhood or something....

I'm confused. So you all think that Willy Wonka is a bad guy? and that he has a back story doesn't make him a good bad guy?

Prince Cor: Wilder is great at the delivering his lines in an almost nonchalant way, as though he was expecting everything that happens to happen.

Indeed! He is suave like that. This discussion of Wilder reminds me of the movie 'The Little Prince'; in which he stars. It's caught my eye at the video shop for over a year now and I've not done anything about it. The cover looks rather dated and I'm not very familiar with the story so I have not borrowed it. Has anyone here seen it and/or would recommend it?

@Damsel: Perhaps the Bad Guy label could be extended include the Eccentric Guy that is Willy Wonka?

I recommend that you read the book "The Little Prince" first before you watch the movie. The book is like 55-60 pages long so it's a very fast read. The movie if you watch it first before reading the book you'll find it to be a bit cliche with the effects. I find BBC Narnia a lot better then the effects that were in "The Little Prince"

For instance, why can't she stand up properly?

I saw many people didn't like that. I thought she stomped a bit but just b/c she doesn't really walk as gracefully as she should have doesn't make me not like her preformance. I thought it kind of went with her character.

wow, I never thought of it that way. But I guess it's right. After all, his explanation wasn't really going to bring Marianne or Elinor any comfort.

I'm confused. So you all think that Willy Wonka is a bad guy? and that he has a back story doesn't make him a good bad guy?

He's not a villain, per se, but he's not the protagonist either. That role, in my opinion, goes to Charlie. Wonka is more of the eccentric force that keeps the story going.

I personally just think that giving him a backstory takes away some of the intrigue that the character has in the novel and the older version of the movie, and in turn makes him a less interesting character.

Her posture isn't the issue, Glenstorm. It's simply one manifestation of the general ignorance - or indifference - the filmmakers showed regarding period interactions. As I wrote in a paper for my Austen class (titled "Propriety and Nonverbal Communication in Adaptations of Jane Austen's Emma" ), "these ladies and gentlemen come across as either anachronistic or extraordinarily ill-mannered.... In pursuing the worthy goal of creating a production that the average viewer could understand and relate to, [screenwriter Sandy] Welch and [director Jim] O’Hanlon unfortunately ignored many of the social realities of Emma’s world."

Of course, this debate has gone on quite long for this thread. Perhaps I should just send you the essay: then you can marvel at it and learn the error of your ways.

fine, you can send it to me. I don't think you will ever convince me though. I thought her preformance the best Emma there ever was .

Shutter Island,
I had anticipated this movie last year, but then it was delayed. I rented it and just finished. Leo DiCaprio did well in this movie, Mark Ruffalo was just as good. Still, not the movie I originally hoped for. But good. But boy is it depressing!!

Have you watched many other screwball comedies?

I'm not sure exactly what classifies as a "screwball", but I've seen Arsenic and Old Lace, His Girl Friday...do those classify? I did recoginize some of the titles from your link, they should be on their way on inter-library loan

BTW, have you seen How To Steal a Million before, or would this have been your first time?

Would have been my first time. I really do want to see it, hopefully I can eventually get the library to send it to me