lavignebiz1
Joined Dec 2013
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges12
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings4K
lavignebiz1's rating
Reviews13
lavignebiz1's rating
In preparation for seeing the show with Betty Buckley next week, I'm watching the movie again, a movie I will defend over and over again. Streisand is too young for it? Think about this. The life expectancy in the 1890s was about 40. A widow, no matter her age, who was tired of living hand to mouth, would set her sights on a man like Vandergelder. The production is glorious, and the performances are solid.
I've seen Shirley Booth, Dorothy Lamour, Carol Channing, Sally Struthers, two community theater actresses and Bette Midler in this role, Lamour will always be the best, Midler was in the best production (which Buckley will appear in) and I love how this film opens up the story and shows us a lovely, bygone New York.
I've seen Shirley Booth, Dorothy Lamour, Carol Channing, Sally Struthers, two community theater actresses and Bette Midler in this role, Lamour will always be the best, Midler was in the best production (which Buckley will appear in) and I love how this film opens up the story and shows us a lovely, bygone New York.
While the 1953 version starring Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck is good at portraying the relationships of people on board the fated ship, this film is by far the best portrayal of the events of April 14, 1912, and it doesn't take an unbearable amount of time the way that dreadful 1997 thing with Kate Winslet did. I was so bored, if it hadn't been pouring rain, I would have walked out, so all I did was note how many inaccuracies were presented.
This version focuses on the tragedy itself, and it features characters who were based on the actual people, such as Molly Brown and the Strausses. Don't waste time on the most recent version. This is the best version ever done!
This version focuses on the tragedy itself, and it features characters who were based on the actual people, such as Molly Brown and the Strausses. Don't waste time on the most recent version. This is the best version ever done!
I saw this in the movie theater when it first came out, and when I was looking for a movie to help out a friend who was directing a children's show, this is the one we watched. Having just read the book again, I watched it. The script is solid and of course, Angela Lansbury gives it such charm and grace.
The thing is, except for the names of the children and Lansbury's characters, none of this plot is in the book. The children aren't orphans, and it's not set during the war. Dr. Browne isn't a character and instead, in the second half of the book, Miss Price meets an 18th Century philosopher and witch, with whom she falls in love.
I wouldn't mind seeing this remade, perhaps as a mini-series, using the original stories, although this movie is, indeed magical!
The thing is, except for the names of the children and Lansbury's characters, none of this plot is in the book. The children aren't orphans, and it's not set during the war. Dr. Browne isn't a character and instead, in the second half of the book, Miss Price meets an 18th Century philosopher and witch, with whom she falls in love.
I wouldn't mind seeing this remade, perhaps as a mini-series, using the original stories, although this movie is, indeed magical!
Recently taken polls
91 total polls taken
