Members
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/14/2021 in Posts
-
I just watched the 1970 movie JOE based upon recommendation from this board. Actually, it was a discussion about Peter Boyle's acting talent, he's the title charactor "Joe" in this movie & I had zero idea of what this movie was going to be about. The movie starts with two young adults in a skanky NY apartment shooting heroin which was uncomfortable for me to watch. The boy was a scumbag to his girlfriend played by Susan Sarandon in her first role. She was darling, unbelievably good and I couldn't take my eyes off her. This was a good 5 years before her role as Janet in Rocky Horror, but she sure delivered a dynamic performance! Well, she ODs and ends up in the hospital and her well-to-do "uptight" parents show up to take her home. Her fur coated Mother sends Mr Corporate Daddy to the Greenwich Village apartment to "get her clothes". I wanted to scream, "Don't you have ANY of her clothing at home? Do you want to bring anything from an obviously filthy apartment to your McMansion? Well, Daddy uses a key, gets in and is confronted by the druggie boyfriend before he gets her clothing. Spoiler: in a fit of rage Daddy kills the bf. Daddy needs a drink and stops by the local bar. Joe (Peter Boyle) is an Archie Bunker type a few years before All In The Family and he's drunkenly spouting vitriol about "kids today". Daddy has a drink with the guy & flippantly says "I just killed one" and the roller coaster runs free. The rest of the movie rests on the idea of hiding the murder, yet everyone finds out. I have not screamed at a dumb charactor as much as I did with this one. The Dad was played well by charactor actor Dennis Patrick but almost every move he makes was written as if he was extremely stupid, not a smart, successful businessman. But yes, Boyle has a ton of screen time and shows his enormous talent (& his enormous body in one scene) which I really enjoyed despite the repugnancy. Sarandon's star power is evident even at this early stage in her career, the screen just sparkles when she's on. Despite the fact I find this movie's plot ridiculous, according to Wiki, an eerily similar scenario did happen and the film was quickly pulled out of distribution. Bette Davis Eyes!3 points
-
I just wanted to say about Killer's Kiss: Give it a try once with the sound OFF. The movie is so visually striking. Who needs the dialogue in this? The movie is not great overall, but the look is just endlessly striking. There are an endless number of shots that seem ready made to hang on the wall and stare at it.3 points
-
3 points
-
Cuban missile crisis movies: Thirteen Days (2000) Matinee (1993) The Missiles of October (1974)3 points
-
3 points
-
3 points
-
I am requesting a Summer Under the Stars tribute to handsome actor, Richard Egan.2 points
-
2 points
-
Lane, Elizabeth -- played by Barbara Stanwyck in CHRISTMAS IN CONNECTICUT (1945)2 points
-
2 points
-
2 points
-
The Bridges at Toko-Ri (1954) Next: Chester Morris, Lewis Stone, Walter Brennan2 points
-
2 points
-
2 points
-
2 points
-
2 points
-
Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask (1972) Next: another with a long title2 points
-
2 points
-
Our eleventh pre-code star is BEBE DANIELS She and Douglas Fairbanks were both REACHING FOR THE MOON (1930): She enjoyed a COCKTAIL HOUR (1933) with Randolph Scott. And she found love with Dick Powell on 42ND STREET (1933):2 points
-
2 points
-
2 points
-
ALL THROUGH THE NIGHT (1942) Next: Jane Darwell, John Boles and Rosalind Russell2 points
-
2 points
-
2 points
-
2 points
-
2 points
-
2 points
-
2 points
-
Blue Skies - Ethel Merman and Alice Faye in Alexander's Ragtime Band ( one of my fav songs ever) another wonderful song written by Irving Berlin2 points
-
THE PARALLAX VIEW (1974) Next: John Wayne, Vera Ralston and Walter Brennan2 points
-
First here Cid, the OP did in fact make it pretty darn clear what they didn't want to see on TCM. Read their post again and I'm pretty sure you'll see what they DON'T want to see on this channel are the TCM hosts doing things like their "history lessons" about "problematic" films which have run this past week. I'm SURE that THIS was why they were prompted to state their complaint. No, I do NOT think it had anything to do with the films TCM is showing of late, and because if it DID, I'm again sure that they would have mentioned not liking any movie presented made past the time the studio system ceased to exist, and which is of course another reoccurring theme that "One-Post Wonders" tend to come on here and complain about. This "OPW" just wanted to "be entertained" and I'm SURE not be "lectured to" and ESPECIALLY by whom they consider to be "Liberals" about the narratives contained within those "problematic" movies. You know, those Liberals who, as I'm ALSO sure the OP believes, have contributed to "America's moral decay" and "government overreach". And, I'm SURE of THIS because of their very last line in their OP and where they state: "As we watch our nation slowly sink into the abyss of moral decay and government control, preserve for us these treasured glimpses into years that are forever lost." (...and, I'd be very VERY surprised IF our latest "OPW" here ever returns to clarifiy their thoughts for you, BUT now that I HAVE...you're welcome!)2 points
-
As usual, everyone has missed the obvious point - the poster is simply requesting that Marie Osmond films should be shown.2 points
-
2 points
-
2 points
-
Our eleventh child star (teen star) is SAL MINEO He was 16 when he appeared in REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE (1955), though he certainly looks younger: He was typecast as delinquents and played another one in THE YOUNG DON'T CRY (1957): He was always a memorable performer.2 points
-
Gog is available on YouTube, with Egan playing a government agent investigating sabotage, although Herbert Marshall steals the show with a flamethrower. Untamed is also available on YouTube, with Egan playing against type in that one. I'd like to see 300 Spartans.2 points
-
That reminds me of an experience I had in Pittsburgh back in the late 1980's. I had lived in a 2nd floor duplex for several years in one of the City of Pittsburgh neighborhoods but decided to move to a bigger place a few miles away. I had to arrange to sublet my duplex since my lease would not be up for a few months and my landlord asked me to deal with finding a new tenant. So, I put an ad in the newspaper and the first people who came to look at the duplex were a young black couple, both of whom worked for the University of Pittsburgh as instructors/adjunct professors. (My neighborhood was probably 15 minutes from where several universities are located so it was an extremely convenient location for university personnel to live.) They were very nice people and they told me they had a 4 year old but the duplex had 3 bedrooms so, no problem there. I told them that they could have the place but they would have to contact the real estate company to fill out the appropriate paperwork to finalize the deal. The next day they called me at work. They told me that they had gone to the real estate office to fill out the paperwork and were told that they could not rent my place since the owner did not want to rent to people with kids. I said: "Well, that's very interesting because the people in the 1st floor duplex have 1 child and 1 on the way." The next thing that happened is that several neighbors (who had never spoken to me before) started knocking on my door and telling me that there was no way I should be trying to "rent to some _____ couple." I was completely flabbergasted. I had no idea that I was living in a neighborhood of bigots but clearly I was. Then, my landlord contacted me and asked me what I thought I was doing, attempting to rent "his property" to a black couple. OMG. So, I called the Pittsburgh Fair Housing Authority and reported both my landlord and the real estate company and let the couple know. Unfortunately, it was going to take months for the Housing Authority to investigate and act on this discrimination so the couple ended up having to find another place to live. So not fair. But, I swear, I was mind blown. In all my years of living in Pittsburgh I had never imagined people could think or act this way. This wasn't the 1920's in Alabama, this was the 1980's in Pittsburgh. Like Joanna, I was raised to believe that "everybody was equal" so I never gave "prejudice" a thought. I wasn't prejudiced so I assumed everybody else was the same way. Clearly that is not the case, but "you are how you were raised." So, like TikiSoo, Joanna's attitude always seemed completely plausible to me.2 points
-
Sunday, March 14/15 4:15 a.m. Il Bidone (1955). Broderick Crawford and Richard Basehart star in this Federico Fellini film.2 points
-
I loved Bebe Daniels in the "Lonesome Luke" silent films she appeared in with Harrold Lloyd. I also thought she was great in COUNSELLOR AT LAW, RIO RITA and as the original Miss Wonderly in the 1931 version of THE MALTESE FALCON. Did you know Ms Daniels was likely the first screen "Dorothy" in the 1910 version of THE WONDERFUL WIZARD OF OZ? No screen credits survive, so it's not official, but it is generally regarded that it is indeed her.1 point
-
HE MARRIED HIS WIFE (1940) Next: FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT (1940) Two non-westerns with Joel McCrea.1 point
-
Of Human Bondage (1934) Next: Since You Went Away (1944) more directed by John Cromwell1 point
-
1 point
-
Glad you screened it. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Yes, I believe it was missing for decades then found/restored. Lorre is fourth-billed but leaves a strong impression. I love the part where he wants to cause an "accident" for another man, using a speedboat to try and kill him. Lorre plays it with caution but also with a bit of levity, that this man is so absurd we can't possibly take him seriously. Another thing I love about this film is that we get these offbeat tangents with assorted beach people that are interspersed throughout the story. Like the domineering wife, played by Kathleen Harrison, and her henpecked husband. At first she doesn't want to have anything to do with him, like she'd rather be on vacation without him. But then gradually we see her change her stance and eventually they are having a pleasant time together. It felt like these were real people all intermingling, dealing with their own dramas, during that one eventful day along the seashore.1 point
-
1 point
-
1 point
-
1 point
-
1. Wasn't the gist of the storyline to relate the story of Scarlett O'Hara and how her world(self centered as it was) was turned upside down and how she adapted and endured, but only to wind up not really too much changed for the better in the end? And not necessarily a condemnation of slavery? Look. By the time the book and movie hit the public, most Americans knew of the blot on America's history slavery was. And I don't think anyone with a working brain thought the movie "endorsed" slavery. And just how would displaying ugly scenes of slavery brutality support the treatise of Scarlett's tribulations? 2. Seems to me in the Antebellum South the socio-economic system was based on cotton and tobacco. Maybe a few other crops. Slavery was just(to them) a way to produce those resources cheaply. That to eradicate the practice of slavery and the slave trade was the main cause of the civil war, that had little bearing on showing the effect the war had on Southern non-combatants(you know, just plain citizens). One might have thought that the striking scene of Scarlett walking through a train yard littered with the wounded and dying bodies of Confederate soldiers, most who weren't slaveholders to begin with would have proven to people of the folly to defend such a practice as slavery. And to show how wealthy plantation owners lived in the Antebellum South doesn't mean they "laud" it. Although I can't say the same for BIRTH OF A NATION. But then it's only one example of "problematic" film history. What about westerns? and the similar(to you) silent endorsement of the treatment of women and Native Americans? Why no outrage about that? Too small of a BANDWAGON? That in many old "classic" Westerns prostitutes were "masked" as "saloon girls" who were shown sitting around looking pretty with big smiles on their faces while many smelly, drunken saddle tramps pawed them and bought them drinks(which usually meant two at a time, one for her and one for him of which he'd wind up drinking both) . And that those girls had not much other choices in order to survive? Or else become brood mares for their menfolk? It all was just another form of the slavery you're so lathered about. But they're white men and they're just women, so that makes it OK? And while everyone insists on crying over Japanese citizens being placed into interment camps during WWII(which of course WAS another blot on American history), what about the westward movement of white Europeans (originally) encroaching on indigenous native land, pushing them off as if the white guys owned it and the placing of those natives in reservations that at best were only twice as miserable as the Japanese camps. And the fostering the notion that their attempts to save and keep their land made them "murderous savages"? Who, in reality, were the real savages? But you know... Much of that doesn't bother me since a Western in which the story is of a man trying to leave his past as a gunslinger behind has no connection to the brutal treatment foisted on Native Americans by the White man . But genocide of indigenous natives doesn't, to some, seem to be as bad or worse than having slaves do all the work. Sepiatone1 point
-
In what world does Dionne Warwick belong in Rock & Roll Hall of Fame this is lunacy.1 point
-
Endless cancel culture. And now a panel of "experts" pontificating and clucking their tongues. I'd be more worried about the endless glorification and cartoonification of violence in comic book movies than stereotypes in old movies.1 point
-
slaytonf, I respond to two responses... 1. Uh, yes, I do. Before you just flat tell me, "No, I dont", I am not referring to myself. I am referring to our current cancel culture bringing up "Blazing Saddles." They are not seeing what you are pointing out to me. 2. I believe many other races and cultures were in movies where they didn't have a problem with the material or did see the comedy / message in it. And Richard Pryor and Cleavon Little were in an OK position to turn down one movie. You are assuming that they both were so determined to work, they would bend their morals or beliefs. I dont think either of them were so hard up that they just had to get "Blazing Saddles."1 point
