Members

Somewhere over the Rainbow (written by Harold Arlen who came from WNY, which is where I live) Rainbows on Roses (My Favorite Things) from The Sound of Music. Reading Rainbow (PBS Show hosted by Levar Burton)

RAINBOW VALLEY, 1935 80s cartoon RAINBOW BRITE RAINBOW'S END, 1935 RAINBOW JACKET, 1954 RAINBOW OVER THE RANGE, 1940 CHASING RAINBOWS, 1930 Judy Garland - "I'm always chasing rainbows" - ZIEGFELD GIRL

Kermit - "Rainbow Connection" - MUPPET MOVIE EVITA went on the "Rainbow Tour"

John Sebastian sings "Rainbows All Over Your Blues" in Woodstock (1970)

I am sorry that you did not enjoy it to a great degree. I had not thought to warn that it is a movie for someone who can simply luxuriate in it. It does go on for twenty minutes and a few seconds prior to anyone being shot. I am a great lover of caper movies and this movie has an excellent one in it but I do not feel that that is truly the point of it. A person can stay warm with a sip of hot coffee and wrapping themselves in a cheap little space blanket. This is a long bubble bath and crawling into an eider-down duvet sort of movie.

Sheridan, Ann

"We will barf no wine before its time!"

Lots of food for thought. I'm a little puzzled why you'd advise against going to documentary movies for history, but to go to books and the library instead. I don't see why a book would automatically be more reliable than a good documentary, especially since a film can provide a fuller visual context. There are any number of history books which have had to be reevaluated over the years. On the whole, I'm probably more susceptible to superficial diversion than you are. I can actually enjoy improbable historical scenarios, especially if they're done with total conviction. The best example I can think of is Douglas Sirk's Sign of the Pagan (1954), in which a Roman centurian shoulders the burden of saving the Roman Empire from Attila the Hun, including a mind-boggling scene in which Pope Leo crosses the river in a heavenly mist to dissuade the attackers from sacking Rome. I'm willing to lower my expectations for the pleasure a movie like that gives me. I agree with you that films are generally a product of the time they were made in, regardless of the era they depict. You're going to think that I'm the airiest of airheads, but the first thing that came to mind was Harlow (1965), which had a palpable 1960's vibe in just about every aspect, including a score by Neal Hefti, famous for the TV Batman theme. There's a producer's Hollywood home which is totally the Playboy Mansion, complete with a rainforest in the bedroom. It's a complete desecration of one of the iconic actresses of the Twentieth Century. They barely even tried, except for the painted-on mole on her cheek. In terms of the persistent conventions of storytelling, I think we have to take into consideration the visual aspect too. Gone are the days when Fred Astaire could insist on a full-figure shot that featured his whole frame for the duration of a dance number. I think the assumption is that audiences no longer tolerate that kind of thing, but I wonder how much of that is really filmmakers trying to justify their own tendencies. It's generally (thankfully, not totally) slice-and-dice now, anchored by a frenetic music score.

"The Lost Continent" (1968) this maybe the craziest movie Hammer ever produced based on a Dennis Wheatley novel but it feels as if they put three different scripts in the blender- you get a sea going drama plus a disaster movie plus man eating monsters plus the Spanish Inquisition! It's out on Blu Ray from Scream Factory- the trailer is flat but the actual film is wide screen

I'm not talking about the philosophical positions promoted, or critiqued, by the way the stories in movies play out--and there's plenty of them. I'm talking about observations, and conclusions I've made about the nature of movies from watching them. I expect people will disagree with me, but I've realized the contrary nature of the human race will lead it to just not recognize my brilliance: Movies can get worse, but they can't get better. This stands to reason. Creativity is no small feat. It's easy to have a spark of an idea, but developing it, fleshing it out, making it sparkle and delight, is another matter. I'm sorry to say most of the people involved in moviemaking just don't have it. And the ones that do, well, even they aren't always successful. I can already hear the objections. How can I know it's true? Can't a movie stumble at first, then start to hit on all cylinders. Well, I've tested it. I used to slog my way through the most horrible dreck. Dutifully spending seventy, ninety minutes and more of the precious time I have here in deference to the movie gods, until I came to the realization that when I feel like I'm chewing on cardboard, or have this almost intolerable urge to leap up off the sofa and run heedlessly out of the house, that I might better change the channel, or dust mop my floors. As a corollary, I will say that every movie has something good in it. A bit of dialog, or action, or direction, or something. But it is also true that it is not worth enduring all the other worthless minutes to find it. And then to remember it, you will have to make a note, and catalog the notes to remember why you should watch it again. Another demi-corollary is that if a movie I'm not impressed by has an actor in it I like, but does not show up right away, I'll wait to see what sort of difference they make when they come on (usually none). I'll also give a director I like the benefit of the doubt, for a while. This maxim has saved me countless wasted hours. If I'm not engaged, or I'm actively repelled by a movie in the first few minutes, I turn it off. Sometimes I don't even get through the credits. Don't get your history from movies. I've said this often other places. I wasn't the first to say it. Others have said it many times. The reason being, it's true. Don't go to documentary movies, either. Even cinema verité. You want history, go to a library, go to the books, go to the sources. Movies are entertainment. And by that I don't mean just superficial diversion. Powerful and moving stories are also entertainment. They have to be, otherwise people wouldn't watch 'em. Regardless of the time they depict, movies are always about the time they were made in. The example that comes first to mind to illustrate this is M*A*S*H (1970). Ostensibly about the Korean War, nobody doubts it's anti-war, anti-establishment message directly related to the Vietnam War and the rejection of the conventional american myth that grew out of the 60s. You can have Marie Antoinette sip chocolate out of the finest china, you can have a centurion kicking up sand in the Levant, you can have intergalactic battles fought thousands of years in the future. But it's all about when the movie was made. The mores, the culture, the ideas and conventions that were around at the time will shape and color the movie. You can also see this in movies that have had many remakes over time, like the A Star is Born movies. And some often readapted literature, like The Three Musketeers. This leads to the next observation, that: The more things stay the same, the more they change. This is a little harder to get a handle on. Comparing production code movies with more recent ones highlights the changes in our culture,. But it's surprising how persistent the conventions of storytelling are. And they're not always what you would assume. Of course, today movies are much more explicit in language, sex, and violence. Things that were severely frowned on in the past now pass without comment, and things that used to be accepted uncritically are now anathema. Everyone can make their own list. And they don't all relate to race and abortion. An example that comes to mind is from Shakespeare in Love (1998). Despite portraying the Bard in an adulterous affair without any scruple, the same old messages about the aristocracy are perpetuated. Shakespeare and Viola's continued relationship is impossible because the obligations of her class force her into a loveless arranged marriage. Think of The Swan (1956), and One Romantic Night (1930). An actor can make the difference. An otherwise uninteresting, or downright unwatchable movie can be made not only entertaining, but great by the performance of an actor. It doesn't happen often, but it can. For instance, Random Harvest (1942). It's a romance movie, which I almost always loathe, being even more formulaic than slasher movies. It has a plot that requires a suspension of disbelief that could give someone a hernia. And it's one of the favorite movies in my rotation. Why? Because of a performance. In this case, two performances, Greer Garson and Ronald Colman. It's been said that the mark of a great actor is the ability to read the entries of a phone book and make it engaging. Well, these two top that by a mile. They recite the lines of this script and make it painless to watch. Even more. They make it enjoyable. Gene Wilder does the same in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. A movie entirely worthless (except for a decent song: Pure Imagination), is brought to life by his performance.

THE MATING SEASON (1951)

1935

This is so tragic. It happened just a few blocks from where I live. We have a big election coming up in NYC -- primary next week -- and I've told all the candidates I've met that some control of the bicycles and motorized scooter-type vehicles in New York should be a priority.

My Mother the Car

HIT THE DECK (1955)

Here is Django with Beryl Davis:

Under the Rainbow 1981 Pocketful of Rainbows from G.I. Blues film 1960 (Elvis Presley)

I think I would have to go with Montgomery Clift here. I base that on what movies of these three guys would I want to watch most and my choice would be Red River and From Here to Eternity with Montgomery Clift. As far as most impactful actor, I would say Marlon Brando.

Edwards, Ethan , John Wayne in the Searchers(1956)

All shown to death on TCM.......

Athena

The Serpent and the Rainbow (1988) Niagara (1953) Marilyn Monroe & Joseph Cotten stayed in the Rainbow Cabins She's a Rainbow by the Rolling Stones

And he puts his money where his mouth is. He's done so much to help film preservation and film-related causes. When he speaks (or compiles a list) it comes from a lifetime love of (and study of) film. As someone who's made a career of making films and who's made a sterling reputation for himself in the process, he can be trusted to make careful, thoughtful choices. His incredible range also qualifies him to speak. Some of his forays into the darker side of human nature are difficult for me to watch, but I'm amazed by his ability to also interpret more cerebral material like The Age of Innocence and Kundun. Back in the early 2000's TCM aired a three-hour program called My Voyage in Italy, Scorsese's personal tribute to and remembrance of the pillars of Italian cinema. It was loving, generous and insightful and I wish TCM would revisit it. So many of us here have taken a whack at posting 10 Best Lists that I don't think we should complain when an acknowledged master takes his turn.

I’m seeing this movie tomorrow night at the Paramount Theater in Austin, TX tomorrow. They just happen to be holding a Classic Film Summer Festival while I’m here for work. I saw “To Catch a Thief” there on Sunday.

Archer, Anne

Portland Exposé (1957)

Pillow Talk (1959)

Vaughn, Robert

Dead of Night aka Deathdream 1974. Directed by Bob Clark. With John Marley, Lynn Carlin, Richard Backus. A married couple receives news that their son is killed in Vietnam, but soon thereafter the son appears at their door. The movie has some good moments, especially a scene between the soldier and the doctor, and another between the soldier and his girlfriend, but director Clark is so focused on making a horror movie that any anti-war message and the plight of veterans with PTSD are lost. The combination of genres didn't work for me. Not very good, but watchable.

Thomas, Danny

High School Confidential! (1958)

Fiesta (1947)

The Doughgirls (1944)

‘Sunset Blvd.’ Turns 70: Nancy Olson on Wilder, Holden and Why She Walked Away From Stardom The 91-year-old, who was Oscar-nominated for her portrayal of a script reader who falls in love with a kept man, looks back on the film that she says "haunts my entire life." https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/sunset-blvd-star-nancy-olson-wilder-holden-why-she-walked-away-stardom-1290825/

Yes, the film is rather slow going before the plot kicks in and relies too much on the charisma of its stars. I noticed this more this time around. I kept thinking this type of movie wouldnt have been made a few years later once the 60's movie revolution kicked in. It was one of the last of its kind. I still enjoy it though. It was really the last of Audrey's clothes horse films. (Dressed to the nines in every scene) I don't count the execrable Sidney Sheldon's Bloodline made in the late 70s) In her last 2 films in 67. Audrey dressed down. No Givenchy. It's never explained what sort of job Audrey has in the film (she mentions she has one, but you never see her working). She must've been making big bucks to afford those outfits!

House of Dracula (1945) It was the end of the line for the monster franchise at Universal when the studio decided to reunite some fairly tired monsters once again for this sporadically enjoyable concoction. Dracula (a top hatted John Carradine) comes a visitin' Dr. Edelmann (Onslow Stevens) at his castle, hoping that the good doctor can find a medical cure for his vampirism. Soon afterward Larry Talbot, aka the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr.) also pops in, hoping the doctor can do the same for his hirsute issues whenever there is a full moon. And it won't take long before the doctor will also stumble across Frankenstein's Monster (Glenn Strange), lying in a dormant state in a cave near his castle. The doctor is soon performing frequent blood transfusions on Dracula while working on a formula to help Talbot. As for the Frankenstein Monster, it is agreed to just let sleeping monsters lie (though he does haul him up into his laboratory). Assisting Dr. Edelmann is Nina (Jane Adams), his faithful nurse, who is also hoping that one day the doctor may be able to do something about that hunch on her back. Martha O'Driscoll is another nursing assistant of the doctor. She feels for Talbot's anguish but, unfortunately, she also captures Dracula's hypnotic eye. Dracula wants to be cured, alright, but, spot a pretty girl and, well, you know, old neck biting habits die hard. Perhaps ticked that the doctor interrupted a session he was about to have with the nurse, Dracula will reverse the flow of one of his blood transfusions with the doctor which, in turn, will cause Dr. Edelmann to start turning a little monstrous himself. Everything about this production is very familiar and predictable for those horror fans who had seen the previous monster combination flicks in the series (Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man and, particularly, House of Frankenstein). However, the moody black and white photography of the impressive sets is first rate, as well as the musical score (an uncredited William Lava). Onslow Stevens, once his doctor's character starts to turn mad or whatever he is, arguably has the most effective scenes in the film, brief as they are. The doctor will also have an effective nightmare montage sequence, which involves all the monsters in the film, including a clip taken of Karloff from Bride of Frankenstein. Glenn Strange's Frankenstein Monster is the least utilized monster in the film and the picture will wrap up very quickly once he pops off those straps on his arms and chest on his lab table and starts stomping around. Oh, yes, the villagers will also get upset with the goings on at the castle (have you heard this one before?) and storm the place. Finally, Lionel Atwill is also in the cast, sadly largely wasted as a police official (a reprise, of sorts, of his memorable turn in Son of Frankenstein, only this time with two arms). This was one of Atwill's final roles, as the actor would die the following year. As I said, House of Dracula was the last of the line for the "serious" Universal monster films, to be brought back one final time three years later when they met up with Abbott and Costello for a surprisingly memorable finale. 2 out of 4

Ha! What a great job! I got to know the MCA distributer in my region as a teen & he kept me in fabulous used/discarded promo posters. I still have all the old Elton John ones-my favorite an early one of Elton in an authentic Nudie suit. Haha I have an '81 Tom Petty backstage pass but I don't remember ever seeing a Tom Petty concert, nor meeting him or the band. I also have a 1982 Police Pass & remember the show, (reggae band opened) but don't remember meeting them either. I was not inebriated, but most likely just wasn't interested enough to meet them. I recall some story many years ago about a cache of previously unknown Judy Garland recordings found in an RCA warehouse in Albany, do you know anything about that? I imagined they were uncovered in this building which still stands proudly in Albany, right on Broadway:

Is it only me, or does this shot of young Jimmy almost look like a Norman Rockwell painting?

Poppy (1936)

Froman, Jane, played by Susan Hayward in "With a Song in My Heart"

There is a lot of good history in some non-documentary movies, you just need to know what's factual and what isn't. Best to check the facts. I'm watching Becket at the moment, a film I have not seen in years. There are many inaccuracies, the worst being making Becket a Saxon, and making that so important to the plot. Becket was pure Norman. In fact, it was Henry II who was of some Saxon lineage, through his grandmother, who was descended from the kings of Wessex. That's an egregious example of messing with history. However, many films do present, at least in part, real history as part of the plot. Henry II going to Becket's tomb to be whipped by monks is factual. Documentaries are as reliable as books, which can also be fallible. Regarding Random Harvest (which I love), I think it's a great film on all counts, a perfect example of the magic of the old Hollywood. The performances are indeed great. For me, Slayton's point does not apply: I could not enjoy a film with great performances if I did not like the film. To another of Slayton's points: Movies are not alone in generally being (to some extent) about the time they were made. Albert Schweitzer wrote a classic book, The Search for the Historical Jesus. Schweitzer's point is that each culture and generation creates Jesus in their image, not as Jesus actually was, i.e. a Jewish man of the ancient Levant. A Scandinavian (or African) painting that makes Jesus look like the natives of those regions is doing what Slayton says that films do: making them about the time and image of the creators of the work. One of my favorite films, The Subject Was Roses, depicts a Bronx family at the end of World War II. It does that beautifully. Their apartment could have been my grandmother's apartment. The film really has the feel of the old New York of my grandparents' time, and my parents' youth. But Patricia Neal's hairstyle is pure 1960s. There is also a brilliant location shot at the beginning of the film, when Patricia Neal walks in the Bronx neighborhood. That street conjures up the Bronx of old, because they picked a street that hasn't changed. Except for the lamp post. It was of the style added to NYC streets at a later period than the 1940s.

The first time I saw this film was at a Revue Cinema. Let me know what you think about Stanley's part being a supporting one. I thought it was but of course Brando being a marquee name went into the lead category.

And here I always thought her career petered out by the mid-'70s was because of her squeaky-clean image and during a time a counter-culture zeitgeist had replaced much of it in both film and in real life. In other words, her inability to shake such an image. (...remember, this was during a time in which Disney movies and anything associated as "clean cut" became very "un-hip")

It's not too unusual to use a church as a recording facility. CBS/Columbia converted an old Presbyterian church into their 30th Street Studios in NYC. It was in operation until the early 1980s. It was considered to be one of the top recording studios of its era. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBS_30th_Street_Studio http://www.artsjournal.com/rifftides/Davis%20Evans%2030th.jpg

Couldn't find this image on the internet, so I scanned the "It's Alive 2" aka "It Lives Again" (1978) soundtrack LP I just purchased. Bernard Herrman conducting "It's Alive" (1974) score from inside a London church. Wow does the score requires holy water sprinkled like those mutant infants desperately needs? You can clearly see the stained glass window top center. Sorry for the half blurry image, LP jacket couldn't completely lay flat on the HP printer / scanner. Had no idea a soundtrack existed until a few weeks ago, only have the 2 Liverpool Express songs in the film.

Vale, Norma, played by Barbara Stanwyck in "There's Always Tomorrow"

"How To Make a Monster" (1958) Peter Dumond (Robert H Harris) a genius make up man hypnotizes two young actors Larry (Gary Clarke) and Tony (Gary Conway) into real life monsters to get rid of his enemies. Dumond and his "assistant" Rivero (Paul Brinegar) are gay coded and have a master/slave relationship , Dumond really loves working with the teen stars and one can only imagine what else he would have them do under hypnosis specially Conway- who started off his career posing for physique magazines. The film works as horror and there are a couple of good shocks . Larry and Tony have girlfriends but they act like a couple too- in the films climax they tell Dumond who wants to take their "measurement" that they can't stay because they have a dinner date ( with each other ?! ) The camp highlight is a musical number with John Ashley . The films ends in"flaming color"