Giant (1956) - Starring Elizabeth Taylor, James Dean and Rock Hudson, this epic set in Texas follows a family from the 1920s to the end of WW2. The film is a staggering three and a half hours long and is one of the only films where James Dean is the lead. Dean, however, was killed in a car crash just prior to the film's release and success.
-2
2.
pitterpat 8 year s ago
#8, Completely false. W.R. Hearst and Orson Welles' father, Richard Welles, were close friends. Orson invited W.R. to the premiers. W.R. declined. Hearst papers wouldn't advertise for the film since after the original screenplay by Orson Welles and Herman J. Mankiewicz, was about Howard Hughes and Howard Hughes was a bigger threat in shutting down its production than Hearst. So Welles and Mankiewicz reworked the screenplay to echo Hearsts life.
W.R. Hearst commanded all of his publications to neither condemn nor promote the film as a gesture towards the friendship between the Hearsts and the Welles families. Since Hearst had a near monopoly on U.S. publications in print across the states, it was perceived as a dud film by the public as they couldn't garner a review either way. Remember now, these were times when people relied on papers for their news and pennies were short. Too short to waste on a film with no review from their only news sources.
The film opened to mixed reviews and exclusive theaters anti-Hearst promotions. It still profited. It was only after W.R. Hearst and Howard Hughes' deaths that the film actually gained any notoriety. It's a good film for the history of its back story. Not for it's exclusive artistry.
Bridge Over The River Kwai. The Sound Of Music. The Best Years Of Our Lives. Stalag 17. The Exorcist. Doctor Zhivago. .... There are so many more that deserve to be on this threads list. Sadly, they're not.
W.R. Hearst commanded all of his publications to neither condemn nor promote the film as a gesture towards the friendship between the Hearsts and the Welles families. Since Hearst had a near monopoly on U.S. publications in print across the states, it was perceived as a dud film by the public as they couldn't garner a review either way. Remember now, these were times when people relied on papers for their news and pennies were short. Too short to waste on a film with no review from their only news sources.
The film opened to mixed reviews and exclusive theaters anti-Hearst promotions. It still profited. It was only after W.R. Hearst and Howard Hughes' deaths that the film actually gained any notoriety. It's a good film for the history of its back story. Not for it's exclusive artistry.
Bridge Over The River Kwai. The Sound Of Music. The Best Years Of Our Lives. Stalag 17. The Exorcist. Doctor Zhivago. .... There are so many more that deserve to be on this threads list. Sadly, they're not.
0
4.
Bastet 8 year s ago
"Not for it's exclusive artistry." I beg to differ. Beautiful story and technically ground breaking.
0
6.
Intact 4 year s ago
My Man Godfrey 1936 should have been included.
W.R. Hearst commanded all of his publications to neither condemn nor promote the film as a gesture towards the friendship between the Hearsts and the Welles families. Since Hearst had a near monopoly on U.S. publications in print across the states, it was perceived as a dud film by the public as they couldn't garner a review either way. Remember now, these were times when people relied on papers for their news and pennies were short. Too short to waste on a film with no review from their only news sources.
The film opened to mixed reviews and exclusive theaters anti-Hearst promotions. It still profited. It was only after W.R. Hearst and Howard Hughes' deaths that the film actually gained any notoriety. It's a good film for the history of its back story. Not for it's exclusive artistry.
Bridge Over The River Kwai. The Sound Of Music. The Best Years Of Our Lives. Stalag 17. The Exorcist. Doctor Zhivago. .... There are so many more that deserve to be on this threads list. Sadly, they're not.