I once saw _Mommy Dearest_ at a party where (to our host's great irritation) everyone quickly began treating it like _The Rocky Horror Picture Show_ , laughing, commenting, and chanting the lines along with the actors. " _Tina! Bring_ me the _axe!_ "
Belushi's character in "Continental Divide" was loosely based on the "Chicago Daily News", the 'Chicago Sun-Times," and the "Chicago Tribune" columnist Mike Royko.
Coming from an abusive, dysfunctional home myself, I take issue with Gene's complaint that the movie doesn't explain why Joan is acting towards her children the way she does. Seeing as how this movie (and the book) is told from the abused child's (Christina Crawford) point of view, being an abused child myself, I can explain why the movie (and the book) doesn't explain why Joan acted the way she did. Because as children we really don't know. We can't explain it. We were children. Not psychologists. Even in our adult years, we are still unable to explain why our abusive parents acted the way they did to us kids. It's no wonder Christina didn't include the reasoning behind Joan's abuses in her book. Because she obviously didn't know the reasons why. For what its worth, Christina Crawford also hated the movie for various reasons. While the movie was based on her book, she had no creative control over how they made the movie. Anyways, here is the REAL christmas radio interview that is portrayed in the movie and shown here in the Siskel and Ebert review: m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1jKB8d-dSzI.html
It seems hard to believe now, but when this film was made, child abuse was still only beginning to be understood. I'm not excusing SISKEL and EBERT -- by the way, EBERT is the one who is dismissive, not SISKEL so much in my opinion. I"m sorry for the pain you experienced. I thought the book by Christina Crawford was far better than the movie. She and her younger brother, Chris, definitely suffered.
Watching these films from 70s reminds me of how smoking was so normal at the time. Ugh. And I look at Kathleen Turner and wonder how differently she would have aged had she not been a smoker.
I wish they would have continued with the Dog of The Week segment, or something similar, on their subsequent review shows. God knows there is never a shortage of lousy movies.
Depressing was a criticism of Mommie Dearest for Siskel & Ebert. That was the point of the film. Siskel is a little better, but neither he nor Ebert seriously treat child abuse.
The plot of Body Heat is so tightly written, and the acting so on point. The script is written with fire in every word, and when the end comes and you realize that from the very first moment that he sees her she already knew he was there, already knew everything about him, and that she could USE him. This makes Maddie Walker one of the best Strong Female Characters in film history. She becomes that not because she fist-fights men and beats them up (as you see in the films of today) no. She uses the fact that she is a beautiful woman, she know this and she uses it to her own advantage. I imagine that the real-life French spy in WW1, Mata Hari must have worked the same way that Maddie Walker works in this film. She is played by Kathleen Turner so well that it kicked off a career for her. As for Mommie Dearest, I do not understand why people bad mouth this film. It was bases--we know--a a book written by a woman who was cut out of the will and thus had an axe to grind. Tearing down the legacy of Joan Crawford was her only chance for revenge. Yes, she is just that petty. Faye did such a great job channeling Joan. Even IF, and I am not saying that she did, she did punish the kids, we know from today's society that punishing kids produces well mannered adults. Let's not forget that Joan was a movie star and not an actress, so naturally she would want her kids to PROJECT according to her script. First Monday in October was another film that suffered from miscasting. Jill is just not right for this role. Sigourney Weaver would have been better. She could have infused real emotion into the role, whereas Jill just says words. We see this same thing in today's music. Singers (and I use that term loosely) today merely say the words, whereas when you listen to artists like Tanya Tucker (Blood Red and Goin' Down is a great example, and she was only 14 when she sang that song), or Elvis (In the Ghetto) you can hear the emotion they feel as they sing.
Mattie is also brilliant in she pulled the Hans gruber way b4 die hard blew up the boat house so she was thought to be dead. Only she actually did it " sitting on a beach earning 20%" I have no sympathy for hurts character. He's still a murderer & was too stupid every step of the way that he was being played just for some hot piece of tail ! Rourke 's character ( who was great in this even warned him this girl was trouble & told him not to do it. )
@@nattyps3160 Body Heat is one of my all time favorite films. I saw it in theaters several times back in 1981. I agree it is hard to feel sorry for Ned. He was willing to be the paramour of an adulteress. Then he murdered her husband out of greed for sex and money. His problem was he ran into someone worse then him. Interesting how all his friends could see right through her. In the scene where Pete and Oscar talk to Ned about Matty after the meeting about the will. They both warn him that she is trouble and to stay away from her. But Ned was so consumed with lust he wouldn't listen. He should have known what she was when she betrayed him by altering the will after she promised him she would not do that. Her actions exposed him and put him on law enforcement's radar.
Faye Dunaway gave the performance of her career in Mommie Dearest, a favorite movie of mine. Body Heat had two of the Nola's from The Doctors: Kathleen Turner and Kim Zimmer! I loved Only When I Laugh so much back then, would love to see it again!
I rewatched Mommie Dearest a few years ago and it was just as icky as I remembered it to be when I saw it as a kid. "No wire hangers EVER!!" became a popular phrase amongst us kids when it was out.
It’s a very entertaining movie for sure, but Dunaway’s best performance? Hardly. Network, Chinatown, and Bonnie And Clyde were certainly better. It’s an interesting performance, to be sure, but is just so much over the top camp.
"Mommy Dearest" was based on a book written by a bitter adopted daughter who was pissed because mommy dearest left her out of her will when Joan Crawford died. That's why we don't know the origin of Crawford's fury because there was no fury. Most people don't even know Crawford had 4 children, not 2, and her other kids, including Christopher, have said the book was a pack of lies. The film is an exercise in inexperienced directing. The director was too intimated by Dunaway's stardom to tell her she's over acting the part. Thus, the movie is campy because we're laughing for the wrong reasons.
My brother had to remind me recently that the very first movie we ever watched on premium cable was Chu Chu and the Philly Flash. IIRC, it was a channel called Spotlight. One of the minor ones, now long gone, which was competing with HBO and Showtime. I literally remember nothing about that movie except Carol and Alan walking down the street arguing with each other.
I too liked Mommie Dearest. Ebert says it's pointless. I thought it was gripping to see what Christina had to endure. In public having to pretend everything was wonderful, while having to deal with a drunken monster behind closed doors.
To answer their question, Joan Crawford’s motivation for being miserable can’t be explored as the story was written by the adopted daughters point of view. How would she know? She only knew the misery, not the real woman behind it.
Except for Mommie Dearest, which I found depressingly dark, I loved each of these films when they first came out. But First Monday In October and Continental Divide were tied for my favorites. Kathleen Turner made me into a man! And Body Heat was the best film noir I'd seen in years.
Mathau worked so much over the couse of his career that his performances tend toward blandness. What surprised me was that Clayburgh was so bad in the First Monday in October review.
I have to see body heat , I've heard so many good things & they love it. Mommie dearest is the best bad movie to love. So over the top & crazy. " no wire hangers eveerer!!"
Natalie: Body Heat is available for free on UTube. (Although to be honest, it’s a bit dark and fuzzy.) It’s also available as a rental, and hopefully the resolution is better. It is a fantastic movie. Enjoy!
Faye Dunaway was runner up to 3 of the biggest Critics awards so people who harp that it was critically ridiculed, or at least she , are sadly mistaken
@@KaejaeDoherty I just checked. National Board Of Critics and NYCFC. But then, she won about 50 Razzie type award. I don’t think it’s a bad performance. Over the top, yes. Campy, yes. But outright bad-no.
Here is my comment...they both loved Star 80 , which is a Brilliant film but also the most depressing film I ever saw and watched it twice, from 14 yrs to 44 and still felt the same, but Mommie Dearest has some of the same depressing feelings, but a Brilliant performance by Faye Dunaway and they are against the child abuse So why is that movie, which is so depraved , but its so well acted and Mommie Dearest is just as depraved but well acted but they give it a low rating
I enjoyed Star 80, a great film about the dark side of fame. I don't agree it was depraved, it told the truth about a grisly murder and a destructive love triangle. That was Fosse's exploration of why fame has a tendency to destroy people, it had a meaning. Mommie Dearest was just ugly, exploitative garbage. As for Fay Dunaway, holy hell. She made the average silent film actor look subtle by comparison.
The TV is wallpaper basically. These videos were being presented in their original resolution, 480. I didn't want to blow them up because it makes them blurry. However, I had a lot of complaints. I've since changed things.
I admire Rodger Ebert's often brilliant observations of films, but for him to say out loud: "Who who would wanna--I can't IMAGINE who would want to see this film."--that statement reduces me to a base, morbid, sicko filmmaker. How dare I watch repeated viewings of this debased, sensationalistic pseudo-sadistic drivel. The point both guys missed here is the same mark they miss about David Lynch films or films that deal with Spirituality. These litter white nerds even made fun of Poltergeist for having ghosts in it! Siskel and Ebert simply do not understand the Freudian element within film or literature itself. They would HATE Salmande Rushdie novels, if they would even even bother to explore metaphysical literature at all. I was a victim of severe child abuse from a MEXICAN Narcisistic mother and whimpy, closeted, enabling father. (And this is what actually led me to become a film-maker). True victims of such abuses know very well that this film required NO explanation for Joan Crawford's motives for abuse. They already know exactly what she was: a woman unchained, unfettered and unchecked. A Narccisistic predator who obsessively mirrored herself in grandeur only to hide the self-loathing emptyness within. Priviledged, sheltered Siskel & Ebert would have no clue. Yeah, Mr. Rodger Ebert, maybe I was getting-off on the explicit horror scenes that made up this film. But did it ever occur to you that I might have actually been taking notes? You see, it helps me hide the tears, Mr. Ebert. Sincerely, Your, _Acoustic Rabbit Hole_
