He was amazing and georgeous, but reallyhe should have stayed away from both "The Hallelujah Trail" and "Major Dundee".
-
MsELLERYqueen2 — 12 years ago(January 24, 2014 07:25 PM)
I know that the reviews and the box office numbers determine what happens to people's careers at the time of the movie release. My point is that, years later, people might come across the movie and decide that it's a good one, regardless of how the movie was received years earlier. And certainly I don't accept the following argument: "The movie flopped years ago, so I'm right and you're wrong. The movie sucks." It's a weak argument, regardless of what the movie is. Very weak argument. (Just a friendly reminder here that I only like one of the 3 of his movies which were released in '65.)
I think that Jim was very versatile, but he didn't really get a chance to prove it. On the other hand, he had more chances than many actors. Maybe if he had lived longerI still say that he could have had a lot of guest spots in murder mysteries in the eighties and nineties, such as
Murder She Wrote
.
BTW, I don't consider
Dr. Strangelove
to be better and sophisticated. We had to watch it in high school and I absolutely hated it. I don't give a hoot how "important" it's considered now.
Frankly, I put a lot of emphasis on independent thinking. I guess if everyone thought for themselves all the time, we wouldn't need movie critics.
I know that Jim isn't one of the most remembered actors out there, but he does appear to have a cult following. I've heard from several posters on the boards who remember seeing him in movies and/or in
Ellery Queen
. I introduced a younger poster to him and his movies. She really likes him. She said that she got her sisters to watch the EQ episodes. As for the very popular actors, they all have their haters along with their fans. Have you seen some of the argument for/against actresses like Joan Crawford and Bette Davis? Katharine Hepburn? Unbelievable.
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen -
hobnob53 — 12 years ago(January 24, 2014 09:56 PM)
My point is that, years later, people might come across the movie and decide that it's a good one, regardless of how the movie was received years earlier.
(Or decide it's a bad one.) I don't disagree with that. I like lots of movies that weren't generally well thought of when first released (and some not now). I love seeing films reevaluated as time goes on so that they can be viewed in a different light which may result in their being rated more highly, less so, or no real change. The point is that films should be re-watched and reconsidered and that to do that meaningfully and well you need some knowledge of how they were received when new, which also reflects their times.
And certainly I don't accept the following argument: "The movie flopped years ago, so I'm right and you're wrong. The movie sucks."
I know there are some people who make that kind of argument, but I don't and I hope you're not implying I do. That kind of statement isn't just a "weak argument", as you called it. It's a stupid one.
I agree Jim would have likely appeared on shows like
Murder She Wrote
and others of that type, as well as other programs, had he lived into the 80s and beyond. (You earlier mentioned
Campion
and
Miss Marple
but these would have been extremely unlikely since they were British programs.) But he could have made a good living on TV, had he wanted it.
BTW, I don't consider Dr. Strangelove to be better and sophisticated. We had to watch it in high school and I absolutely hated it. I don't give a hoot how "important" it's considered now.
That's fine, that's your opinion, you don't have to be so edgy about it! Of course, what constitutes "good" or "better" is entirely a matter of personal taste or preference. "Sophisticated" on the other hand does have a certain degree of objective criteria by which a film, play, book or wh238atever can be measured. Personal opinion comes into it to an extent but it's not an end-all.
Strangelove
's subject and plot are unquestionably more sophisticated material than any of the comedies Jim Hutton and most other people made during the 1960s, whether you like it or not. That doesn't mean the film is "better" or more likable, which again is all personal taste. With your disinterest in politics and so on I'm not surprised it's not a film you care for. By the way, it's not just considered important "now"; it has been since i5b4ts release 50 years ago. (And hard to believe that was 50 years ago!)
Frankly, I put a lot of emphasis on independent thinking.
No more than I. I've never been one to run with the crowd even when I agree with it!
I guess if everyone thought for themselves all the time, we wouldn't need movie critics.
No, everyone would be free to wallow in their own ignorance! Seriously, I've known people who take their cues on what to think about a subject from newspaper editorials, politicians, you name it people who agree with them and are the only ones they'll listen to. Such people are usually pretty stupid. Movie critics are the least of your worries! But they usually offer a level of expertise most people don't have, which can be useful to the open-minded reader or listener.
Per your last paragraph, every actor of any level has a certain number of followers. (I hate the term "cult", which sounds loopy and mind-controlling, like a bunch of idiots slavishly following some "leader", although in my experience it comes close to describing some Stanley Kubrick aficionados. How 'bout just plain "fans"?) I know what you mean about getting people to watch things they never would have, or might never have known about. I've done that a great deal for many years, here and in my film series and newspaper 5b4column on films. It's a lot of fun. So I'm glad you're getting people to watch your favorite actor and judge him for themselves; at the very least they get to see someone and something new and different.
As to haters vs. fans, I guarantee you every actor, every filmmaker, every genre of films, has it haters as well as its fans. That's perfectly normal and perfectly unexceptional. You have your very definite hates tooone of which you mentioned in your post! But even in such cases, I believe in trying to keep an open enough mind so that you can watch or revisit films you don't like or assume you wouldn't like. Things are a lot more interesting that way, as I've learned, and you'll find you can surprise yourself sometimes. -
MsELLERYqueen2 — 12 years ago(January 25, 2014 12:04 AM)
Strangelove's subject and plot are unquestionably more sophisticated material than any of the comedies Jim Hutton and most other people made during the 1960s, whether you like it or not. That doesn't mean the film is "better" or more likable, which again is all personal taste.
If a movie is considered to have "sophisticated material", it's probably one of those "you're stupid if you don't get it" types of films, so there is a good chance I'll just avoid it and watch something for fun. I didn't care for
Strangelove
back in high school. I don't care about
Citizen Kane
now. I'm more than happy watching my fluffy 1960s comedies and my 1930s mysteries-whodunnits.
The reason I enjoy 1940s film noir is because I love crime films, not because some of those films (like
Double Indemnity
) are "important".
With your disinterest in politics and so on I'm not surprised it's not a film you care for. By the way, it's not just considered important "now"; it has been since its release 50 years ago.
By whom exactly? What gender and generation?
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen -
hobnob53 — 12 years ago(January 25, 2014 12:10 PM)
No, "sophisticated" doesn't equal "you're stupid if you don't get it" (though I'm sure there are people who would believe that). Nor does it mean you should watch or, certainly, like such a movie. But there are qualitative, even quantitative, differences. There are lots of films with "sophisticated" (there may be better words to use) elements I find dull, poor, and so forth.
And there is nothing wrong with fluff or light entertainment. I like lots of low-budget sci-fi movies, "fluffy" comedies, shoot-'em-up westerns, action and war films, and other "light" stuff that's mostly just entertainment, and I'm not defensive about any of it. (One example: I really like the Steven Segal picture
Under Siege 2
. It's silly and dopey and didn't get great reviews but it's a lot of fun.) And I like hundreds of "important" films for reasons having nothing to do with their supposedly being "important". Nothing wrong with that either.
Also, no one says people have to like a film like
Citizen Kane
or any other "weighty" film, for any reason. Ultimately all this is, as I've said repeatedly, a matter of taste. Frankly, anyone who says they like a film because it's supposed to be important, meaningful and the like is to me fooling themselves, and that's just not a valid reason. It's just some pretentious jerk following what he or she believes is the intellectual herd.
Of course, there are if you will "reverse cinematic bigots" who denounce what they call "important" (read: "self-important") films they dislike, putting them down on that rather empty and vacuous basisand, my friend, you sometimes sound like you're turning into one of them out of an unnecessary defensiveness about your likes and dislikes. Not every film generally deemed a classic, important, whatever, is bad or deserves to be dismissed out of some false bravado that "I'm just a regular guy, I don't like that 'important' stuff." That's just as ignorant an attitude as the one that insists that only "important" films matter.
We're not a5b4ll pretentious Pauline Kales here.
Oh, as to
Dr. Strangelove
: It received worldwide acclaim by virtually all critics and members of the industry, had several Academy Award nominations (including Best Picture), was a huge box-office hit and has retained a large following, among audiences, film historians, critics and anybody else who matters for five decades. You may hate it, that's fine, once again it's only a matter of personal taste. But the undeniable
fact
is that it has been and still is considered by most people (of both genders and through each generation of its existence) as an "important", classic, major piece of film-making, for half a century and counting. This fact may not be relevant to anything, but it is a fact one I honestly doubt you're unaware of.
That aside, I don't see why you brought up the concepts of "gender" and "generation" regarding
Strangelove
. You seemed to raise them in a pejorative way, as if to somehow prove the film has limited appeal. Yet you like Jim Hutton, whose career was largely over by the time you were born certainly his film career was. You also mention liking movies like
Double Indemnity
. Why are the subjects of "gender" and "generation" relevant to
Strangelove
yet not to the older films you
do
like? -
MsELLERYqueen2 — 12 years ago(January 25, 2014 02:06 PM)
No, "sophisticated" doesn't equal "you're stupid if you don't get it" (though I'm sure there are people who would believe that). Nor does it mean you should watch or, certainly, like such a movie.
On the boards it does.
And there is nothing wrong with fluff or light entertainment. I like lots of low-budget sci-fi movies, "fluffy" comedies, shoot-'em-up westerns, action and war films, and other "light" stuff that's mostly just entertainment, and I'm not defensive about any of it.
I love "fluffy" comedies as well. I've seen some westerns, action and war films, but couldn't really get into them. There are only a few westerns which I really love and remember. As for war movies, I'm happy to watch
The Horizontal Lieutenant
.
Also, no one says people have to like a film like Citizen Kane or any other "weighty" film, for any reason. Ultimately all this is, as I've said repeatedly, a matter of taste. Frankly, anyone who says they like a film because it's supposed to be important, meaningful and the like is to me fooling themselves, and that's just not a valid reason. It's just some pretentious jerk following what he or she believes is the intellectual herd.
Try explaining this to some folks on some of the boards!
Of course, there are if you will "reverse cinematic bigots" who denounce what they call "important" (read: "self-important") films they dislike, putting them down on that rather empty and vacuous basisand, my friend, you sometimes sound like you're turning into one of them out of an unnecessary defensiveness about your likes and dislikes.
I've seen a number of "important" movies which I liked:
-The Best Years of Our Lives
-several Kurosawa films
-The Ox-Bow Incident
-Anatomy of a Murder
-Madame X (1930s version)
-highly acclaimed film noir (Double Indemnity, The Asphalt Jungle)
-lots of Hitchcock films
-some Sidney Poitier dramas and comedies from the sixties
but I'm not the type to say "you're stupid if you don't get it". I have nothing against watching good drama, as long as I'm not going to be "quizzed" on it later. (I'm probably spending too much time on the wrong boards!
)
Oh, as to Dr. Strangelove: It received worldwide acclaim by virtually all critics and members of the industry, had several Academy Award nominations (including Best Picture), was a huge box-office hit and has retained a large following, among audiences, film historians, critics and anybody else who matters for five decades.
So? That's supposed to make me like it all of a sudden?
Here I should point out that most of what you said about Dr. Strangelove also applies to
Forrest Gump
, except that, of course, Gump is a much newer film.
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen -
hobnob53 — 12 years ago(January 25, 2014 05:55 PM)
Like I said, there are a lot of jerks who think such things. Seen 'em myself. They're one of the hazards one encounters around these parts, ma'am.
So? That's supposed to make me like it all of a sudden?
Now, how many times do I have to say that there's no reason you have to agree with anything anybody says about a movie? Seriously. This is becoming damned annoying. I'm also constrained to point out that it was
you
who asked, in effect: who says so about
Strangelove
's status.
Actually, you can't quite say the same things about
Forrest Gump
. Few consider it a classic on the level of
DSOHILTSWALTB
, to use its full acronym. But there are other films you
could
say the same thing about. To quote you, "So?" There are at l16d0east a thousand films you could legitimately say the same thing about. That doesn't detract from the overwhelmingly positive consensus about
Strangelove
.
But I was interested in the list of "important" films you provided. We have many more things in commonexcept
Madame X
! -
MsELLERYqueen2 — 12 years ago(January 25, 2014 11:31 PM)
Okay, but you wrote:
It received worldwide acclaim by virtually all critics and members of the industry, had several Academy Award nominations (including Best Picture), was a huge box-office hit and has retained a large following, among audiences, film historians, critics and anybody else who matters for five decades.
As a matter of fact, all of these points can be applied to
Forrest Gump
, except for the word "five" before the word "decades".
If you aren't convinced, then please tell me which of those do NOT apply to this film.
Sometimes it's hard to remember that "unimportant" films like Gump did get excellent reviews, numerous nominations, huge box office numbers, etc.
As for
Madame X
, which version have you seen? I've only seen the 1930s version, which is excellent. I've heard that the Lana Turner version is very sappy and too long. I can't see Lana in this part. Gladys George was absolutely perfect as Madame X.
Very overlooked actress!
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen -
hobnob53 — 12 years ago(January 27, 2014 09:03 AM)
True, what I wrote could basically apply to
Gump
. But though it received widespread acclaim (I like it but seeing it two or three times was enough), it has never been considered in quite the same elevated league as
DSOHILTSWALTB
, which is generally considered much more of a landmark or "important" film. (By the way,
FG
isn't "unimportant".)
I've seen both versions of
Madame X
. You're right, the 1937 version is better, though to me that's somewhat relative. The 1966 version is indeed sappy and sudsy but really not much more so than the '37. (The '66 is actually only 100 minutes, which really isn't "long" except as a measure of how much one dislikes it, thought I suppose it's long compared to the very short '37 film, a bare 71 minutes.) To me neither film is very good and that aside, the story is absolutely ridiculous. But Gladys George was an excellent actress who fortunately did many better films, and she is much better suited to this type of role than glamorous Lana was. -
MsELLERYqueen2 — 12 years ago(January 27, 2014 04:33 PM)
I like Gump as well, but I wouldn't say it's my favorite Tom Hanks movie. I watch it every couple of years. My point was that sometimes it's not the "important" movies which wind up with excellent reviews, plus big box office numbers, plus Oscars. In fact, in some cases (like Gump), the movie was released after 1980.
I know that the story of Madame X is far-fetched, but that's fine.
I like far-fetched stories. The more far-fetched, the better.
Perhaps I should tell you about some of the far-fetched mysteries which I've seen and read.
Although I think it was Gladys George who really made that movie what it was.
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen -
hobnob53 — 12 years ago(January 30, 2014 11:22 AM)
I knew there was an even earlier version than the 1937 film, and then by chance saw that it's slated to be shown in February on TCM. That one's from 1929 and stars Ruth Chatterton (best known from the 1936 film
Dodsworth
). In looking the title up I also found it had been filmed
three times before
even
that
version in 1906, 1916 and 1920. Can't imagine what the '06 version is like the entire story in about six minutes. But as I say, the story is just too ludicrous for my taste. Of course, the basic material doesn't interest me to begin with. But obviously, with at least five film versions,
somebody
likes it! I never realized how old the story was until I read about the 1906 movie.
It calls to mind the novel and film
Magnificent Obsession
. Lb68ike
Madame X
, the story is just preposterous. Yet that one made major stars of the actors who played the leading male role in each film version: Robert Taylor in 1935 and Rock Hudson in 1954.
I don't mind far-fetched per se probably most of the films I like could be called far-fetched in some manner maybe most
movies
could but some tales strain credulity so much they deteriorate into just plain silliness. -
ccurts2319 — 12 years ago(January 24, 2014 10:43 PM)
Jim had developed a "bad" reputation (claimed by the movie studios) that he was difficult to work with, starting in the mid-60s through end of the 60s. If you notice, he worked with several different studios, including being contracted out and having to find work with independent studios instead of the big ones. He commented that Jim Wayne gave him a change, first by Green Beret, and liked him sowell, that Wayne chose him again in Hellfighters.
One thing is that both he and Paula Prentiss jointly refused to do more movies together because they essentially had done all the "reactions" they could wth each other. I think this shows a little bit in their last joint movie, with supporting actor and friend Jim Weston, and starring Steve McQueen. It's McQueen's 1st effort in comedy, which audiences seems to like, yet McQueen felt so embarrassed by his own performance and the movie that he refused to talk about almost all of the rest of his life.
Many Hutton fans consider this one of the worst filmsI think it was a good film, but had slow moments, some of which I think is from the script. It seemed inconsistent to me. -
MsELLERYqueen2 — 12 years ago(January 25, 2014 12:08 AM)
The movie you are talking about is
The Honeymoon Machine
, which is a good film but paced a bit poorly at times (IMHO). It's not the last one he and Paula did together. Their last one together was
The Horizontal Lieutenant
, which I love. She also had a brief cameo appearance in the movie
Looking for Love
, in which he was the leading actor and Connie Francis was the leading actress.
I think it's too bad that Jim and Paula stopped doing movies together. They made such a cute couple!
I haven't seen
The Green Berets
yet, but I did see
Hellfighters
and liked it. Jim was really
hotter than fire
in that film.
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen -
schndr_lr — 10 years ago(January 17, 2016 05:21 PM)
I wish Jim and Tim Hutton could have done a movie of the week remake of Ellery Queen together, perhaps in the 1980's during the Murder She Wrote era. Tim could have played Ellery and Jim could have played his father Inspector Richard Queen. That would have been so much fun to see.
-
MsELLERYqueen2 — 10 years ago(January 17, 2016 10:02 PM)
I also wish that Jim had lived long enough so that he and his son could have done an Ellery Queen series!
Jim might have been a bit too young to play Richard in the eighties, but the nineties would have been the right time for such a series. A lost opportunity, for sure.
I also think that David Wayne (Richard Queen in the TV series) would have been perfect as Ellery in the 1950s. There were a couple of Ellery Queen TV series filmed back then, but he wasn't a part of either of those shows.Jim Hutton (1934-79) & Ellery Queen -
Eric-62-2 — 12 years ago(January 24, 2014 08:29 PM)
I too think Hutton was fine in "Major Dundee" for what the part required. Thought he was okay in "Hallelujah Trail" though as an epic comedy the film falls flat. Just one thing about "Dundee", Hob, I think the film's incomprehensibility is more the fault of Sam Peckinpah, not the studio. Peckinpah was the one responsible for the final draft of the script and he basically wrote a film that had no ending and didn't care about fixing it. The restoration took care of fixing two plot points that were cut from the preview version but all the evidence indicates that Peckinpah never shot any sequences that would have fixed the film's other narrative flaws.
Hutton will always be Ellery Queen to me though, because that was the role that he was literally born to play and I wish it had lasted beyond its first season (even though we would have seen it shortened by his untimely death). -
hobnob53 — 12 years ago(January 24, 2014 10:30 PM)
No question Peckinpah was the main problem with
Dundee
, for reasons that went beyond the script. Even so, the studio didn't help it much either. It's too bad it couldn't have been done right the first time. Peckinpah had shown he could do excellent work with
Ride the High Country
three years before, and would do some good work in the future. But his behavior and out-of-control reliance on drugs and alcohol certainly took their toll. But your views on Hutton's performance in
Major Dundee
are the same as mine.
I never watched
Ellery Queen
much when it was on. I saw a few episodes but it was never one of my staples. It's interesting to me that so many people identify JH mainly with that series instead of any of his movie work, though it's true that most of his film roles were either secondary or in lesser or forgettable movies, which was too bad. He'd be 80 this year, had he lived. His personality, or at least his screen persona, was certainly miles away from the sullen, humorless disposition of his son. -
MsELLERYqueen2 — 12 years ago(January 24, 2014 11:46 PM)
I'll say this much: I didn't like the beard that he had to wear for his part in
Major Dundee
.
You mentioned the EQ series in your post. Why not give the entire series a chance, if you have a spare moment?
So you're not a fan of Tim Hutton? I like him, but I really prefer his dad.
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen -
hobnob53 — 12 years ago(January 25, 2014 12:39 PM)
Actually, I kind of liked the beard he had in
Dundee
. I thought it gave him more character for the role. And I'm not a "beard" person! But sometimes a person does look better with one, though it would have been inappropriate for JH in his subsequent parts.
Since my post mentioning the
Ellery Queen
series, I've thought about how many episodes I may have seen, both in its initial run in the mid-70s and in repeats years later on the A&E Network, which Eric jogged my memory about. I can't say for certain, of course, but I probably saw 60-70% of them. I don't have to give the show "a chance" because I've sen most of the episodes, besides which I didn't say anything bad about it. It was well-done, well-acted and enjoyable. It's simply that I was never really caught up in it, or in the general character of Ellery Queen. (Detective stories aren't among my favorite genres. Personal taste and all that.)
But that doesn't mean I simply dismiss out of hand a show I may not have been a fan of, or that's in a genre that's not one of my favorites. I can appreciate the quality of something, or someone, even if I don't much care for the show or even the person. There may be a lesson there. To wit:
No, I'm not a Tim Hutton fan. I don't dislike him, he seems like a nice guy, and he's a good actor (he deserved his Oscar), but he never much appealed to me. It strikes me as odd or at least curious that his screen persona is so at odds with his father's: light, sunny and a bit flippant, vs. sullen, serious and grim. (I can't speak to their private ones.) Their film and TV roles followed those personas. Just as Jim could have used a serious dramatic part, so could his son have used a really good comedy role. -
MsELLERYqueen2 — 12 years ago(January 25, 2014 02:11 PM)
The beard didn't look good on Jim.
And okay, I didn't realize that you weren't that much into detective stories until I read that other post and this one. Sorryit's just that I did bump into you on the board for
The Asphalt Jungle
, so I thought that maybe you were into crime/noir, etc. Unfortunately, I can't think of any EQ episode which has more of a war, action, and/or western style to it.
If you want to see Tim Hutton doing comedy, you would have to see a detective series:
Nero Wolfe
(filmed about 14 years ago or so). He played Archie Goodwin in that series, and he was quite funny, especially during the second season. I heard that he did some comedies in the eighties, but I haven't seen any of those movies.
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen -
hobnob53 — 12 years ago(January 25, 2014 05:26 PM)
Okay, a couple of things:
I think he did look good with the beard. It made him look more rugged and mature for the role, and it's accurate for the era in which the film took place. He wouldn't have looked good with a beard in, say,
Walk Don't Run
. Matter of opinion.
I like film noir and do like crime dramas and related kinds of films (one reason you met me on the
Asphalt Jungle
site). But I've never been into
detective stories
as such, or really into films or TV shows based on such stories. I may like a film whose main character is a detective from a book or series of books (for example, Sam Spade in
The Maltese Falcon
), but that's because the particular film appeals to me, not because it's a detective story per se.
I'm a bit annoyed by your remark, "Unfortunately, I can't think of any EQ episode which has more of a war, action, and/or western style to it." I didn't say anything that would warrant that sarcastic remark. Your line used a few examples of k1908inds of films I said I liked, took it out of context and turned it into a snide and inaccurate version of what I actually did say. For the record, if
EQ
had incorporated any of the aspects you dragged in I would have thought it was lousy.
Yes, I know the
Nero Wolfe
series. I only saw one or two episodes of it, for the same reason: detective shows just don't interest me; so I can't comment on it, other than I know it got good reviews. I looked up Tim's credits to refresh my memory. He did do a few comedies, more in the 90s than 80s, but for the most part he's been in dramas. As I recall from a couple of the comedies of his I did see he was kind of dour in them toothough that can actually work in a comedy. Besides, none of them was especially good. That's why I said he could have used a
good
comedy. On the other hand, like his father I guess he's cast in the type of roles for which he's seen as best suited.