CineSage_jr

The answer is "yes" and "yes."

Dench has a bloody sprained ankle, for chrissakes. She'll be up and on it in three weeks. A few thousand disappointed theatergoers will have to be issued refunds, that's all. By even mentioning Dench's ankle in the same breath with Richardson's death you're doing Richardson, her grieving family and friends a grave injustice.

> {quote:title=Kubrickbuff wrote:}{quote} > John Landis was just doing his job. What happened was an accident, people make mistakes. I do think that it was wrong for Landis to hire the two children illegally but we all do stupid things at some point in our lives. He didn't intend for it to happen. Things like this happen all the time in hollywood, people make the wrong choices but for some reason only Landis is accused of murder. What happend was sad and painful to think about but I won't blame anybody for what happend because nobody intended for it to happen. A director isn't like some guy on an assembly line, banging together toasters in the Proctor-Silex plant the way he was told. He has tremendos latitude to do things however he or she wishes, and having a couple of kids on the set working at two in the morning -- in violation of several state child-labor and welfare laws -- is his doing, and no one else's. As is instructing the pyrotechnics crew to fire extra-big explosions, and ordering the helicopter to keep flying lower, lower, lower, as Landis is reported to have done. > {quote:title=Chumbley wrote:}{quote} > It's funny how all those Landis haters say nothing when TCM runs a Busby Berkley film. He killed three people too, only drunk and with a car, and then got off with a courtroom act and a corrupt lawyer. > > Is your objection raised out of ignorance or out of hypocracy, or do you think Landis intended to kill his actors? If that were a truly mitigating factor, there wouldn't be laws on the books against negligent homicide. As for others in the entertainment buisiness who've caused deaths, what about Clark Gable, who supposedly killed someone with his car, only to have MGM guarantee a low-level employee a lifetime's finiancial security if he'd take the rap for Gable and go to jail for the deed? TCM would have some awfully big gaps in its schedule if they were suddenly prohibited from showing Gable's films.

> {quote:title=acebrisco32 wrote:}{quote} > I saw this on TV in the 1970s. Probably a sixties film but could also be from the 1950s. > > It was an adventure film set in the middle ages, possibly around the time of the Norman conquest. > > A woman distracts a group of warriors on horseback by disrobing. This is shown with a cutaway to her feet as her clothes drop to the ground, followed by shots of the men laughing at her. Extended scenes of the siege of a castle follow. > > > I enjoy epic adventure movies anyway (will watch just about any of them) and always thought I would eventually stumble across this again one day but I never have. > > Does this ring a bell with anyone? Was the woman a blonde? If so, it might've been Rosemary Forsyth in the 1965 Charlton Heston film, THE WAR LORD.

O'Hara doesn't do any of these things for free; for the few interviews she's done for DVDs she demanded, and got, very large fees that often exceeded the whole budget for the disc's bonus packages. Her health has gotten more fragile over the last few years, and she's settled down back in Ireland; it's unlikely she'll return to the U.S.

> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote} > Well some people must think that *every* life form is here for a good wise reason. Otherwise >why is SMALLPOX still kept around? Smallpox has, for all intents and purposes, been eradicated. Sample cultures exist in only two places: U.S. and Russian laboratories. Why? In case they're needed to create biological warfare agents -- and you'd better hope they aren't.

> {quote:title=route66 wrote:}{quote} > > They are showing The Quite Man at 8:00 PM EST > > Well, "The _Quite_ Man" sounds like QUITE a good movie. I'd even be happy to watch "The Quiet Man". > It reminds me of Rick's line to Annina in CASABLANCA, when she asks what kind of man Captain Renault is: "He's just like any other man, only moreso."

> {quote:title=georgiegirl wrote:}{quote} > Take War of the Worlds for instance. It worked quite well and saved the world by ridding the evil forces at work to destroy the good people of the planet earth. > > > Can you think of any other movie where a pandemic serverd a good purpose? lol Even if the Martians had succeeded in exterminating every human on Earth (about 2.6 billion in 1953), they'd have killed only a tiny fraction of all the human lives ended by disease (read: bacteria and viruses) throughout the course of history. How "wise" was it, then, for this God to have put germs on Earth in the first place?

> {quote:title=Tumbleweed431 wrote:}{quote} > I can't believe Turner Classic Movies is playing this racist movie. White actors in black face!! I have never seen such eye rolling, infantile, unintelligent behavior by white and black actors in my life!! I don't care that you consider this classic cinema. Throwing people to lions in a colosseum was once considered legitimate and classic entertainment. I am sure the ruling class could justify that too. This is totally unacceptable in 2009 and it has been for over 50 years. This is clearly an attempt at a revival of racism. Racism = Prejudice plus Power, which is why people of color can be prejudiced but not racist. > > Please do not play this insulting piece of cinema again. Novelist Edna Ferber and Jerome Kern, who wrote the musical show's songs, were anything but racists. In fact, the story and songs' real purpose is to expose the scourge of racism (check out Ferber's condemnation of anti-Latino bias in GIANT sometime). You, on the other hand, apparently can't see beyond the surface, which is rather sad. Not only should TCM show this great film again, they should show it often.

> {quote:title=spazhoward wrote:}{quote} > How utterly tasteless is it of TCM to allow John Landis to select The Brain That Wouldn't Die? I tuned in mid-movie, and when it went off and I realized that **** Landis was co-hosting, I wanted to throw something at the screen. > > Vic Morrow and 7 year-old My-Ca Dinh Le were DECAPITATED by the helicopter blades in the Twilight Zone accident. Don't tell me I picked up on this but no one at TCM figured it out before air time. You're conveniently forgetting that six-year-old Renee Shin-Yi Chen is also just as dead due to the copter's crash. I don't know that her death was by decapitation, but that would just be splitting hairs (yeah, the ironic pun is intentional).

> {quote:title=Kid_Dabb wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=Kid_Dabb wrote:}{quote} > > Did not the wRussians inwent sci_fi? > > > {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote} > > That was the personal opinions of Asimov and Carl Sagon [sic]. Voltaire's Micromegas was the first true science fiction story. H.G. Wells and Jules Verne novels doesn't put one into a coma. > > Agreed. > > I was just having fun mimicking Star Trek: Chekov always claiming the Russians invented it. It wasn't Voltaire, but Cyrano de Bergerac (1619 ? 1655), who wrote the novels The Other World: The Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon (1657), and The Comical History of the States and the Empires of the Sun (on which he was working at the time of his death) which involve tales of journeys to the Moon and Sun. And, as any sensible person knows, the authors of Bible invented fantasy.

How about "Chubby?"

> {quote:title=Singleton wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=CineSage_jr wrote:}{quote} > > Probably because you're still hoping that George Clooney will show up. > > That is one of the better mysteries in Hollywood. Why Solaris ? Because Steven Soderbergh's 2002 English-language remake of SOLARIS starred George Clooney.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > >I said that as a movie or book title, "To Sir with Love" is correct; > > Now youve left out the comma, which changes the entire meaning of the title of the movie. No, the meaning's changed not at all, though it is rendered incorrect as to punctuation.

> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote} > Right now I'm trying to think of a reason why I"m not holding a pistol to my temple. Probably because you're still hoping that George Clooney will show up.

> {quote:title=Catwoman915 wrote:}{quote} >And Portier, that could be a whole other discussion. Just love that man, what a class act and consummate actor. That's Poitier.

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > CSJ, > > Weren't the scenes at Jerry's Market filmed at the small grocery store near Paramount Studios? > > I vaguely remember that there used to be a market near the studio and was wondering if it was shot there. It's been gone for many, many years now. > > But then I still miss the old Nickodell (and especially their neon sign) restaurant adjacent to the studio. No, the market was a set built on a Paramount soundstage. > {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > *Maybe they had to ration the ns and the es back during the war* > > My thinking was if ink and paper were rationed during the war (which they were), then the signs at Jerry's Market (which was a real location and not a sound stage) might have been written that way by the market owner to conserve ink and paper. > > It was just a thought! > > Message was edited by: lzcutter No, there was no allowance for wartime rationing because... If you'll actually listen to Walter Neff's opening voice-over narration at the beginning of the film, he says quite clearly that the events he's about to describe are taking place in 1938 (which was, of course, three years before the U.S. entered World War II). It's exactly because the film was to be released in 1944 that Wilder and Chandler had to make clear that the story was set in pre-war Los Angeles so audiences wouldn't wonder why a healthy young guy like Neff wasn't in the Armed Forces (come to think of it, how come a healthy young guy like Fred MacMurray wasn't in the Armed Forces in '44?).

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=CineSage_jr wrote:}{quote} > > > {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > > [/i]"To Sir, With Love" is more than a title. It's like a formal salutation on a letter, or on the label of a birthday package, or a special note to someone. "The Man with the Golden Arm" is quite a different type of title. > > > > > > You wouldn't address a birthday package label or a personal letter with; "To Sir, with Love," would you? > > > > No, I wouldn't; I'd drop the "l" in "love" down to lower-case, too. > > Well, now you do that because I've pointed out your original error. Here's what you originally said and the way you spelled the title: > > >That's just plain silly: in this context, or any context, there are no "important" >versus "unimportant" prepositions; the "with" in To Sir, with Love" (spoken emphasis is >on "love," anyway, not "with") > > You didn't drop the "L" down to a lower case at all. Do you need to be chained to a chair in an ice-cold room in order to pay attention? I said that as a movie or book title, "To Sir with Love" is correct; as the address to a note, as was suggested earlier, "To Sir, with love" would be correct. Crikey, fella.

"Smudge pots" are still used in agriculture to keep things like trees warm through hard freezes, which would otherwise destroy the hanging fruit.

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > *Anyone notice in the grocery store meeting scene the signs in the backround? "Cand Milk" then "Cand Beans"? >It took me a minute to realize it meant "canned milk" and "canned beans". What is up with THAT? Was it spelled >that way to be funny? Or was this slang of the times?* > > TikiSoo, > > It may be because of the rationing that took place during WWII. We all remember that sugar, meat and coffee were >rationed but much more was rationed including ink, paper and a number of items used in everyday life that we >pretty much take for granted. Whoever wrote the "cand" signs was obviously impatient (by nearly sixty years) to begin texting and posting on internet forums. As for all the canned and boxed goods in the market scene, they were real, necessitating that studio guards be stationed on the set to keep cast and crew from walking off with them since the items were, indeed, under wartime ration and difficult to come by in bulk.

> {quote:title=WhyaDuck wrote:}{quote} >[Keyes] is certainly Columbo like in his investigation. Even MacMurray states that it was just a >matter of time before >Edward G would catch them all. ........No, I never said MacMurray was his boss. Of course he >isn't. But Robinson >does have a boss that he has little respect for. The essence of Peter Falk's Columbo is that the character disarms those he's investigating (almost always wealthy dilettantes who condescend to the detective, but are clearly contemptuous of the lowly public servant) by appearing to bumble his way through the investigation, apparently oblivious to the suspects' role in the crimes that have been committed. Barton Keyes is nothing like that.

> {quote:title=WhyaDuck wrote:}{quote} > I agree that Edward G Robinson is a big reason for why we like this movie. >We see the murder...We see the dogged Edward G Robinson and his investigation getting closer and closer. It's just a matter of time. The little man in his stomach won't let him rest. His nose tells him somethings still not right. He is in relentless. His being smarter than his boss and telling off his boss is something Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry would copy decades later. Walter Neff isn't Keyes's boss. Keyes is a fraud investigator; Neff's a policy salesman; they merely share the same office. And Walter continually expresses his disdain for Keyes's investigative skills, particualrly in his "inability" to figure out the murder of Phyllis's husband, by the dramatic expedient of always lighting a match for Keyes, who always seems to fumble with his -- until the very end of the picture, when the wounded Walter can't light his own cigarette, and Keyes strikes the match, indicating that the dynamic between them has reversed 180 degrees. It's a simple, effective bit of symbolism that Wilder and Chandler invented, one that would have lost its coda-like impact had the scene of Keyes watching Walter go to the gas chamber been left in the film. And I'm afraid that such reversals of dynamics is very common in drama, and go back to the earliest days of cinema; your observation that there's an echo of this in the DIRTY HARRY is kind of pointless.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > [/i]"To Sir, With Love" is more than a title. It's like a formal salutation on a letter, or on the label of a birthday package, or a special note to someone. "The Man with the Golden Arm" is quite a different type of title. > > You wouldn't address a birthday package label or a personal letter with; "To Sir, with Love," would you? No, I wouldn't; I'd drop the "l" in "love" down to lower-case, too. As regards your first statement, a title is a title is a title, and the rules regarding capitalization are immutable.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > In "To Sir, With Love", the word "with" is important, whereas in "The Man with the Golden Arm", the "with" is not. But it doesn't really matter as long as the same style is followed in any particular publication or website. That's just plain silly: in this context, or any context, there are no "important" versus "unimportant" prepositions; the "with" in To Sir, with Love" (spoken emphasis is on "love," anyway, not "with") is no more "important" than it is in "The Man with the Golden Arm,"[/u] or "Gone with the Wind," for that matter. The Union won the Civil War, anyway,

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} >Yes, it's a great scene, BUT, in order for it to work, Wilder had to do one thing that defies logic, or at least the usual construction of apartments and houses: in order for Phyllis to hide, the door has to open _outwards_; how many people have ever seen an apartment or house door open that way? Screen doors maybe, but that's it. I know this is nitpicking, and frankly, I don't care, it doesn't ruin the best film noir ever made. It's just quirky. > > Yeah, I never noticed that until I read about it tonight. Apartment doors must open > inward so when someone knocks, and the doors are opened, they won't bump the > knocker in the face. > He must have known that most of us would be so in awe of "Ms. Hotness", we wouldn't notice....Que Bella!!! Yes, fire codes demand that doors to hallways open inward; otherwise, in a fire, everyone trying to flee would block passage through the hallway with the swung-open doors, and a lot of people would die as a consequence. So, yes, it's illogical and too, too convenient. Surely Wilder and Chandler could've found an effective way to stage the scene without ignoring this simple fact. PS: It's Italian, and spelled "Che bella.