Members

Tarzan the Ape Man (1932) A Quiet Place (2018) Die Hard (1988) Lassie Come Home (1943)

Pane, Amore e Fantasia (1953) - Gina Lollobrigida Et Dieu... créa la femme (1956) - Brigitte Bardot Forbidden Planet (1956) - Anne Francis The Time Machine (1960) - Yvette Mimieux Barefoot in the Park (1967) - Robert Redford

The only characters I could think of that were always barefoot...The Flintstones others that were sometimes barefoot in memorable moments... Hank Azaria in The Birdcage (says shoes make him fall) Kim Novak, Bell Book and Candle Maureen O'Hara in The Parent Trap all the 'Beach Party' folks

Michael Parks Ulla Bergryd Franco Nero Richard Harris The Bible: In the Beginning 1966 Charlton Heston Linda Harrison Planet of the Apes 1968

Carole Landis in One Million BC 1940 Raquel Welch in One Million BC 1966 Ursula Andress in Dr No 1962 Claudine Auger in Thunderball 1965

Paulette Goddard in Modern Times (1936) Katharine Hepburn in Spitfire (1934) Jodie Foster in Nell (1994) Leslie Parrish in Li'l Abner (1959) Jean-Pierre Cargol in The Wild Child (1970) Brendan Fraser in George of the Jungle (1997)

Anne Of The Thousand Days (1969) TCM 7/10 King Henry VIII (Richard Burton) seeks to divorce his wife Catherine to marry the young Anne Boleyn (Genevieve Bujold) I just re watched this for the first time in many years. Burton is great as the selfish, obsessive King. But Bujold steals the show as the feisty Anne. She may the most beautiful actress to play this role and makes her a very complex character. We are never sure of her motives in finally agreeing to marry Henry. She seems vengeful at times, a little devious (is she lying or telling the truth in her powerful final scene with the King), she can also appear to be sweet and tender, she tells Henry she truly loves him at one point, but it is true? The film drags a bit at times (145 minute long) but still engrossing. An interesting tidbit is Elizabeth Taylor has a cameo but is seen only behind a mask at a palace ball. She had wanted to keep an eye on husband Burton who often had affairs with his leading ladies. Bujold did not confirm or deny that she and Burton had an affair, she seemed to delight in driving Taylor crazy about it. When Bujold accepted a Golden Globe for her performance she cheekily thanked Richard Burton for" everything he did for her,". while Taylor stared daggers at her from the audience.

I love many of Powel's films but I really have a soft spot for Godfrey in "My Man Godfrey". I love how Godfrey teaches the rich, spoiled (and unhinged) family a few lessons while playing their servant.

I'm doing a Lorna here, which is to say I'm writing two different posts about the same thing rather than one looong one. Easier on the eyes, the brain, and the attention span that way. Ok, first: I have no problem with the "unbelievable" phenomenon of two men looking exactly alike -- in the same city, to boot ! I don't care, I "go with" the implausibility of it because the story is entertaining and fits in other ways, so I can exercise my well-used suspension of disbelief. Plus, as Hibi points out, there are many noirs which are unrealistic, and in fact, there are many movies, period, that are ( unrealistic.) If everything else in the film is well-done, acting, writing, cinematography, etc., I don't mind a little implausibility thing along the way. Lots to like in Hollow Triumph: The performances, especially Joan Bennett's. Hibi's right, it's about time TCM made her Star of the Month. She's so good, I enjoy her in every thing I've seen her in. And she's especially good in this film. That's partly because she's given such interesting lines to say, and because she's a three-dimensional character. Smart, cynical, quick, yet somehow also sweet. That final scene where she's looking for Henreid from the ship, hoping against hope that he'll turn up, is heart-breaking. You really want her to find out that the man she thinks has let her down was killed, that he was in fact on his way to join her. But of course we don't know if she ever does. Henreid's good in this too, although once or twice he's just a leetle over-the-top, especially in his speech to Joan about how crummy life can be, or something. But still, I like this actor. I enjoy his blond good looks and his Austrian accent. I don't know how hard-core noir fans wouldn't appreciate some of the lines in this film, especially Joan's "It's a bitter little world" speech. And the scene in which the brother talks to Henreid about how he always wanted to come out on top, no matter what he had to do to get there, all about how hard and self-centred he is, also felt very noir to me. And ya gotta love John Alton's beautiful black and white cinematography, so full of shadows and back streets and lamp light. Plus the on location settings. Like that Angel's Flight funicula (sp?), which , as others here have noted, has appeared in quite a few other noirs. As for the "scar on the wrong side of the face" thing, it's just a distraction, you realize it doesn't really matter. When we find out Henreid's character had a backwards negative, we go, "oh no, this is going to be bad" ! But nope, nobody notices, Except the cleaning lady. It's nice the way John Muller is moved by the fact that she noticed, she's the only one who did, and he almost tenderly tells her so. But it's true, people don't notice those kinds of details in others, possibly because most people are too busy thinking about their own appearance to pay much attention to others'. I didn't think it was corny that the film made a point of that, that nobody noticed the scar was on the wrong cheek. I kind of liked that nobody noticed -- not even Joan. (although Joan definitely notices something's amiss with the good doctor...) One more thing: I'm disappointed that the two Paul Henreids never meet. Ok, the doctor gets into the car that John Muller's providing for him, but he never even looks at Muller (obnoxious snob, you don't feel too sorry for him when he's offed.) I wanted a scene where Muller's poking around in Bartok's office and the doctor walks in and encounters his doppelganger face-to-face. That would have been fun. I also think it's a little odd that nobody who knows about these two "twins", unrelated as they are, ever talks about how very strange this is, and how could two people look so exactly alike when they're not twins, etc, etc. Joan and Muller himself just seem to accept it. But then again, one thing I like about classic noirs is that they get in, tell their story, and get out, usually in under 90 minutes. A screenplay that included philosophical speculations on the strangeness of such an occurance would serve no purpose to the story, and make it longer. And we don't want that.

I don't dislike Lynch's films but they're annoying like an itch that's just out of reach. As you said his movies are surreal like getting to peek beyond the veil into someone's fever dream. I always feel like I'm just on the edge of understanding but I just can't clear that final bit of debris that's blocking me from the big picture. Infuriating but I can't stop watching. You nailed it on the head, fascinating! Carnival of Souls however I enjoy very much! In my opinion it's the greatest Horror film ever made. Perfect proof that true horror doesn't need big budgets, special effects, state of the art equipment, and most especially not blood and gore. If you can get inside their head, be it book or film, you can scare the bejeebers out of them! Rob Zombie claims he's a big fan of Carnival also. His movies tell me he might have watched it but he didn't understand it.

I've seen a few Burton movies that are from his later years. WILD GEESE, The (1978-UK) is pretty good. Stewart Granger is a double-crossing muthafocka in this action pic! ABSOLUTION (1978-UK) was a decent movie. LIES! Filthy stinking LIES! I've already mentioned THE MEDUSA TOUCH (1978-UK) but I'll mention it again: Don't pysse (sic) off a telekinetic Burton! You'll Pay! HAMMERSMITH IS OUT (1972) is worth watching once, I think, just to check it out. Burton is a crazy mental patient in this one. With Miss Liz, Beau Bridges and Peter Ustinov. CIRCLE OF TWO (1980-Canadian) is ok. Considering the plot of the movie it could a very exploitive film, but it's not. You see Tatum topless for a couple of seconds and then Burton insists she get dressed. That's it for 'exploitation elements'. There's 2 versions of this movie; each version has different footage not seen in the other; one version is not simply a 'cut' version of the other. The music score is different, too, plus the ending is different in both. BRIEF ENCOUNTER (1974-UK Tvm). I've yet to read a positive review of this Sophia Loren/Richard Burton remake of the '45 film, but it's the only movie I can think of where the word "furtive" is used! So that's gotta count for something, right? Heck, even the U.S. Magnetic Video Corporation VHS release makes use of the word "furtive" on its plot summary. Sophia Loren says later in the movie how her relationship has grown "dirty" and "furtive"! 😲 (Say it ain't so . . . but 'tis). → So remember everyone: Don't let the word 'F-U-R-T-I-V-E' end up in the scrap heap of history! Use it in a sentence today! You'll be glad you did! 🤪

The Yellow Rolls Royce

Carnival of Souls. Right, Dargs, that makes a lot of sense. I'm happy to say I own a copy of that strange and rare visit to the otherworld. Is she dead or alive, or somewhere in between? Nothing seems real - yet sometimes, kind of sort of, it does. Those kind of films, Carnival of Souls, Mulholland Drive, ... I think they're most enjoyed ( if you can apply a word like "enjoy" to them) when you just let go and don't try to figure them out, just float on the feeling, just experience a visit to another world.

Interesting examples yesterday. two thousand one hundred fifty-second category Character is often barefoot THE BAREFOOT BOY (1923) THE ADVENTURES OF HUCKLEBERRY FINN (1939) THE BAREFOOT EXECUTIVE (1971)

With apologizes to many other greats, Burton is my choice for best actor of the twentieth century. He gives fantastic performances in many of his films, and he can even save a dud or sometimes be the only worthwhile part of it. I recently spent roughly two hours watching 1968's Candy, for which is difficult to drum up any support, even as a product of its time with an interesting cast. Thank goodness for Burton, who manages to be the best part of this dreck. I love Burton's work in My Cousin Rachel, Look Back in Anger, The Night of the Iguana, Anne of the Thousand Days, Becket, and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf. Burton and Deborah Kerr's scenes in ...Iguana are such perfection, and I think those two help Ava Gardner to give a better than usual performance. His work opposite Peter O'Toole in Becket is where I began to realize that there probably isn't a better actor than Burton. Even when the film isn't my favorite, such as The Spy Who Came in from the Cold or The Sandpiper, he's still reliably wonderful. I love when, as Louis Jordan is taking Elizabeth Taylor away from him in The VIP's, Burton calls him "Gigolo! Buffoon! Diner-outer! Notorious Sponge!" That was so funny I had to memorize it. (Jordan is no slouch in the scene either.) I just watched Equus for the first time and I can't imagine what it would be without Burton. I'll be catching up on the war films that were part of Burton day. I can't say I'm terribly excited to watch them, but they must be part of my film education. I regret that I was born too late to see this giant on the stage.

I have listed suggestions for many of the daily themes for September in the At-A-Glance schedule that was posted yesterday. Please refer to: http://escapepress.com/tcmsched/tcm_overview.html At this time there are still many gaps in the schedule (marked 'TBA' in the document). I will fill these in as information is provided.

I found him quite funny in introducing Tickle Me, when he quoted the cheesey copy from the poster and paused just before the end to make two exaggerated gestures with his right hand, the kind of which apparently make at least one poster on here hate him. Then he finished by saying "And now ... Tickle Me ... which also happens to be the name of the movie", which made me LOL.

Earlier forgot to bring full-circle:

The Petrified Forest 1936

This film looks like a good candidate for TCM underground - Don't think I've every seen it at a theater or - given the subject matter- certainly not on TV !! https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20210802-why-x-rated-masterpiece-the-devils-is-still-being-censored Why X-rated masterpiece The Devils is still being censored By Adam Scovell2nd August 2021 Fifty years ago, Ken Russell's historical drama shocked the world with raw violence and mass ****. But it is a tour de force that deserves to be seen in full, writes Adam Scovell. T The late film director Ken Russell was the embodiment of outrageous cinema. From his early documentaries and biopics about famous composers for the BBC to feature films such as Women in Love (1969), The Music Lovers (1971) and Tommy (1975), Russell became one of Britain's most unique screen artists. More like this: – The history of 'shock' cinema – The most outrageous film ever made? – What makes a cult film? Today, one film of his above all others is still considered controversial: 1971's The Devils. Based on real events that occurred in a 17th-Century French town, it caused more than a few sleepless nights for the censors. The Devils centres on 17th Century French priest Father Urbain Grandier (Oliver Reed), who was accused of possessing nuns in the town of Loudun (Credit: Alamy) The Devils follows the fate of Loudun, a self-governing town under the temporary protection of the debonair, womanising priest Father Urbain Grandier (Oliver Reed). Cardinal Richelieu (Christopher Logue) plots with King Louis XIII (Graham Armitage) to take control, but their men, led by Baron De Laubardemont (Dudley Sutton), face strong opposition from Grandier. However, the obsessive lust for Grandier held by the town's abbess Sister Jeanne (Vanessa Redgrave) leads to the nun making a false accusation that he has possessed her, which the establishment exploit in order to oust him. Hysteria then unfolds among Loudun's Ursuline nuns, leading to a mass ****, a chaos for which Grandier is blamed. Charged with heresy and cavorting with devils, he undergoes a show trial which will only ever go one way. Russell became aware of the filmic potential of the story of the so-called "Loudon Possessions" through a 1960 play by John Whiting based on the same historical events. "He first saw it when it was on the London stage," Russell's partner Lisi Tribble Russell tells BBC Culture. "It inspired him to immediately research the text that the play was based on: Aldous Huxley's [novel] The Devils of Loudun." Impressed with Huxley's detailed interpretation, Russell started work on his script. Writing to the soundtrack of Krzysztof Penderecki's opera, based on the same events (as well as Sergei Prokofiev's The Fiery Angel, another work about religious hysteria) he adapted the story with equally fiery aplomb. Fifty years on from its release, The Devils is a film rightly celebrated for its artistry. Its startling array of performances, in particular Reed and Redgrave's, are some of the best British cinema has to offer. The film's score by British composer Peter Maxwell Davies is unique and haunting, and especially great considering it was his first. The visual style of the film is also stunning, in particular the sets designed by a young Derek Jarman, inspired by the Huxley line about Sister Jeanne's exorcism being akin to a "rape in a public lavatory". The Devils is a white-walled nightmare of a film with a horrifying wipe-clean aesthetic. Yet it was the theological, political and sexual content that landed Russell in hot water. The film's mixture of demented sexuality, raw violence and religious imagery was a heady mix, even by Russell's standards. Scenes of torture and death linger long after viewing, as does the pervading nihilistic atmosphere. Sex and death become so intertwined with the film's theological imagery that they feel inseparable by the end. And this is before considering the film's portrayal of the allegiance between the state and the church in achieving their violent, greedy aims. Fifty years on, the film still shocks, such that the Warner Bros studio has never released the full director's cut. Even in its censored state, the London Evening Standard critic Alexander Walker famously decried the film, as looking like the "masturbatory fantasies of a Roman Catholic Schoolboy." Such was the vitriol of Walker's review that he ended up on the BBC alongside Russell to discuss the film, only for the director to roll up a copy of Walker's own review and hit him over the head with it. One of the film's most stunning elements is the nightmarish white-walled sets designed by a young Derek Jarman (Credit: Alamy) As in the UK, The Devils was panned in the US. Roger Ebert wrote one of his most sarcastic reviews, giving the film zero stars. "Ken Russell has really done it this time", he sneered. Pauline Kael, another critic of Russell's work, was equally scathing in the New Yorker. Lisi remembers Russell's reaction. "He was stoic (with effort) in accepting that the critics attacked it, but reminders of certain reviews would make him bitterly wince for the rest of his life." A profound political statement Russell's frustration is understandable. Beyond the controversy, the film is a profound piece of work. The Devils is about many things but is chiefly a critique of power. Russell described the film as a conscious political statement. Its political zeal is also what saved it from an outright ban, the censors in the UK at least recognising the creative and intellectual aspects of the film. Darren Arnold, author of the monograph Devil's Advocate: The Devils, agrees that it is a work of real intellectual value. "Russell liked a bit of mischief and wasn't afraid to push a few buttons," he tells BBC Culture, "but, amidst the mayhem, The Devils contains a powerful and sincere message." The message is that outrage and heresy can be easily weaponised by the powerful. The film, however, ironically became a meta-comment on its own hysterical treatment as a blasphemous piece of work. The threat of violence towards any who disagree with the state authorities leads to many characters' collusion, pretending Grandier deserves his subsequent torture and public execution. It is a story of the gullible descending into a mob. "You have seduced the people in order to destroy them," shouts Grandier to the court when facing his charges. Truth is a scarce commodity in times of strife. As the film shows, death was already normalised in the town at the time of these events: Loudun was weakened by plague, inoculating people to the suffering of others. "There was death in the air, death, decadence and destruction," as Russell suggested in a 2012 DVD commentary on the film. It laid the way for a more organised political violence. Grandier's biggest mistake is to admit his imperfections, especially regarding his marriage to Madeleine (Gemma Jones). In breaking his vows of chastity, such an act of undiluted love is deemed just as blasphemous as the admittance of simpler carnalities. Flaws are utilised by those who cynically claim evangelical purity. The braying mob merely strengthens as he admits his human fallacy. Only an ultimate act of destruction will satiate their mania. It is a theme which feels depressingly timeless, from the countless historical scandals generated by art and culture in centuries gone by, to modern-day, social media-driven outrage. Another factor to consider in the narrative is sexual repression. Sister Jeanne's lust deranges her to such an extent that her playacting at possession may as well be genuine. Her desire is distorted into a destructive power. She responds easily to the lies she is fed, in particular those of Father Barre (Michael Gothard), a proto-hippy shaman deployed by Laubardemont to exorcise the nuns. He gains his own pleasure from the spread of deranged untruths and is a dark cipher of the hang-ups from the period of the film's production; a predatory cult leader akin to Charles Manson or Jim Jones. The momentum of violence grows beyond the control of those who stoked it. In the climactic scene, having been found guilty, Grandier is put on a pyre and refuses to confess his decreed sins to Father Mignon (Murray Melvin), in spite of the merciless destruction of his body. The virtue of the establishment figures, professing a desire to save his soul, collapses with the walls of the city which are destroyed on Laubardemont's orders. As we, the audience, knew, Grandier's damnation was all a ruse to destroy Loudun's independence. Malice succeeds by veiling itself in piety and social sanctity. Only ruins are left, as the film's stunning final shot shows, with Madeleine stumbling through the debris of what little remains. Father Barre (Michael Gothard), a shaman deployed to exorcise the nuns, bears a resemblance to the predatory cult leaders at the time of the film's production (Credit: Alamy) The ultimate testament to The Devils' power is the fact that Russell and his collaborators were to face an equally gruelling inquisition that exemplified exactly what the film was trying to explore. In telling Grandier's story, Russell caused as sensational a furore as the priest did with his defiance. Indeed, throughout the editing of The Devils, a strange parallel grew between Grandier and Russell. It seemed that their heresy became one and only their final paths differed. Where Grandier's body was the required sacrifice to appease the outraged on screen, Russell's control of the film was the victim. The censorship nightmare Even before The Devils found its way onto screens, its various edits were already raising concerns. Russell had an array of people to satisfy and editing it was a huge and tortuous undertaking considering the button-pushing nature of his filmmaking. The director had to keep the British Board of Film Censors (BBFC) and the American producers at Warner Bros content. It would be an impossible task. Russell found an unlikely ally in John Trevelyan, the outgoing secretary of the BBFC. Along with the BBFC president, Lord Harlech, Trevelyan was shown rough edits at Russell's request in the hope of it being passed with their amendments. Though uncertain about several of the film's more extreme segments, Trevelyan saw the earnest aims of Russell's project. "Thankfully Russell's sincerity wasn't lost on Harlech and Trevelyan – else we may not have seen the film at all," says Arnold. Russell reluctantly agreed to their suggested cuts in order to achieve the X certificate for British distribution. This made the film just possible to release in the censorious climate in the UK at the time, created in part by evangelical groups such as Mary Whitehouse's National Viewers' and Listeners' Association. Whitehouse had already caused Russell trouble around his BBC play Dance of the Seven Veils (1970) which was subsequently banned for its satirical portrayal of Richard Strauss' association with Nazism, thanks also to pressure put on BBC by the composer's estate. Another of Whitehouse's projects, the anti-permissive group The Festival of Light, quickly objected to the passing of The Devils by the BBFC and protested its screenings, organising an effective letter writing campaign to the new chief censor Stephen Murphy who had taken over from Trevelyan. The campaign succeeded, with several local authorities banning screenings in spite of the BBFC’s approved rating. "The thing I thought about The Devils is that, at the higher quality it was, the worse the blasphemy could have been," Whitehouse suggested in the 1995 documentary Empire of the Censors, "High quality doesn’t excuse blasphemy. Blasphemy is blasphemy full stop." The Motion Picture Association of America cut further still for its US release. The 111 minute British cut became the 108 minute US cut, in particular removing any imagery showing **** hair. Such was the severity of the editing that Russell called the US release "disjointed and incomprehensible". The cuts were haphazard and in particular broke the tempo of the film's **** centrepiece, the crescendo of heresy falling flat. "He was devastated by America's decision to release a butchered version of the film," Lisi recalls. "He felt their truncated version heightened the hysteria and destroyed much of the essential rhythm of the film." In the climactic scene, Grandier is put on a pyre and burnt to death as the final step in the King's ruse to destroy Loudun's independence (Credit: Alamy) One scene that escaped neither British nor American intervention is the "Rape of Christ" sequence, the finale to the ****, which sees a large statue of Christ assaulted by a variety of rampaging naked nuns. On top of that, a sequence in which Sister Jeanne **** with the charred femur of Grandier after his death was also removed in both US and UK versions. It was thanks to critic Mark Kermode, along with director Paul Joyce, that these two scenes, thought to be missing, were unearthed from an archive and reinstated by the film's original editor Michael Bradsell. However, in spite of renewed pressure for this full director's cut to be released, it remains unavailable. That's despite the fact that when members of the BBFC attended a special screening of the cut in 2002, they had no issue with the reinstated scenes. Various petitions for Warner Bros to release it are ongoing. According to Kermode, in a 2014 episode of his video blog Kermode Uncut, their last response suggested the film's "distasteful tonality" to be the barrier to its future re-release. Instead, audiences have to make do with the truncated versions: in the UK, the British cut can be viewed thanks to the 2012 BFI DVD release, while in the US, the 108 minute cut Russell was so unhappy with is available to stream on iTunes America. Despite its mistreatment by Warner Bros and, over the years, being difficult to access, The Devils continues to endure in the cinematic canon. This is largely thanks to the passion of its fans, from critics such as Kermode to filmmakers such as Alex Cox and Oscar-winner Guillermo del Toro. In 2014, del Toro called the continued treatment of the film a "true act of censorship." "Ken made his peace with it," Lisi concludes. "I imagine that from his greater vantage point in the cosmos, he undoubtedly hopes against hope that it will someday be declared acceptable as a significant contribution to world cinema and an example of his, Reed's and Redgrave's unique insight, talents and bravura." The only real outrage today regarding Ken Russell's The Devils is that this unparalleled British masterpiece is still unavailable to see as its director intended, even 50 years on. Love film and TV? Join BBC Culture Film and TV Club on Facebook, a community for cinephiles all over the world. If you would like to comment on this story or anything else you have seen on BBC Culture, head over to our Facebook page or message us on Twitter. And if you liked this story, sign up for the weekly bbc.com features newsletter, called The Essential List. A handpicked selection of stories from BBC Future, Culture, Worklife and Travel, delivered to your inbox every Friday.

Hey, it's kind of fun doing all these multi-quotes, a function I don't use very often. I just included them all because it shows the differing opinions on this movie. Now, moi, I've seen Hollow Triumph three times now. The first time I tended to agree with lafitte and Katie, , although I didn't dislike it so much as was just "meh" about it. The second time -- which, by the way, was when Eddie first aired it on Noir Alley, I'm pretty sure this is the second time he's shown it there -- I liked it a little better, but still thought it was just ok. But this time ! I decided I really liked it, and that it's very good. I think I just missed some things about it on those other viewings.

I lived in Los Angeles for about five years and to this day I still have kind of a hard time driving in the rain. *The single most terrifying fact about rain in Los Angeles is that over the many dry months tons of oil and various chemicals accrue on the asphalt and the rain loosens them up and makes them slick as owl s***.

I put off Life With Father for a long time because I thought it might too mawkish or something. It turned out to be a smash with me. One of the best of family depictions. Yes, it he was cantankerous but he undercurrent of comedy therein was decidedly present. He doesn't represent the "stronger" sex very well, he gets bested by the other half at every turn. But he sure scared hell out of that first maid. Excellent sequences there and hilarious. Elizabeth Taylor is adorable and her scenes with her "beau" are immensely cute. I'll say no more but those who haven't seen LWF ought give it a try. Honest!

Many people are familiar with John Ford's Fort Apache, but does anyone remember Fort Apache, The Bronx with Paul Newman? It is a movie like The New Centurians (sp?) that you rarely see on TV. I had family that lived in the Bronx, and I remember how, over the years, the neighborhood where my Dad's mom and some family lived (and where he grew up for part of his life), changed. I really would put both those movies on my TCM wish list.

Strange that you were talking about Lynch here. i was just looking at his 1984 film Dune today, which was well cast and visually stunning but was just so clinical and heavy-feeling. Lynch runs in bit and spurts. Elephant Man was good, Blue Velvet exceptional and one of the best films of the decade, Wild at Heart a tad too overheated, Twin Peaks the TV show good but a bit aimless and disturbing when it ventured far into the supernatural levels, Fire Walk Me Me solid, but very depressing, The Straight Story his second masterwork, and Mulholland Drive which I have a few reservations about but certainly was mostly pretty stunning too. I just find it ironic though that Mulholland Drive, regarded in a critic's poll as the best theatrical film of the 21st century, was not meant as such originally. The last 30 minutes, and the two wild lesbian sex scenes were thrown in to disguise that all the rest of the film had been a dismissed TV pilot originally intended for ABC. It speaks volumes when a film started as an ABC TV pilot outshines 20 years of movies in critics' eyes.

Equus 1977 Starring Richard Burton, Peter Firth, Colin Blakely, Joan Plowright, Eileen Atkins, and Jenny Agutter. A seriously deranged young man is obsessed with horses. After blinding several at a stable where he is employed he's sent to a psychiatrist. The main takeaway I have is there are interactions between the shrink (Richard Burton) and patient (Peter Firth) that are far too similar to shrink (Robin Willams) and patient (Matt Damon) to be coincidence.

Yea, those two titles tend to confuse folks; Both films are good with They Drive by Night, a WB re-adaptation of the Davis\Muni Bordertown, giving Ida Lupino a chance to go-nuts and chew up the scenery, my favorite Raft performance and the supporting WB contract players like Bogie, Sheridan, Alan Hale, etc.. They Live by Night is a film with a very melancholy vibe, where one roots for the young couple knowing they are doomed from the start.

I'm always getting these mixed up. I Walk Alone The Man Who Walked Alone He Walked by Night They Drive By Night They Live by Night Clash By Night

Favorite quote from Eddie regarding Pushover: "If Chip and Ernie could have seen dad's fuse lit by sex bomb Kim Novak, I think those boys would have grown up a whole lot faster." Or something to that effect.

I got the impression after the last Meet and Greet with the hosts for the 2021 Classic Film Fest, that they do all their own writing for the intros, so i would tend to think Alicia did have a say on it. While i am in the camp that i do not care for the star signs intros, i guess after so long it's tough to come up with something new- otherwise TCM could just air the same intros for the same films that get shown repeatedly over the years. But yeah, i see some of the unflattering remarks on here and think some are uncalled for. And this is from someone who has no problem with the comments about people voicing their opinions about the preaching of woke culture. those complaints seem legit, but negative comments on looks are not. just mean.

From the weekend: The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946) Loved it. Was just different enough from a typical noir plot to stand out- making the femme fatale a victim too and not scheming on her own, but great how that was teased at one point during the courtroom scenes. Might check out some of the other versions if people on here recommend it. Mogumbo (1953) I like these safari adventure films- feels like Hemmingway's short stories, but i thought the plot of this was pretty weak and the love triangle not believable- and ultimately i didn't care about it either as i wasn't invested enough in any of the characters. I spent too much time worrying about how the animals on set were treated. Sounds like the production was a mess and three people died even. Have read a few stories of how bad Ford treated his cast and crew on the shoot, which was also under threat of the Mau Mau revolution. The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964) Absolutely hate it! Forced myself to watch it as it is consistently on the top international films of all time lists, but it was a struggle. I get it- an entire film that is one long musical number, but i felt overwhelmed the entire time like i was just waiting for the singing to end to catch a break . The songs themselves weren't anything memorable, just dialogue that is sung- although towards the end i did recognize a musical score to a song i know Dean Martin sings. My favorite part of the film was the fact that i was watching a recording on DVR which had a runtime of 2.5 hours, so when the film ended at 1hour50 minutes, i was ecstatic. The story didn't even seem very good. It is unfinished and needed another act. Just having the two former lovers run into each other and part was anticlimactic. For whatever reason the films of Catherine Deneuve which are supposed to be great, i can't stand. See nothing good about Belle de Jour. At all. Oh well, at least i can say i watched this film i suppose. Hamlet (1948) Another film i wasn't looking forward to seeing but because it was an Oscar winner for best picture, felt obliged. I've just read /studied this play too many times in school and seen too many versions to be much enthralled.

At 64 only my beard was what's called "salt and pepper". My hair( what was left of it ) was still dark brown. But there's always trade offs.... My brother, who died four months before his 64th B-day, had a head full of snow white hair. And a THICK head full, while my still dark brown hair was much thinner on top. And now, at 70(this past July 28) there's a few grey streaks along the sides, but still outnumbered by the dark. Sepiatone (who wasn't implying his brother had a thick skull, but a thick head of hair. )

Where's Poppa?

LITTLE RICHARD came floating by on the roof a Pink Mercedes-Benz screaming "GOODLAWD, SOMEBODY HELP ME! A-WOOOOOOOO!!!!! SHUT UP!!!"....

You are correct, Princess. Husband also directed 116 episodes of Have Gun --Will Travel. My next clue would have been that Wife had an unusual first name. She had a small role in a very famous movie in which a nasty character has that name, and that the lead in that film won an Oscar for Best Actress. But I didn't need to give that clue, which refers to the film Mildred Pierce. You're up Princess!

I have been having quite a ball, having a bit of a Ken Russell summer. He's such an original and his films are so visually stunning. The Devils - wow. I just saw it for the first time a few months ago. I have to admire any film that I can say is one of the most disturbing I have ever seen. One always gets his money's worth with Oliver Reed and how cool that Vanessa Redgrave would take a bold chance with this film. I watched Tommy (which I've seen many times) and also Lisztomania and The Devils in one week, and then I had to take a break from visual overstimulation. I was just about to be annoyed that I had spent two hours on Lisztomania, and then the preposterous ending occurred, and all was forgiven with this viewer! Trying to review a Ken Russell film is sort of beside the point. Either you're in the mood for the ride or not.

Wednesday, August 4 Louis Armstrong SUTS 8 p.m. Satchmo: The Life of Louis Armstrong (1989). Repeated at 2 a.m.

It helps if you think of Mulholland Drive as Lynch's take on Carnival of Souls. (...reportedly, Lynch has even cited the earlier film as his inspiration for his film and which is considered a "surrealist neo-noir")

Bronxgirl - thanks! I have got to see this movie!

Re: Becket, maybe this falls into the politically correct/woke category. Although we don't expect these quasi-historical films to be accurate, making Becket a Saxon in the play and then film was outrageous, and was probably a mistake from Jean Anouilh. Becket was a Norman. If anything, Henry II was partly Saxon, through his material grandmother (Margaret of Wessex). Making Becket a Saxon sets up the whole class consciousness thing that informs some of the movie, so it's just too wrong. (But it is a great movie, and both leads would have been better choices for the Academy Award for Best Actor than the winner that year (possibly the worst Best Actor choice in Oscar history, considering the four other nominees)!

Torn, Rip

The Legend of Boggy Creek The Mothman Prophecies The Ring

Reid, Beryl

Yeah, I know it's David Lynch, and I've seen quite a few of Lynch's films, not to mention Twin Peaks (the original series.) So, yup, agreed, of course just about anything made by him is Bizarro (one word for it.) Although, come to think of it, Mulholland Drive is probably the strangest thing David Lynch ever made. Which is really saying something, when we're talking about David Lynch. And I kind of like the idea of that category, Bizarro Noiro (plus it rhymes.)

Whatta coinkydink! I had been thinking about offering some Chet Atkins. Although both my parents were Jazz lovers, my father's musical tastes were a tad more expansive. Among his (comparatively) meager collection of records was Christmas with Chet Atkins.

Montgomery, Elizabeth

Everybody Loves My Baby ("Love Me or Leave Me") Next: From an Operetta

Many noirs aren't when you examine them.