Who agrees that this movie is so underrated?
by Anonymous | reply 44 | November 7, 2024 10:23 PM |
I like it. They made quite a long film out of a short story.
by Anonymous | reply 1 | November 4, 2024 3:13 AM |
Sandy Descher who played the daughter is still alive.
by Anonymous | reply 2 | November 4, 2024 3:21 AM |
The movie hinges on Liz and Van having sexual chemistry. Fail.
by Anonymous | reply 3 | November 4, 2024 3:28 AM |
R3, why fail?
by Anonymous | reply 4 | November 4, 2024 3:42 AM |
They don't have any chemistry. Van just isn't an effective romantic lead.
by Anonymous | reply 5 | November 4, 2024 3:52 AM |
I've always loved this movie. And Van's scene with his daughter at the end is heartbreaking.
by Anonymous | reply 6 | November 4, 2024 3:54 AM |
What does everyone think of Elizabeth's hair in this movie?
by Anonymous | reply 7 | November 4, 2024 4:20 AM |
R2, wow. Didn't know that
by Anonymous | reply 8 | November 4, 2024 6:50 AM |
R5 I agree. ... Van may have been more convincing if Peter Lawford had been cast in Liz Taylor's role.
by Anonymous | reply 9 | November 4, 2024 8:45 AM |
R9, true
by Anonymous | reply 10 | November 4, 2024 4:35 PM |
This movie was made right before Liz made "Giant". MGM had her playing the lovely young lady who smart and free. But it's plain that Liz is bored. Van Johnson was never a leading man. And Donna Reed is wasted - as she usually is in movies- although she is the only one with an Oscar. Walter Pidgeon is perfectly cast. Outside of a few Greer Garson films Walter is not a leading man. The Technicolor seems washed out. And life in Paris is nothing like Kelly's in 1951 or Gigi's in 1958. This a Paris of drunks, girls, and soldiers. And it's not well done. Also Van Johnson wants his daughter back and only Donna Reed has that power? Courts- even in Paris they have courts of law. Too long for too little in return.
by Anonymous | reply 11 | November 4, 2024 6:52 PM |
OP - The last time you saw Paris was in 1954- That’s a long time. You must be really old by now.
by Anonymous | reply 12 | November 4, 2024 7:07 PM |
There's a scene where Eva Gabor pounces on Van Johnson, while Elizabeth Taylor and Roger Moore look on. I don't think those four sharing the screen was on anyone's Bingo card.
by Anonymous | reply 13 | November 4, 2024 7:12 PM |
I wonder why it was never officially released on DVD and Blu-ray.
Or VHS.
The bad quality versions don't count.
by Anonymous | reply 14 | November 4, 2024 9:10 PM |
R14 - I believe because the studio screwed up the copyright. The movie was released in 1954 but the person who put the date in Roman numerals put the date as 1944 on the print. They lost 10 years of copyright. and it expired. It entered the public domain in 1974.
by Anonymous | reply 15 | November 4, 2024 10:04 PM |
R14 Blu-Ray Release occurred July 2023 by Warner Archive Collection.
by Anonymous | reply 16 | November 4, 2024 10:09 PM |
You've probably all seen gorgeous young Liz publicizing this film when she appeared as the Mystery Guest on What's My Line? in 1954. A very rare opportunity for her to show how genuinely and naturally funny she could be. I think she was pregnant with one of her Michael Wilding sons at the time but that 1950s swing coat she wears may be more a 1950s fashion fad than a maternity top.
When her identity was guessed, Bennett Cerf pompously asked her why the name of the film was changed from the F. Scott Fitzgerald source material. Liz drily replied that MGM was worried audiences would think Babylon Revisited might be a Biblical epic.
Someone should find the clip and link it! Sorry, I'm feeble and unable.
by Anonymous | reply 17 | November 4, 2024 10:22 PM |
I honestly think she looks more beautiful in this film (at least before she cuts her hair) than any other.
by Anonymous | reply 20 | November 4, 2024 11:07 PM |
Yeah, I wish that she would have kept her hair long throughout the entire movie.
It's actually a wig though in the first half of the movie.
At least they evened it out in the movie...the short hair does not appear until exactly in the second half.
by Anonymous | reply 21 | November 4, 2024 11:16 PM |
Is this one of those MGM films that's set in the 1920s but looks hopelessly like the 1950s when it was made?
Does Liz bob her hair because she's a flapper?
by Anonymous | reply 22 | November 5, 2024 2:50 AM |
R22 No. The film changes the era from the original story, and it's supposed to be right as WW2 is ending. That is what's shown in OP's trailer when the crowd is celebrating in the streets of Paris, and we see exuberant Liz pull Van into a kiss with him hoping that the uniformed soldier standing behind her would soon do the same.
by Anonymous | reply 23 | November 5, 2024 3:13 AM |
How many years does the story span in the movie?
by Anonymous | reply 24 | November 5, 2024 3:57 AM |
R24 Something like 9-10 years.
It starts in 1944. The daughter, Vickie, is born in 1946, and she's said to be 8-years old at the end.
by Anonymous | reply 25 | November 5, 2024 4:10 AM |
Was this filmed in actual 3 strip Technicolor?
by Anonymous | reply 26 | November 5, 2024 5:00 AM |
I just can’t bring myself to watch any Van Johnson pictures
Except The Human Comedy, but he’s not a lead in that.
by Anonymous | reply 27 | November 5, 2024 5:19 AM |
Van should be a DL icon, if only for being openly & notoriously homosexual …ahead of his time.
by Anonymous | reply 28 | November 5, 2024 5:29 AM |
It is a visual pleasing film
by Anonymous | reply 29 | November 5, 2024 5:32 AM |
It's always in the bargain bins. I've tried to watch it several times but never finished. Van Johnson can't act.
by Anonymous | reply 30 | November 5, 2024 6:02 AM |
There was never a time Elizabeth Taylor was not beautiful. Even as a child in National Velvet, she was gorgeous.
by Anonymous | reply 31 | November 5, 2024 6:06 AM |
R31, when did she look her best to you?
by Anonymous | reply 32 | November 5, 2024 6:17 AM |
You just can imagine LB Mayer and the MGM execs drooling with anticipation, waiting for baby Elizabeth Taylor to grow up.
by Anonymous | reply 33 | November 5, 2024 1:25 PM |
R33, probably
by Anonymous | reply 34 | November 5, 2024 10:22 PM |
I love this movie and had to get it on DVD because it's letterboxed and fuzzy everytime it shows up on TCM or another public channel. Haunting story, it was effective in showing what the mood was like after WW2 and how people had to adjust to different lives.
by Anonymous | reply 35 | November 5, 2024 10:25 PM |
It was an OK movie. I say that as someone who bought a DVD of it in the dollar bin. Liz was never prettier. The casting of the male lead was way off. They should have had Roger Moore as the male lead. Van was just all wrong.
by Anonymous | reply 36 | November 5, 2024 10:26 PM |
Why did MGM bother to secure the rights to Babylon Revisited if it was going to be all about post-WWII lives?
by Anonymous | reply 37 | November 5, 2024 11:03 PM |
It's the same story, they just shifted it by a couple of decades.
[quote]It is a visual pleasing film
Young Roger Moore is certainly beautiful. Liz and a Gabor also provide eye candy.
by Anonymous | reply 38 | November 5, 2024 11:12 PM |
Van Johnson was gorgeous. I don't know why his looks are so underrated.
by Anonymous | reply 39 | November 5, 2024 11:22 PM |
By the 1950s, this was the kind of middle brow tripe that MGM was producing while Paramount, Warner Bros. Fox and even Columbia were securing the best screenwriters and most interesting and controversial source material. MGM was still stuck with a 1930s schmaltzy aesthetic that no longer clicked with changing audiences after WWII.
by Anonymous | reply 40 | November 5, 2024 11:22 PM |
R37 The screen rights for Babylon Revisited had been purchased from Fitzgerald by Lester Cowan for $1000. Cowan had been trying to bring it to the screen for years with a screenplay first written by Fitzgerald himself that was called "Cosmopolitan." Cowan finally gave up on the one by Fitzgerald wrote and hired the Oscar-winning Epstein twins to write a screenplay that he was then able to sell to MGM for $40,000.
Also, this interesting rundown of how the story finally made it to the screen says it was the MGM front office that wanted the film to take place post WW2 rather than the original era:
[quote] But then the front office went on to make the ill-advised decision to update the setting of the story from post-World War I Paris to post-World War II Paris, on the assumption that contemporary audiences could relate more readily to a film set in the recent past than to one set in the more distant past. Brooks, who discussed with me his adaptations of literature to the screen, did not agree with this decision, which was made before he was assigned to direct the picture; he firmly believed that since Fitzgerald's story was to some extent a requiem for the Roaring Twenties, the period setting was indigenous to the story as Fitzgerald had conceived it. But he was overruled.
by Anonymous | reply 41 | November 6, 2024 1:23 AM |
I wonder how the Blu-ray looks
by Anonymous | reply 42 | November 7, 2024 4:21 AM |
R2, Sandy Descher will be 79 on November 30. Her last credit on IMDb is 1969.
by Anonymous | reply 43 | November 7, 2024 7:44 PM |
Well R39 there certainly is a lid for every pot.
by Anonymous | reply 44 | November 7, 2024 10:23 PM |
new reply