Gershwin fan

Members
  • Content Count

    6,421
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Gershwin fan


  1. 1 hour ago, LawrenceA said:

    Faust is a great silent movie. One of Murnau's best, as well as Jannings. There's nothing "woke" or "film school" about it. Plus, it fits in with October, and the other Halloween-style programming. In fact, I don't see any other films scheduled for Silent Sunday for the rest of the year that suggest the idea that the programming is being changed substantially from what it has been previously

    I think he's referring to her comments in the intros. 


  2. GoonaGoona.jpg

    Kriss. the Sword of Death (1932), Armand Denis, Andre Roosevelt, France/ USA/ Bali- 5/10- This one is more well known under the title it was released under in France and the US ("Goona Goona"). Based on a native folk tale and with an all Balinese cast, it is about a lower class woman and a high class prince who marry. After he goes out on his wedding night on business, she is drugged by his evil nemesis with the Goona Goona drug from a shaman. He leaves his "kriss" ceremonial sword there and is soon found out. A simple romance film that includes interesting footage of the Balinese customs of that era, including a ceremonial dance with dragon costumes. This one was edited to hell and back because of the nudity so some of the plot is disjointed and shots are out of focus. This was also originally shot in two-strip technicolor but the version I saw was in B&W. I imagine the technicolor must have looked gorgeous.

    • Like 2

  3. MV5BMzVkYzkxNzAtYTNhYy00NTgxLWE3ZTUtYzc1

    Westerplatte Resists (1967) Stanislaw Rózewicz, Poland - 6/10- Historical reenactment of the first battle of WWII where the Germans staged a false flag with the intention of invading Poland. The battle lasted 5 days before resulting in surrender. This one is okay but the characterization is a bit flat. Like many of the Eastern Bloc movies, the focus is more on the collective group than on the individuals so the characters all sort of mesh into one and none stands out. Maybe worth a watch if you come across it but I wouldn't actively seek it out. 

    • Like 2

  4. 55 minutes ago, kingrat said:

    I suspect that Scotty's stories are fairly close to the truth, with some details off because of his age. Everyone identified as gay or lesbian has been identified that way in other sources, with the exception of Walter Pidgeon.

    lol. No, not unless you think Cary Grant was just a known womanizer for the hell of it. It's extremely disrespectful towards Grant to spread malicious rumors like how Bowers did. 


  5. 1 hour ago, CinemaInternational said:

    I admit that that documentary last year was a bit of a sore topic with me. If it was made up mainly of lies, then it was just a garish attempt to try to do a "tell-all" that might make Hollywood Babalon blush and spread some salacious stories that perhaps the people it was said about never would have gotten into. If it was the truth, then you have the fact that these.... goings-on.... to use a mild term, were supposed to be done in secrecy and never get out to the press, where it would destroy these peoples lives.So, if it was the truth, what they wanted to keep secret would be exposed to everyone posthumously, at a point where they couldn't say anything..... <_<

    He dragged their names through the mud and didn't care at all. :( 

    • Like 1

  6. 3 hours ago, Vautrin said:

    The writer hints that Bloom only named one book of Updike's,

    The Witches of Eastwick, on his expanded canonical list, as possible payback for Updike's torturous 

    comment. Who knows. There were a few things in the NYT's obituary that might come under the

    heading of exaggeration if not actual pomposity

    Bloom generally disliked 20th century and 21st century literature. I remember he said something along the lines of "Pynchon's Mason & Dixon is one of the last great novels." Then there's also his "no discernible talent" remarks about DFW.


  7. vlcsnap-2015-04-04-19h17m03s159.png

    Singapore (1960) Shakti Samanta, India & Malaysia - 6.5/ 10 - Ramesh disappears after inheriting a rubber farm with a hidden treasure on it and his friend Shyam must find him. Shyam has the help of his woman and Lou Costello-type comedic sidekick "Cha-Choo." It is soon found out that Ramesh has been kidnapped by a Fu Manchu style Chinese gang and they must get him back. This one is silly fun and of course like many of these films has the characters wearing thin disguises that the enemy gang is miraculously fooled by. The musical numbers are usually catchy but one problem is that there are too many of them. The plot is also a bit convoluted and the film could have been shorter. Overall, this is fun and a good way to spend two hours.

    • Like 2

  8. 2 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

    It's gutsy that the movie was even made. I wonder how big a release it was in Germany?

    It was fairly successful earning 3.3 million roughly and was one of 8 German movies nominated for the "Foreign Language" submission from Germany but it did not win (I think Toni Erdmann was submitted that year?) I would have probably voted for it if I was on that committee though. 

    • Like 1

  9. Also the bits on reality TV and mass media I really connected to Donald Trump and Boris Johnson and AFD and the way those groups try to use those forms of media to their advantage. Especially the part where Hitler rants about "foolish" forms of entertainment being used to distract the people. That's how I saw it. I think the movie has a very good message about politics and media in our current age. 


  10. I really like the part where the studio head's rant over his show ending is done in a style of the famous Der Untergang, Hitler rantscene. :lol: Yeah, the dog shooting scene was a bit much but it was mainly to set up his downfall in the press and being accused of an animal abuser. The irony of ofcourse is that it's the real Hitler and the only thing they accuse him of wrongdoing is hurting an animal.


  11. 5 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

    I don't appreciate this idea that adults who enjoy comic books and the like are not "grown up."  My husband reads comic books, or graphic novels as they're known, and is also an avid gamer.  He's every bit of a grown up as anyone else. He owns his own vehicle.  He owns his own home.  He's held a steady job since high school. He was working as sous chef and now as a kitchen supervisor.  He's in line to become a regional kitchen manager in the Portland Metro Area.  He's also an avid reader and has read everything from Alexandre Dumas' four novels about the Three Musketeers to Desi Arnaz' autobiography (which I recommended to him) to Nikki Sixx's Heroin Diaries.

    I enjoy watching animated films and shows.  I've had the same pair of Chucks since the seventh grade and they are very comfortable.  I wear flip flops in the summer, though I do not buy the $2 Old Navy ones as they hurt my feet.  I also don't buy the ones that make the flip flop noise as you walk, because those are annoying. I don't think liking these things makes me any less of an adult than anyone else.  I have some graphic tees, but none with Looney Tunes. I also don't wear slogan shirts unless you count my hilarious Golden Girls shirt with the "I'm Ready! Take me hurricane '91" statement. I also don't have any tats or body piercings either. 

    I think an adult is someone who is self-sufficient and can make their own decisions about what they do and do not like. If their love of comic books isn't hurting themselves or anyone else, why does it matter?

    If someone doesn't like superheroes, Marvel, and anything else of that ilk, don't watch them. Who cares?

    I'm honestly just tired of this trend of everyone trying to police what everyone else enjoys and does.  As long as they're not promoting free-basing cocaine or animal abuse, or anything else horrific and dangerous, why does it matter to you what people enjoy doing in their free time? 

    Scorsese just needs to stick to making the same old gangster movie featuring Joe Pesci, Robert DeNiro, and Leonardo DiCaprio, and let everyone else do what they want. 

    Scorsese was asked what he thought of those movies and he gave the honest answer that he thought they're dumb and childish and the equivalent of a "rollercoaster ride." He was asked for his opinion and gave it. He can't criticize something you like ever now? Nowhere did he say people can't enjoy Marvel films or that Marvel films should be mass burned and their fans shamed. All he said they were not serious films and were degrading the art of movie making, an opinion shared by many film makers in his same craft.


  12. 26 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

    Harold Bloom, the sad-eye professor of pomposity has died. Oh no, how will we ever be

    able to understand texts without the near divine guidance of the Martha Stewart of literature.

    Come on, V. He just died yesterday. I thought this interview of his is pretty good.

    He defended literature from the School of Resentment and people who interjected politics from both sides. Who will defend the Western Canon now? I don't think there is a literary scholar like him around today.


  13. 1 hour ago, mot925 said:

    I bet Robert would be SO DISAPPOINTED! Perhaps if TCM would stop showing some the 70, 80, etc crap movies and go back to the CLASSICS they wouldn't of had to raise the rates and lose viewers?

    Turner purchased these classic movies for a steal according to his interview!

    That's how you lose viewers in today's TV watching climate. I don't like it either but that's how it is.

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us