He should have stayed away from westerns!
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Jim Hutton
MsELLERYqueen2 — 14 years ago(September 25, 2011 07:15 PM)
He was amazing and georgeous, but reallyhe should have stayed away from both "The Hallelujah Trail" and "Major Dundee". Both movies were poor, and his work in "Major Dundee" was probably his worst performance ever. Not his fault, since he had a lousy script to work with.
Ellery Queen(Jim Hutton) = HOT & SEXY!
"Haaah?" puts his hand on his head -
williwaw — 13 years ago(May 26, 2012 07:36 AM)
I disagree with Mrs. ElleryQueen
Hutton worked on those films to work with Burt Lancaster on 'Hallelujah Trail' and with Charlton Heston and Director Sam Peckipah on 'Major Dundee'. Remember Hutton's last MGM film was 'Looking For Love', fluff with Connie Francis, with cameos by MGM stars Paula Prentiss, George Hamilton, Yvette Mimieux which as I recall Hutton had to do to finish up his MGM contract. Wasn't Hutton on suspension at MGM for a long time fed up with the roles offered him and he likely needed big money as well. On both of those Westerns Hutton got above the title billing. -
MsELLERYqueen2 — 13 years ago(May 28, 2012 03:05 PM)
I think that a lot of great talent was wasted in "Hallelujah Trail" and "Major Dundee" (like Jim Hutton, Burt Lancaster, and Charlton Heston).
As for Jim's early work, I think he was excellent in the comedies he did! He was so sweet, charming, and quirky in those comediesespecially in "The Horizontal Lieutenant". He alb68so made a very hot scientist in "The Honeymoon Machine", and I love the outfits he wore in "Where the Boys Are". "Looking for Love" is fluff, but it's good fluff with a great soundtrack. "Bachelor in Paradise" is a great feel-good movie, also with an excellent soundtrack. He should have gotten an Oscar nomination for his work in "Period of Adjustment".
"Never Too Late" is probably the funniest movie I've ever seen. I used to say that "Who's Minding the Mint" and "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House" were the two funniest, but "Never Too Late" is funnier than both of those.
Many people whine about remakes, but I think that "Walk Don't Run" is better than "The More the Merrier". I would have liked the original better if someone other than Charles Coburn was cast as the older male (and yes, I'm aware that he won an Oscar for his role). Cary Grant outdid him. Jean Arthur was good, but she shouldn't have done so much crying at the end. Joel McCrea was really good, and also very sexy. He and Gary Cooper are tied in second place in my book for second sexiest actor ever.
I thought that Jim Hutton and Samantha Eggar did a really good job, and they had great chemistry together.
Who else has seen "They Call it Murder"? Not easy to find, very underrated. Jim Hutton should have played more detectives. He was excellent at playing detectives.
Jim
Hutton:talented gorgeous HOT;adorable as ElleryQueen;SEXIEST ACTOR EVER -
ccurts2319 — 12 years ago(January 24, 2014 10:33 PM)
Originally, they wanted to cast Jim Hutton for the older man. Jim claimed to have learned many comedy acting tips from Cary Grant because Cary was tall, too. The biggest tip Jim said was how to use his long limbs differently and better than average sized people, which truly enhances his vocalization. He also thought Bob Hope was great, and he learned much from working with him in that one movie (Bachelor something) even though Jim's part was mino2000r (i.e. just 'one of the crowd' of irate husbands).
-
Angel_Buffy — 12 years ago(October 20, 2013 07:29 PM)
I'm quite a fan of westerns in general, but I have to admit Jim Hutton doesn't really seem to fit the type best suited for westerns. It's like how Cary Grant never wanted to do a western cause he thought he just wasn't right for them. I can't really picture Jim Hutton in one either. As you say, he was great at playing detectives! He also fit quite nicely in comedic roles.
-
MsELLERYqueen2 — 12 years ago(October 20, 2013 07:43 PM)
I think that, if given a good script, he could have pulled off a role in a western very nicely. Unfortunately, the two which he did were extremely poor in my opinion. I'm not a huge fan of westerns, but I have liked most of the ones I've seen, especially "Rachel and the Stranger" and "The Ox-Bow Incident". Jim just made two lousy choices when selecting westerns.
~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER -
hobnob53 — 12 years ago(January 24, 2014 12:30 PM)
I don't agree he should have stayed away from westerns. Early in his career a lot of people were doing what they always do in Hollywood, comparing a new actor to an older one and saying the former was a "new" latter. Jim Hutton had this same ridiculous mantle stuck on him, about being "a new James Stewart".
But just as people laughed at first when Stewart went into westerns until they saw him in one so I think Hutton should have gone into more of them. They were a change of pace and he seemed to be able to handle a serious, action-oriented role.
I disagree that
Major Dundee
was a terrible film though it took me a while to like it. The problem was it was such a m5b4ishandled production, and the studio then cut it to bits and made it even more incomprehensibly bad, that it flopped and was overlooked for a long time. The partial restoration that was effected several years ago shows it was a much better film that it first seemed. Hutton wasn't the main character in it of course, but I thought he did well enough.
The Hallelujah Trail
was a comedy in a western setting and so doesn't really count as a pure or true western. Obviously here Hutton was chosen more for his comedic talents than his dramatic ones, so it didn't tax him much. That movie too was a flop, which never helps.
What he needed were some tough western roles that would cast him in a different light. He was acceptable in his two John Wayne action films,
The Green Berets
and
Hellfighters
, though neither film nor his roles in them were all that great, and his characters still had some light comedic aspects to them. But what he needed most of all were some straight dramatic parts, of which he had almost none.
He also made the mistake of appearing in too many comedies, many of them weak. I know you love
Never Too Late
but the movie was a flop and Hutton and Connie Stevens were singled out as especially bad, a waste of both their talents. None of the other comedies he appeared in in the 60s has really stood up well, in part because none was considered all that great to begin with: plb68easant at best but nothing classic. (
Where the Boys Are
is a partial exception, but mostly for the female leads, not the guys, and as a time capsule of dating rituals in its era.)
Jim Hutton wasn't the next James Stewart or anyone else, he was himself and had his own abilities and limitations like everyone else. Stewart was a far more versatile actor, but he had his limitations too. Jim Hutton was a good light leading man who gave indications he could handle more serious fare but seldom got the chance. Had he not died young I suspect he might have been given some space for more dramatic and varied parts on TV, and perhaps a few films, in later years, after age had finally erased the gangly young juvenile image. -
MsELLERYqueen2 — 12 years ago(January 24, 2014 02:04 PM)
First I should point out that I wrote the OP in Sept 2011 when I was just get2000ting to know his films. Now I think that he should have been more careful about which westerns he chose to do. He sure chose a couple of stinkers for himself!
I saw
Hellfighters
after writing the OP, which I liked. Still haven't seen
The Green Berets
.
By now I've seen all of his comedies from the sixties, all of which I like. Okay, so they were fluffy. So were many other sixties comedies, especially the ones from the early sixties. As for the reviews of
Never Too Late
written back in '65who cares now? I've come across other posters who saw the movie in contemporary times and loved it. I remember one poster saying that he hates that movie (and also referenced the critics of the time), but.no offense, but I tend to get suspicious of anyone who refers to movie critics too much (or box office numbers, for that matter).
No offense.
That goes for the reviews and B.O numbers of ANY movie, no exceptions.
I think that Jim wasn't given a fair chance. He was brushed aside too quickly (mid-60s). Still, I think he did a terrific job as Ellery Queen and if he had lived longer, he might have done more work in mysteries after 1980. Quite a few retro-30s and 40s series popped up in the eighties and nineties, such as Campion, Miss Marple, etc. Maybe he and his son could have done an EQ series together. A lost opportunity.
He played another detective (Doug Selby) in the early seventies TV movie
They Call it Murder
. I wish that all the Doug Selby novels would be filmed sometime. I like the TV movie, and I think Jim was excellent in it, but all the novels need to be filmed and also reprinted. I've read a couple of them and loved them. I'll take Doug Selby over Perry Mason any day. (The same author created both characters.)
At any rate, many of the Jim Hutton comedies have made it onto DVD these past few years and I've seen people on the boards commenting on these comedies. Okay, so these films will never be as popular as, say,
Breakfast at Tiffany's
. Doesn't matter. Not all movies will be equally remembered. I know for a fact that some fans of Ellery Queen are checking out Jim's movies just to see what else he did.
Anyhow, that's it for now.
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen -
hobnob53 — 12 years ago(January 24, 2014 04:23 PM)
You miss the point about mentioning the box office and reviews of
Never Too Late
and other films. The point is that people's careers are affected by how their films are received by the critics and public
at the time
. No filmmaker thinks about or can know how a movie will be regarded forty or fifty years later. They care about how it's received
today
, because that's what shapes their immediate careers.
In the case of Jim's trio of flops in 1965
Never Too Late, Major Dundee
and
The Hallelujah Trail
the reason their contemporary reception matters is that having three failed releases in a single year could not have helped having a negative effect on his career. And indeed, the momentum of his career was slowed and while he had a few other roles later on in the 60s he never fully recovered and after 1969 was out of movies altogether (with one minor exception in 1975).
Critical opinion is also important in helping understand and make ongoing reevaluations of a film. You may or may not agree with any given reviews, but they serve as a basis for comparison and provide insights on a movie. Whether you agree with them or not it's important to see other takes on a film. Granted, I started out as a film critic before moving to other areas, so I have a great respect for good film criticism. But we don't live in a vacuum, and opinions from 50 or 75 years ago are at least as valid as the ones you or I have today. (I certainly don't agree with all contemporary reviews of an older film I see but I find value in understanding them.)
So, sorry, past reviews and box office
do
matter. They have consequences. It may not affect your opinion of a movie but that doesn't mean they're meaningless or should be ignored.
I don't know that I'd categorize all of Hutton's 60s comedies as "fluff". No, he never did a
Dr. Strangelove
or other of the better, more sophisticated comedies of the decade, but not everything was fluff either. I wouldn't call
Never Too Late
fluff, for example, and I think it's a terrible movie. I wouldn't call
Bachelor in Paradise, Where the Boys Are
or a couple of others fluff, though some people might. To me, a movie has to be really pretty vacuous to be
true fluff
.
Hey! Wasn't that a movie with John Wayne? -
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.