ugg
This movie was pure garbage. they tried to make a movie in the vein of On Golden Pond. The final result was a 1 outta 10 in my books, wheras the latter scores a 10.
shareWho in the hell cares what you think!
shareThis movie is wonderful! It has nothing to do with "in the vein" of any other movie. People need to appreciate a good film for what it is, and comparing it something else is irrelevent. I suppose my vote with a "10" will kind of "even things out".
share"I suppose my vote with a "10" will kind of "even things out"."
Hope so!!!! I do hate this kind of "Give it a one" mentality. I hated "On Golden Pond", but would never give it a "1" (reserved for movies I walk out on).
"It's only forgotten if you forget."
Wallace Dane Jurr
If you don't think Hollywood doesn't piggyback on and otherwise steal ideas from other movies that have gone before and been successful, then you live in a dream world. There are very very few truly new ideas in Hollywood.
Get the facts first - you can distort them later!share
Garbage? I just can't take you seriously, sorry!.
shareWhy would you take a troll seriously?
Anyway, the movie is simply great.
Maybe he is a troll, since I think that that is how trolls spell ugh. Not a real Norwegian troll. An online troll.
Oh well, give him a Chuck Norris movie, and he can munch and mumble on it.
Wherefore art thou, O America?
I like Whales of August better than On Golden Pond too.
Whales of August seems so natural ...the story...the characters. And On Golden Pond seems "forced"...less believable.
Not that On Golden Pond isn't entertaining... it is... but everything about Whales of August is just better.
I LIKE THE STORY BUT NOT THE ACTING.
Jared Padalecki's mine and nobody else's, even if he's engaged 2 that slut
I haven't seen "On Golden Pond", but isn't that a melodrama? The remarkable thing about this movie is that there isn't any melodrama. And most movies about old people are all about the relationship between the children and parents. Like I said I haven't seen it, but "On Golden Pond" is all about the father and daughter, that much I know. In "Whales of August" you hear about children and ex-husbands but you never see them. There are no big emotional moments really for the characters, only the audience.
Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'
To me the common thread betw the 2 films is that the way you feel about the performers influences the way you feel about the films....theres nothing wrong with that, its true of many films and its part of what star acting is all about...
Watching Golden Pond, seeing kate hepburn give her last great performance and knowing this will be henry fonda's last film and seeing the onscrene reconclliation betw his charecter and janes and knowing what playing those scenes must have meant to them adds an additional emotional level to the film
And the same is true of Whales...watching Bette Davis' charecter rebell against infirmity even as she did in real life, watching Miss Gish's calm serenity adds an emotional layer to the film...the longevity of their careers adds to the authenticity of moments like Ms Gish's anniversary scene....For me the most moving performance is Vincent Price's, fine in its own right, but given even more depth by the viewers awareness of all the crap he was forced to do at many points in his career and how much joy he must have gotten from doing this (i feel the same watching his last few scenes in Edward Scissorhands)
Other films that do this for me are The Shootist, Field of Dreams (Burt Lancaster's scenes) and To kill a Mockingbird (because as fine as the overall film is there is an extra dimension to gregory peck that no other performer could have brought)
It is not our abilities that make us who we are...it is our choices
I wouldn't say it was garbage, but it was quite boring. The cast saved the movie from the practically non-existant script. Nothing really happened...and we watched. Gish was quite wonderful, Price was uber-charming and Sothern did just fine. I found Davis to be awkward and stilted. Sad to see considering her history of AMAZING-ness.
shareThis film is nothing like "On Golden Pond and never tried to be. The only similarity between the two, would be that the cats members are over 70. A very rare occurrence, especially in today's films.
shareYou know it's funny you should mention 'On Golden Pond' since I feel Henry Fonda's characterization as a cantankerous old man was as annoying as Bette Davis' mean old lady persona in this movie. Both of them were way past their expiration dates when they made these movies, and neither gave good performances when you come down to it. But Gish was magnificent, the same was Hepburn was in 'Pond'. It's funny how the movies are similar in that way... one lead was excellent and the other annoying.
shareAnybody who suggests Bette gave a bad performance should go back a rewatch the movie, even a stroke ridden Bette steals many of the scenes, all four of the main stars contributed to a truly beautiful movie.
shareWell-intentioned though it is, WHALES doesn't really work all that well. For one thing, it's a little stiff, a little-'80s posturing ("80s" as in the decade not their ages).
It does seem to be aiming for an ON GOLDEN POND vibe, but its talky, geriatric platitudinous approach is sweet but flat.
As and aside, I'd love the film to close on Bette's rocking chair close-up in a slow, slow fade out, as opposed to going down to see the whales (a la GOLDEN POND); the scenes should be flipped.
--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA