Jump to content

Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About CineSage_jr

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. > {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > Cigarettes were cheap and people starting smoking at a very young age. There was no surgeon general's warning and no one thought they were harmful to one's health. No one? The tobacco companies had conducted their own studies and knew decades before the Surgeon General issued his report in 1964 that smoking was associated to bronchitis, emphysema and many forms of cancer; the companies' internal memos prove it. Of course the tobacco firms covered it up and, for decades, actually hired doctors to give testimonials in advertising that smoking was not only harmless, but even beneficial. Until the Congressional testimony by tobacco company executives only a few years ago that led to the financial settlement with states' attorneys general, the companies hid behind the fiction, maintained by the industry's so-called "Tobacco Institute," that there was no scientific evidence linking smoking with incidence of disease. We never hear about the "Tobacco Institute" any more; the public's too smart for that, but there's really no difference between its falsified credentials and the "Lewin Group," the supposedly independent research organization whose "research" is now constantly quoted by Congressional Republicans opposed to health-care reform. They conveniently omit the rather salient fact that the "Lewin Group" is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UnitedHealthCare, Inc., one of the nation's largest health insurance companies, and is no more independent or honest than the Tobacco Institute was.
  2. {...} Message was edited by: TCMWebAdmin Harassment
  3. > {quote:title=scsu1975 wrote:}{quote} > Sounds like "Quarez" to me. It begins with a throaty "h," almost to the point of hawking up some saliva from the very back of your tongue, with the emphasis then on the first syllable: "KHWAH-rez."
  4. {***} Message was edited by: TCMWebAdmin harassment
  5. That's Mandalay, which is Burma (not to be confused with Mandalay Bay, which is Las Vegas, as though anybody would), as opposed to Manderley, which is where Joan Fontaine's "I" dreamt she went back to last night.
  6. The problem with your theory is... ...that the "After" photo is of a markedly younger woman than the Before," though the photos were taken thirteen years apart. The earlier photo, in fact, looks more like Hedda Hopper, and it's far more likely it is she than Holm.
  7. Chaplin was the greater filmmaker, no doubt, able to realize more ambitious stories, but for pure, flat-out funniness, it was Keaton, hands-down.
  8. Even when it was the Dark Ages, do you think anybody ever woke up in the morning, slapped him or herself on the forehead, and exclaimed, "Hey! This is the Dark Ages!"? The year is irrelevant; everybody likes to think that the time in which they live isn't the Dark Ages, which is the point (and then everybody gets down to work proving their time is the Dark Ages[/i]: in 1852-65, it was proved via slavery, brutal European colonialism, slaughter of American Indians, the exploitation of the working classes in the Industrial Revolution; 1939-45, it was German expansionism, the Holocaust and the interning of Japanese-Americans; today it's warrantless spying, illegal wars, torture and the systematic exclusion of millions of Americans from affordable healthcare). There's never a shortage of people who will move heaven and earth to prove that theirs is, indeed, a Dark Age.
  9. > {quote:title=rumble54daddyo wrote:}{quote} > My answer would be that Lansbury, although undoubtedly a superior actor to Mitchum, and by God there aren't many, could not present the awful physical threat that Mitchum did as Max Cady. > rumble54daddyo If all you can conceive of is physical threats, then you have no concept of what real villainy is. Apart from her masterminding the Red Chinese brain-washing of her own son to make him the assassin of a newspaper publisher, a senator, the senator's daughter (whom that son had just married), and a presidential candidate to put her nincompoop, demagogue of a husband at the top of the national ticket (how's that for physical threats?), Mrs Iselin figuratively grabs her own son's balls and sucks them up though his throat when she plants that kiss on his mouth, all in the name of her imperial ambitions. Max Cady, and everyone else, are two-bit street thugs by comparison.
  10. > {quote:title=TCMWebAdmin wrote:}{quote} > Hi everyone, > > Some of this discussion is veering off topic. Please continue to discuss the subject mentioned at the beginning of the thread to void the thread having to be closed. > > Thank you > -Renee {...} Message was edited by: TCMWebAdmin harassment
  11. Mrs Iselin (Angela Lansbury) in THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, truly the most chilling character ever committed to film. No one, and nothing, else even comes close.
  12. If Ford were to stick his head momentarily into a movie nowadays to say, "Hi," that would be a cameo; the struggling wanna-be actor that Ford was in 1966, did bits, as in bit parts. Back then he was a millimeter away from going back to carpentry full-time, never to be heard from again unless it was to order a new saw or hammer or a load of two-by-fours.
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
  • Create New...