Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/24/2018 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    I have to use voice transcription to write most everything, and it kind of reminds me a little bit of Gilda Radners “Emily Litella” character from Saturday night live who always heard things incorrectly. (Like when President Reagan wanted to make Puerto Rico a steak.)
  2. 3 points
    With apologies to Leslie Howard for a wonderful portrayal in the same role years earlier, I agree that Rex Harrison's witty, arrogant, imperious Professor Higgins will be a monumental portrayal for any actor to try to equal. I don't much care for Harrison, generally speaking, but I love him in this role. Speaking of Harrison, it's difficult to envision anyone else in the role of the ghostly salty sea captain in THE GHOST AND MRS. MUIR.
  3. 2 points
    Psycho (1960) Transitional Noir Masterpiece What can you say that is new about Psycho? I can tell you my own remembrances, I was seven years old. I first heard about the film second or third hand. It was from the neighborhood girls across the street. They either claimed to have seen it or their parents had seen it and they had over heard them talking about it, whatever, but they made sure they told me about the shower scene. But of course they exaggerated it all and my imagination did the rest. Anthony Perkins killed her naked in the shower, cut her up in pieces and wrapping each piece in a towel took her out to the trunk of her car. I still remember that thought. A little personal "mind movie." Of course the movie never lived up to that, once I saw it. But from my example you can see how much power that creative film had on people even if they hadn't seen it yet. Now I find out that the original story by Robert Bloch was pretty close to my original "mind movie." I'm looking at Psycho as one of the first Transitional Noirs that crossed over into exploitation to eventually be a box office hit, and critically acclaimed a part of American cinema mythos. Its out exploiting the new found freedom that came at the end of the Motion Picture Production Code. It took Classical Noirs mostly crime based films, and bent the style in new direction that was very popular. It took a story by Robert Bloch, a screenplay by Joseph Stefano, combining Noir, Thriller, Horror, Suspense, using alienated and obsessed characters and adding Twilight Zone type twists. Hitchcock, Bernard Herrmann, George Tomasini, and John L. Russell concocted really, a magic formula out of thoughts and imagination, an idea put on film that we watched. It captured our imagination. It was a spark that ignited other sparks of imagination. All of the oddball films started appearing in late 50s early 60s they in turn influenced more free ideas. Noir never really ended it just morphed into what we call now call Neo Noir. It didn't happen all at once in one great kink, no it gradually ripped sparking apart with new directions to explore. Some of these films on that edge that contain the noir visual stylistics, the sort of DNA of noir like Psycho, are the Transitional Noirs. Seeing them now can be just as powerful as back then. Full review with screen caps in Film Noir/Gangster.
  4. 2 points
    Our Modern Maidens (1929) - Silent romance from MGM and director Jack Conway. Rich girl Billie (Joan Crawford) gets engaged to playboy Gil (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.) right after graduation. However, on a train ride, Billie meets wealthy older bachelor Abbott (Rod La Rocque) and starts making time with him behind Gil's back. Meanwhile, hopeless romantic Kentucky (Anita Page) falls for Gil despite his engagement. Also featuring Josephine Dunn, Edward J. Nugent, Albert Gran, Yo Mama, and Adrienne D'Ambricourt. This was MGM's follow-up to the previous year's hit Our Dancing Daughters although this featured different characters. The tone is more lighthearted, although there are some heavier moments. Fairbanks (who wed Crawford shortly after filming completed) impersonates some movie stars of the day. Crawford does a sexy dance in a fur-fringed get-up. (6/10) Source: FilmStruck
  5. 2 points
    Eww... 😱 The Trying-to-be-Tenniel makeup (which worked better on the stage than in closeup) was but one reason why Paramount's movie was an early studio-crippler. The script's complete at-sea unfamiliarity with Lewis Carroll was another. Barbara Walters' hints of a non-rhotic impediment was a comic-target trademark all over TV in the 70's--with or without Radner, we still today joke about "If you were a twee, what kind of twee would you be?"--and that she was NBC's most "prestige" news star at the time made her an even richer biting-the-hand-that-feeds SNL fodder. It wasn't "baby talk", it was just more in-house NBC heckling, like Dan Aykroyd's Tom Snyder imitation.
  6. 2 points
    Senator Hatch Office‏Verified account @senorrinhatch These official letters from the 4 named by Dr Ford—denying any knowledge of what Dr Ford has alleged— serve the same purpose as sworn testimony. -------------------------------------------------- Renato Mariotti‏Verified account @renato_mariotti 38m38 minutes ago False. A letter from Mark Judge’s attorney is a poor substitute for questioning him under oath. If he is lying, there is no penalty for Judge if his attorney’s letter is false. But it would be a crime for him to lie to the Senate. Why do you refuse to subpoena him to testify?
  7. 2 points
    How many are now lying about it under oath as a nominees for the supreme court? What a joke. Completing fitting with the joke presidency.
  8. 2 points
    Re: HOW DOES ONE MAKE IT TO 23 HAVING NEVER HEARD OF CHAPLIN? Chaplin? Who's Chaplin?
  9. 2 points
    Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
  10. 2 points
    What's goin' on, my fellow noiristas ? It used to be, within a few minutes of Eddie's noir airing for the week, this thread would be "hot" with all the posts people'd make here. Now, for the second week in a row, hours after The Stranger has screened, we've got more crickets than a New England meadow. I don't want to always be the first to comment here, it's like being the one who's always a little too early for a party. But then again, maybe sometimes it's those early birds who get the party going. Ok, where's the punch? I'll start. Loved The Stranger ! Funny thing is, I've seen it twice before, and both those other times it left me kind of cold. But this time, I thought it was great ! (exclamation points warranted. ! ) Maybe it had something to do with this is the best print of it I'd ever seen. But also, I seemed to get a lot more out of it this time around. SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS ( You've been warned.) The Stranger grabbed my attention right from the opening credits and never let go. Even though it's not particularly action-packed and there are no rain-swept urban streets or glitzy nightclubs, just a little old New England town with trees, a cemetery, a town clock, and a gossipy old checker-playing gent who runs the local convenience store ( or its equivalent), I loved the setting. I was interested to hear Eddie inform us that it was all literally a set on the Universal (I think?) backlot. And that crazy medieval clock, virtually a major character in the film, was designed by Welles and built especially for the movie. How did they do that angel and devil thing ?? Were they models based on actual medieval clock statues? Oh well, doesn't matter, it was enormously effective. Sometimes noir movies have obscure, even meaningless titles. (I think Vautrin's pointed this out once or twice.) But The Stranger is a perfect title for this odd and disturbing noir. I like the way it has multiple meanings: there are three strangers: the ex-Nazi, that doleful little man who knocks on Loretta Young's lacy curtained door; there's Edward G. as the government Nazi investigator. And there's the real stranger, Loretta's husband. That's of course what the title is really referring to, and despite the sweet little town setting and all the kindly family and friends there, The Stranger explores an extremely dark and classically noir theme: how an ordinary woman (or man) can love and marry an evil person. To me, that's the crux of the biscuit of this story: Innocent decent Loretta Young marries the frighteningly deceptive Orson Welles, believing him to be the innocent decent history professor he's posing to be. The most compelling aspect of this film is her gradual realization that the man she married is a vile Nazi war criminal. And this happens in stages: First, she is told by her husband that the odd little man who came to their home that day she was hanging curtains ( the same day they were married ), was a blackmailer, and that he (Charles Rankin is the name he goes by) paid him off and got rid of him. That in itself is disturbing and unsettling to her, the idea that her adored husband is hiding something. Then, stage two: he admits to her that he in fact murdered this man, claiming that he wanted to spare her and her family from scandal. Get your head around that, Loretta ! THEN, as if that's not enough, she's told by her own family - beloved father and brother, people she absolutely trusts - as well as Eddie G., that the man she married and is in love with is a monstrous Nazi war criminal, responsible for some of the worst atrocities of the Holocaust. It's these revelations in stages that I find interesting, and Loretta does a really good job of showing her dawning realization of who exactly she's married to in her face. First dismay, then disbelief, then confusion, then horror. And don't forget, these two have just returned from their honeymoon. She has to deal with the fact that she's been physically intimate with a Nazi war criminal. I love the way this is suggested, never openly talked about. But we get a sense of it when Charles, admitting to her that he killed the "little man" who (he falsely claims) was blackmailing him, says something like "Yes, my darling, these very hands that caressed you the night before strangled that little man." Plus, when she finally recognizes to herself just who her husband is, she tells him to go ahead and kill her, but to do it without touching her : "Just DON'T PUT YOUR HANDS ON ME ! !" Sorry to go on so long about that, but it just struck me this time around that that whole aspect of the story and Loretta's character is key to what makes The Stranger a fascinating film, and also one that belongs in the noir canon. This is really loooong, so I'll just wind up (ha! an unfortunate pun !) by saying that I love all the clock stuff. And that dramatic final scene is fantastic ! I know it's kind of over-the-top, but in a good way. And it's so perfect that it's the clock's angel, and not its demon, that finally kills Franz Kindler. An avenging angel indeed, and heaven's justice wrought on earth. Well, something like that.
  11. 1 point
    HERMAN MUNSTER WAS BIG DADDY?!?! wow. Bet that was something to see! ps- I seem to recall hearing Gwynne was a Yale trained actor, so I imagine he was probably terrific.
  12. 1 point
    Jennifer Epstein‏Verified account @jeneps More to come? Drudge: “Insiders claim Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer are set to report a new twist in Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation... Developing...”
  13. 1 point
    Zandy -- played by Gene Hackman in ZANDY'S BRIDE
  14. 1 point
    The winner of the 1967 Prix Louis Delluc Best Picture was … The Diary of an Innocent Boy (1967) Michel Deville, France The winner of the 1968 Prix Louis Delluc Best Picture was … Stolen Kisses (1968) Francois Truffaut, France
  15. 1 point
    I can only speak for myself, but I don't wish for you or any other poster, new or old, to go away, either now or in the past (if you know what I mean). Even if things get contentious on some subject or another, hopefully the aggrieved parties can put it behind them or at least learn to be civil to one another in the future. And never forget the "Ignore" feature. If someone is a real irritant, it can makes things much smoother.
  16. 1 point
    Yeah, Emergency! was a fun show. Randolph Mantooth became a popular soap opera actor in the 80s and 90s. He had the looks to transition over to daytime dramas.
  17. 1 point
    I know there were very divisive opinions re: What a Way to Go when it finally premiered. I had already seen it prior to it premiering. I want to go on record saying that I love What a Way to Go and I'm glad that TCM showed it.
  18. 1 point
    The basic idea behind this thread is humorous. However I feel like it plays into the whole mindset of "it's okay to make fun of the younger generation and imply they're dumb" sort of mentality. Which if you think about it is a form of derision. It did cause me to think about how old I was when I saw my first Charlie Chaplin film. Even though I "caught up" on classics when I went to USC's film school (which was called the USC School of Cinema-Television in the 90s when I attended), I grew up in a very strict home where we didn't have a television until I was in grade school. And we were only allowed to go to the movies maybe once or twice a year. This was in the early 80s before VCRs and VHS movies became popular. So yes, if someone asked me about Charlie Chaplin, I would have been fairly clueless at that time. I also would have been clueless about other big movies everyone else was going to see brand new in the theaters, because my mother shielded me and my sisters from a lot of that stuff. I guess what I am trying to say is that I gained knowledge and appreciation for classic film by coming to it on my own when I was older and studying it, which I still do even now. Who's to say the 23 year old yanceycravat spoke with recently won't do the same someday...?
  19. 1 point
    Wow I hadn't replied to this thread because figured they had been already posted: Robert Preston was perfect as THE MUSIC MAN Matthew Broderick did well, but no one could capture the nuances of the character like Preston. And while many like Audrey Hepburn as Eliza, I preferred Julie Andrews in MY FAIR LADY. But who could have channelled Henry Higgins like Rex Harrison?
  20. 1 point
    Pathetic attempt to muddy the waters - yet again.
  21. 1 point
  22. 1 point
    God damnit. That’s why I hate posting with my phone. I write the words “fingers crossed” And it changes it to an emoji that from this distance, looks like a hand flipping you off. (it’s not)
  23. 1 point
    I cannot imagine anyone other than Bogart playing Rick in Casablanca. I heard someone came up with the (bad) idea of doing a re-make with Sean Penn as Rick a few years ago. Thank goodness that never happened.
  24. 1 point
    While his gruff and gravelly voice didn't sound anything like the actual man he portrayed in the biopic... ...no other actor could and no other actor probably ever will replace Scott's performance in this film as being the definitive take on this U.S. Army general. (...yep, AND perfect casting TOO, as I understand that BOTH the actor AND the man he portrayed were real SOBs...in fact, my dearly departed father could vouch for the veracity of this statement about the latter's character, as he served in that SOB's 3rd Armored Division during WWII)
  25. 1 point
    Insulin’s steep price leads to deadly rationing "...The price of insulin in the U.S. has more than doubled since 2012 alone. That’s put the lifesaving hormone out of reach for some people with diabetes, .... Diabetic ketoacidosis is a terrible way to die. It’s what happens when you don’t have enough insulin. Your blood sugar gets so high that your blood becomes highly acidic, your cells dehydrate, and your body stops functioning. ... The patent for the discovery was sold to the University of Toronto for only $1 so that lifesaving insulin would be available to everyone who needed it. Today, however, the list price for a single vial of insulin is more than $250. Most patients use two to four vials per month ). Without insurance or other forms of medical assistance, those prices can get out of hand quickly,.... https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/insulins-steep-price-leads-to-deadly-rationing?utm_source=atlantic&utm_medium=social

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us