calvinnme

Members
  • Content count

    2,460
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About calvinnme

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Enable
  1. calvinnme

    SCOTUS battles

    I posted this in another thread. It is breaking news and worth posting again: Another woman has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, according to a new report. According to The New Yorker, 53-year-old Deborah Ramirez alleges Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party when they were both students at Yale University in the 1980s. The newest allegation published Sunday night comes as another Kavanaugh accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is expected to testify Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The newest allegation also comes as attorney Michael Avenatti tells CBS News' Paula Reid he is representing yet another woman who knew Kavanaugh in high school -- although it's unclear what that woman's claim might be. Avenatti tweeted Sunday that he is representing a woman with "credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge," a friend of Kavanaugh's. In The New Yorker story by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer, Ramirez claims the incident happened during a drinking game at a college party. Ramirez said that while she was drunk, a male student pointed a plastic **** at her. At that point, Kavanaugh allegedly put his peni s in front of her face, and she accidentally touched it as she pushed him away. "I wasn't going to touch a peni s until I was married," she told The New Yorker. "I was embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated." She said she remembers Kavanaugh laughing and pulling up his pants. "Somebody yelled down the hall, 'Brett Kavanaugh just put his peni s in Debbie's face,'" she said. "It was his full name. I don't think it was just 'Brett.' And I remember hearing and being mortified that this was out there." End of news story. Time to call in the FBI. We now have corroboration and a trend.
  2. Some real breaking news: From the New Yorker: Another woman has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, according to a new report. According to The New Yorker, 53-year-old Deborah Ramirez alleges Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party when they were both students at Yale University in the 1980s. The newest allegation published Sunday night comes as another Kavanaugh accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is expected to testify Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee. The newest allegation also comes as attorney Michael Avenatti tells CBS News' Paula Reid he is representing yet another woman who knew Kavanaugh in high school -- although it's unclear what that woman's claim might be. Avenatti tweeted Sunday that he is representing a woman with "credible information regarding Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge," a friend of Kavanaugh's. In The New Yorker story by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer, Ramirez claims the incident happened during a drinking game at a college party. Ramirez said that while she was drunk, a male student pointed a plastic **** at her. At that point, Kavanaugh allegedly put his **** in front of her face, and she accidentally touched it as she pushed him away. "I wasn't going to touch a **** until I was married," she told The New Yorker. "I was embarrassed and ashamed and humiliated." She said she remembers Kavanaugh laughing and pulling up his pants. "Somebody yelled down the hall, 'Brett Kavanaugh just put his **** in Debbie's face,'" she said. "It was his full name. I don't think it was just 'Brett.' And I remember hearing and being mortified that this was out there." End of news quote. This is starting to sound like your basic frat boy rapist tactics. Go to a place with plenty of alcohol where your victim will be hesitant to come forward or else answer questions about what she was doing there. It is time to put this entire thing on hold and call in the FBI. There is now more than one data point. Ronan Farrow strikes again!
  3. calvinnme

    I Just Watched...

    What could be darker? The rest of his family. His dad clearly just wants a young mistress and wants to be as far from his mother as possible, and his brother and wife are popping children out at a tremendous rate in hopes of snagging the lion share of the inheritance. If dear brother and wife had clear proof Newman's character was gay I think they'd do somersaults they would be so happy.
  4. calvinnme

    I Just Watched...

    Return of the Living Dead (1985) 8/10 A campy take on the horrible story behind the 1968 classic Freddy is starting his first day of work at a Medical Supply Warehouse. The older employee, Frank (James Karen), is showing Freddy around. Wanting to impress him - maybe scare him a little too - Frank shows Freddy a drum that he says contains a military biological experiment gone wrong. The two manage to accidentally open the drum which floods the warehouse with toxic gas. Frank and Freddy awake after being knocked out by the gas and find the drum empty, and they also find that the cadaver in the freezer is now alive, as well as a partially dissected dog. The two call Burt, the boss, to help, and when the freezer door is opened, the cadaver rushes out and attacks Burt, but seems to ignore Frank and Freddy. Hmmmm. Meanwhile in the adjoining cemetery, Freddy's girlfriend, Tina, and Freddy's punk rock friends minus the rock are waiting for him among the tombstones. This film changes the 1968 story in a few ways. Now the reanimated dead are after human brains, not just human flesh in general. Also, cutting off their heads does nothing. Every piece left just comes after you. Also, the reanimated dead are quite eloquent, even if they are just half of a skeleton. Like the original story, those killed by the zombies become zombies themselves, so geometric progression is a problem. And finally one big event occurred between 1968 and 1985 - Watergate. In the original film the government gets on TV and levels with the public and the public believes them. In this film, it would be wise not to be as honest as Burt wants to be with the military about the predicament the cast gets themselves into. With Don Calfa as Ernie (Burt and Ernie? Was this intentional?), a tough pistol wielding mortician at the crematorium next door, whose detailed description of rigor mortis does have a point, so pay attention. He also has the best line in the film - "Why do you eat people?". Recommended for fans of the horror genre. Source: Old DVD I found while cleaning up
  5. calvinnme

    I Just Watched...

    The Ape (1940) 5/10 I'm not sure what I would have named this film, but I think that ultimately "The Ape" is somewhat misleading. It was probably named as it was to bring in crowds - thoughts of an ape gone rogue and Boris Karloff would do so in 1940. Dr. Bernard Adrian (Karloff) is introduced immediately. He is visiting a girl who is paralyzed, Frances, on what would have been Adrian's daughter's 18th birthday. Both his daughter and wife were lost in an epidemic of what is called "paralysis". It is probably polio, but the disease is never named. The girl is like a second daughter to Adrian, and she has a beau, the rather simple but kindly Danny. A local circus goes up in flames and an ape belonging to the circus is on the loose. The ape badly injures his cruel trainer/keeper in the process of escaping and the trainer is brought to Dr. Adrian. Adrian figures the man is going to die anyways, and uses his spinal fluid in a serum he is concocting to help Frances and other paralytics walk again. There are several mysteries going on here. The ape only seems to kill people who are evil - you are given a scene in which each of his victims does something awful. How does the ape know? Plus the ape is hanging around the doctor's house. Why?? Also, in one scene the ape is said to be killed but is shown walking about later, still on a mad spree. How? Is this all just bad editing? Why are chronically ill young people always shown as so patient and kind in these B films? Will the doctor push the boundaries of medicine too far and have Frances remove the blanket on her legs to reveal hairy ape legs? If so will Danny make a run for it? Watch and find out the ridiculous ending. This film is five out of ten just because of Karloff. He creeps up the atmosphere and adds depth to just about any character he plays. Everybody else in the cast is just a cardboard cutout next to him. It makes me wonder why he even did this film. Probably for Karloff completists only. Source: An old recording from a viewing on TCM
  6. calvinnme

    I Just Watched...

    In my case, I like everything up to the 50s, but I would just as soon skip the 60s and go straight to the 70s where you are completely past the production code era. The 60s tried to have it both ways. Take "Sunday in New York" for example.
  7. calvinnme

    I Just Watched...

    I think Vivien Leigh had tuberculosis and was in complete denial and refused to have it treated, thus her early death. P.S. What is it about Tennessee Williams and his material that are just so depressing you want to hang yourself after watching filmed versions? Or am I alone in this sentiment?
  8. calvinnme

    I Just Watched...

    Viv certainly had taste!
  9. calvinnme

    Favorite Robert Mitchum Movie

    My favorite is "Out of the Past". A close second is the oddball "Grass is Greener". Don't laugh. There's just something about this film that appeals to me. When Mitchum gets ultra scary like in "Night of the Hunter" or "Cape Fear", I just find these hard to watch. That is probably a tribute to his effectiveness.
  10. Look, you asked me a question after all! If you look at my response you will notice I quoted you with three of your words in bold - words that describe the accuser from your viewpoint. I was being sarcastic. Who would want to come forward to have countless people describe them as you just did? That was my point.
  11. Nope, I have no idea why this woman stayed silent for 36 years, no idea at all.
  12. calvinnme

    70th Primetime Emmy Awards

    I was glad to see Bill Hader, Henry Winkler, and Last Week Tonight all win Emmys. I've never thought of Netflix as a place to watch television. I guess streaming has changed things. Plus I'm getting old.
  13. Yes, I know. The evidence taken in the 70s, which at the time could only establish blood type, was by the 90s capable of providing a DNA profile. However the law for rape in California in the 70s had a statute of limitations that has long expired. Instead the DNA is being used to link the Golden State Killer to the murders he committed, which have no statute of limitations.
  14. calvinnme

    I Just Watched...

    Going Home (1971) 3/10 It's hard to feel sorry for someone when that person feels SO sorry for himself! And that is Jimmy Graham's problem. When Jimmy Graham (Jan Michael Viencent) was six years old he witnessed the aftermath of his father, Harry Graham (Robert Mitchum), murdering his mother. He was forced to testify against his dad, and after his conviction he was passed around between foster homes and boys' schools. Thirteen years later, and Jimmy Graham is a kid with a mighty case of PTSD, a chip on his shoulder, and a case of smoldering anger against his dad. When Jimmy makes one of his infrequent trips to the prison, he discovers that dad was paroled months ago and didn't bother to get in touch with him and tell him he is out. He looks dad up and sees dad is getting on with his life - living in a trailer park, working as a mechanic, he even has a steady girl. Not that Harry seems to know what to do with their relationship either. He alternately acts friendly towards his son and then out of the blue rejects him. At least, though, we have some of that Mitchum laconic coolness on display where I get some idea of where he is coming from. Jimmy has a constant sullen expression and wanders around mute and behaving largely in a passive aggressive fashion. Sometimes he acts like he wants to get close to dad, other times he is complaining to the police about how Harry is out of prison and loose in the community, another time he scratches a BEWARE OF HARRY GRAHAM message on a men's room wall. Towards the end, however, Jimmy does a deed so foul that no amount of childhood trauma can excuse it. At that point I just wanted Mitchum to show up and go all Cape Fear on this completely unlikable person. The editing is not great either. Jimmy seems to have no life at all when he decides to decamp and go meddle in dad's life. Yet at the end of the film he shows up at some house of ill repute where people see him and say "Quitters are not welcome!". Jimmy calls his dad and tells him where he is, and dad says emphatically "I told you never to go back to that house!" and dad feels so strongly about it that he has to go drive over and get Jimmy. What is this house? Until these scenes it has not been shown and I have no idea what it is doing in this film. The 3 stars are for Mitchum, who is a welcome presence even in a bad film with a bad script and bad editing. P.S. - I am actually writing this review because of the last full paragraph. What WAS that house that was a big deal in the last part of the film? Was it the house the Grahams were living in at the time of the murder? Did I just miss the part of the film where this house is explained? Just wondering. Source: TCM
  15. Rather funny. 63 people signed an opinion letter and had no idea what and why they were signing?

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us