They should have ended with the Edward G. Robinson tale - Tales of Manhattan (1943) Discussion

[–] moonspinner55 15 years ago

I agree that his performance was the high-point of the entire affair. Did anyone else catch the look on his face when the wallet is discovered missing and everyone is at first clowning around about it? It's such an honest reaction for this character. He wants so much to be a part of things, to be a part of the fun, that his smile is both affectionate and hesitant. It speaks volumes, at least to me, and I think he was cheated out of a nomination.

reply

[–] mamie59 14 years ago

i just watched this on amc this morning around 3a.m.
there scene where the wallet is brought in by the driver happens AFTER avery (larry) leaves the room.
what version did you get to see?

mamie

reply

[–] TheRealBambi 13 years ago

Agreed, the wallet was found after Edward G. Robinson's character had left.

I think the last story was the ideal ending. The W.C. Fields segment was misplaced; messing up the rhythm of the film. If they were going to edit out any story, it should have been the Fields piece.

<")
( ~\/

reply

[–] ciocio-2 9 years ago

I know this is years after your post, but I just watched this movie today, and found this discussion. So, the lady to whom you were replying was referring to the moment when it's first mentioned by the wallet's owner that he's missing it, as he's just discovered it's missing, and Larry's (E. G. Robinson's) expression and response there. He clearly can't help thinking that he, himself, is an obvious suspect, given his life the last few years (though all the other man there, except for the George Sanders character, have no idea about that at that moment). She wasn't referring to the moment when the wallet is brought in by the chauffeur (at which point, as you said, Larry has just left).

Multiplex: 100+ shows a day, NONE worth watching. John Sayles' latest: NO distribution. SAD.

reply

[–] HillieBoliday 15 years ago

Explain to me why you think it was a big let down!

Is it because the last two tales involve African-American people?!!!!!!!

"OOO...I'M GON' TELL MAMA!"

reply

[–] croak-1 12 years ago

Oh, brother. [eye roll]

reply

[–] franzkabuki 9 years ago

Not that any of the acts was particularly great - the first one kinda bland and going nowhere; the second one an average bit of rom-com; the third and fourth one exercises in on-the-nose moralizing - but the final episode's downright annoying with a bunch black rural caricatures haggling over the "god's gift" (what's it got to do with Manhattan, anyway?). And then the f-cker actually bursts into song... A rather meager little film; the highest praise I can think of to give it, is that it isn't unwatchable.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] necoleman 8 years ago

I am formerly known as HillieBoliday....Member since May 2006

What is it about that part of the film with the BLACK PEOPLE; that is relative to the rest of the film that you don't understand?

"OOhhhooo....I'M GON' TELL MAMA!"

reply

[–] yunie1281 8 years ago

You seem to have come back six years later to get an answer to this. In addition to the fact that the OP was talking about TWO stories they didn't like (only one of them having black people in it), it's a bit much to assume that just because a story was centered around black people that not liking it is about racism. The story you mentioned was so stereotypical that the actor, Paul Robeson, finally gave up on Hollywood because of it. He hated its racist caricature more than anyone.

reply