Tikisoo

Thanks for that great story, Vertigo. I wouldn't be surprised if the positive incidents at The Frolics influenced your sister to go into the field. It's also great to hear good things about an entertainer. Sounds as if Frankie's a friendly & generous guy. I've been a driver, guide & guard to contemporary "stars" and many are just miserable. These days you can't offer stars homemade treats, I've seen them toss gifts right in the can. Well, unless they are labeled "speshel" brownies. ;-) As for the old people in teen movies....my first thought is they may have been crew members just used as extras, like the set decorator, the gaffer, etc.

>Meryl Streep calls out Walt Disney as sexist, anti-Semitic This shows how ONE incident can be isolated, then blown out of proportion, then repeated as an all encompassing absolute fact. Maybe Disney was sexist & anti-Semitic by today's standards, but consider the circumstances of his lifetime. It was acceptable (by white men) to stereotype women and almost all ethnic groups. Many comedians like El Brendel, Fanny Brice or Chico Marx created their entire routine on stereotyping an ethnicity. Disney employed women as painters & inkers. This was mostly because he could get them cheaper than men. (women weren't the head of households back then) He didn't treat ANY of his employees with respect, they were just workers. Disney's most often cited anti-Semitic incident came after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Within hours 700 soldiers moved in & occupied the Disney Studio as a defense station to protect the neighboring Lockheed Aircraft plant. Walt was incensed & raved that no other studio had been shut down and occupied; not Columbia, not MGM, not Paramount, only _his_ studio. He ranted "No one touches the Jew studios! I'm not defending Disney, he wasn't the greatest guy in Hollywood. But he was a man driven to create an artistic product for the masses for which he mostly succeeded. But I think it's kind of a knee-jerk reaction to "label" him by today's standards.

I've always been a Dane Clark fan only wish he had done more films, although according to his imdb page, he did a lot of TV. Glad they show I WON'T PLAY a lot as a filler on TCM. I especially enjoy him playing with Bette Davis, there aren't many who can hold their own with her. And I've always preferred his real name, Bernard Zanville to Dane Clark. Wow-here's the imdb picture of him-he certainly aged well!

>Now there's a film I've never seen or want to see. Slasher films, not for me. I once met the guy who did the special effects for that movie. (heh back then it was one guy and his staff of three-nowadays it's PAGES of names working in a big company) and said almost the same thing to him. He told me to rent the video (haha) and watch the entire thing with the sound off. He was right- I got to see the "special effects" very well and was not upset by what I saw at all. It just became people pretending, acting, very illogical. For example; Kevin is laying in a bunk. Someone shoves an arrow from underneath up through his body. He writhes & screams and looks at the arrow without touching it, for "horror" effect. Real life, you would arch your back and jump up if you felt anything shoved into you, not just lay there and scream. SPOILER: The best effect is when Lilly Palmer gets her head lopped off with an ax. They cover her head in a black bag (visible) put her against a black back round and have her hands grasp for the missing head. Riiight. If your head is chopped off, your body drops. The old slasher films are pretty low tech. To this day, if I ever borrow a newer "horror" film and it gets too intense for me, I just turn the sound off & watch the artistry of the effect. You soon find out there's zero plot.

>Please, please, please proofread your posts. It shows consideration to the people you would like to dialog with to make intelligible posts. Indeed. I wish more people WOULD proof their zero punctuation run on posts. Apparently they do not realize readers can't comprehend their posts and it definitely shuts the door on any meaningful "conversation". >Please, please, please proofread your grammar Now that's just nit-picky. I said "conversation" but I understand "dialogue" too. But what the hex is this?: >Under a Texas Moon 1930.Although Paramount now owns it legally they could allow t.cm to premier it, John Gilbert's first talkie,His glorious night, plus many 10o more that Time Warner is sitting on that have no copyright problems, through the economics of title switching,They could become more open too and explore the bad side of film history equally ,besides t own countries heritage ,But no just continued over exposed popular hits with only occasional introduction to a obscured classic . (I just assume English may be their second language...I don't know if I could fare much better posting in French)

>lavender said: Rich, I also like Kevin Bacon very much, and what you is very true. Nothing special in using Kevin as an example for that algorithm. I agree, especially when working in a limited pool such as "Hollywood". But I use the "6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon" to illustrate in counseling that "we're all related and in this (life) together". It's a great pop culture reference that even kids can grasp the concept. And I too am very impressed every time I see Kevin Bacon in a movie. I recently saw TREMORS on the big screen at a horror festival and although a very silly story, I completely believed Bacon. He is an example of good acting elevating an otherwise bad movie.

>slaytonf wrote: Beauty and the Beast is definitely, definitely essential. >jakeem wrote: Excuse my French, but you are absolutely correct! They should pair Jean Cocteau's 1946 fantasy film "La Belle et la B?te" with his equally dazzling 1950 drama "Orph?e" ("Orpheus"). Are you saying Cocteau's BEAUTY & THE BEAST is a 1946 film? Wow. I saw Cocteau's B&TB once maybe 30 years ago and my memory of it must be kind of dim. I remember it all grainy and contrast-y and thought it was a very early movie, made like in the 1920's-30's. Just goes to show how fallible memory is! Well, at least I remember enjoying & being impressed by it.

I love this idea too-it makes perfect sense because while these actors don't "star" in a film, their support often makes the film "gell" and I think that takes lots of talent. As is with any subject here on the message board, I have to put in my 2? opinion- while you list many deserving charactor actors, a few in there I consider "stars", like Lionel Barrymore, Judith Anderson & Rosaland Russell. I'd rather see days filled with actors that never had top billing, that were truly supporting the cast & story. Some, like Thomas Mitchell support quietly, while others like SZ Sakall almost steal the show. I really enjoy Ann Revere's understated contributions to film stories too. My favorite charactor actor of all time is James Gleason. I recently viewed the 2.5 hour Criterion NIGHT OF THE HUNTER bonus disk of outtakes. It was amazing to see the first chosen actor do the part, then James Gleason came in as replacement. It was if Gleason WAS the guy in the movie, you just could not see him "acting" but instead recognised the entire back story of this charactor. And don't forget Eve Arden!

I've seen those old photos of Robert Osborne before....I think he looks the same-the only thing that's changed is the color of his hair and he's gotten just a bit thicker (as we all have or will do) I completely recognize him.

>LOST HORIZON the Musical Never thought this would work because, come on, sounds weird on its own, but I actually LOVED it! Oh no. This is on my "pile" from my movie buddy and I keep taking ANYTHING else but that one. Guess I'll have to give it a try, but loathe the idea of it. I have learned not to judge a film before seeing it since I was a teen and friends dragged me to CLASH OF THE TITANS (what's this about, a football game?) Loved it! If asked to go to a theater, 99% of the time I'll go just to be along with friends. Although I've seen KING KONG a zillion times, it was an entirely different experience seeing it in a theater with an audience. Same with the absurd THE GIANT CLAW which was a riot with a crowd. Even Abbot & Costello movies work really well in a theater setting while if on TV I'd never watch it. I will however, decline seeing any "franchise" movie. I often see "modern" films from library borrowing. Generally, if the movie was really popular, there is some reason. CLUELESS, LEGALLY BLONDE were both fun and enjoyable and for me fall within the same category as the old MAISIE movies and screwball B pictures of the 30's & 40's. Not every movie has to be a blockbuster. I was very pleasantly surprised at two Tim Burton films, since generally I find his work under-whelming and trite. I enjoyed ALICE IN WONDERLAND although thought the cgi enhancements were overdone & unnecessary. I was really surprised at how much I liked DARK SHADOWS, because braced to hate it. Again, it was only marred by the attempts at silly humor, otherwise a pretty good movie.

>And for some (perhaps newer, younger viewers) a film like SUNSET BOULEVARD does get underrated when compared to MISSION IMPOSSIBLE or X-MEN. For some, maybe...but not a "film buff". Our kid absolutely loved SUNSET BLVD at 15 and was bored by those other two mentioned. >The one I liken to is the poster who brought up that the '50's, movie wise, didn't really start until the middle of the decade. Pretty much like music. And fashion, popular colors, architecture or anything else. Most cultural trends are defined by the half decade like 1955 to 65 or 1965 to 75. >Yes, wait till we get to the underrated 60s, 70, 80s, 90s and 2000s.I do want to go back and look at the years of the 1930s, leading up to '39. And that's really what it comes down to; this is a vanity thread for one poster to continually post one opinion for all to see, not a "general discussion" at all.

I am confused... The title of this thread is "The Underrated Fifties". Then, lists of terrific films MADE in the 50's have been listed. I think films like SUSET BLVD, ALL ABOUT EVE & BORN YESTERDAY are all pretty highly lauded by film buffs & critics. Why would anyone think the films of the 50's have been underrated? And who in particular scoffs at films made in the 50's?

>where I spotted a man furiously talking to "someone" into the reciever part of an old, pink toy telephone That would be me! Actually, back in the early days of those "brick" mobile phones, I had the handset from a 50's turquoise desk phone in my car with the curley cord going into the dashboard. I can't tell you how many strange looks, then laughs I got at red lights repeating "blah, blah, blah" into it.

Good job shutting down spam or threads gone nasty. Only wish you'd "move" threads to their appropriate category like every other message board. I am tired of threads about a film in particular (ie REBECCA) in *General Discussions* instead of *Films & Filmmakers* and inquiries (ie Please ID This Film) in *General Discussions* instead of *Information, Please.* It leaves less room for true "Gerneral Discussions" that often fall to back pages rather than gaining participation as they should. (and finance, I had no idea you spun....I'm assuming wool, not the dancing variety)

Thanks for the thoughtful response, reyman. I'm glad we can both HAVE and respect opposing opinions. I know many people think Hank's is the bees knees and I usually just "eye roll" (always gets a laugh from the kid) Wow do I love THIS line of yours! >he has carved out a nice career where mediocrity has been accepted. ...and this: >He just happened to come along at the right time and appear in a lot of very popular films. I guess that's what really sticks in my craw about Hanks....I don't really hate him I just think he's over-rated. He often seems to be sleepwalking through his roles. >For some reason in Hollywood he is likened to Jimmy Stewart, but he is in no way any equal to Stewart. I think that's Hank's publicist's doing. LIFE magazine did a cover story "Hollywood 1939*1989 Today's Stars Meet The Screen Legends". It compares Tom Hanks to Jimmy Stewart by saying he's "America's everyman". But what sets Stewart above is whenever you see him in a movie, you are always aware you are watching Jimmy Stewart. His ACTING pulls you through the story anyway, making you believe all that is really happening to him. His acting is greater than his persona. When I see Tom Hanks "acting" I see disbelief in his own eyes, as if he's the Emperor in New Clothes trying to convince us when he doesn't believe it himself! I can find other actors wooden, like Joel McCrea or Gary Cooper, but they believe in their acting and their "style" is just underplaying. (BTW, in that issue Kevin Costner is compared to Joel McCrea!) And as you said, it's just my opinion....but look at how easily that is twisted into "hatred" on a message board. Thanks for allowing me to explain.

>However as much as you seem to dislike him, he has appeared in several very well made films over the years. And that's the point fx -Hanks does not have enough talent (or maybe he just has given up trying) to elevate a not-so-good film, but a well made film elevates his performance. Wasn't he in SPLASH too? He was pretty lovable in that one. But again, when you're young & cute, a pouty lip & puzzled expression may be all you need to get by on screen. I hated SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE and hated GUMP even more and it was then I realized Hank's lacking acting ability and started avoiding anything (avoid, not refuse!) where he is the principle lead. Gawd just sit through THE DIVINCI CODE and you'll see what I'm talking about. As for "Oscar talk" don't you realize it's just another promotional tool? But I will see "Banks" when it comes to my library on DVD a year from now, only because I am fascinated by Disney, the man. And boy, will I be thrilled if it brings this old, often told story to life.

>You never did explain your militant dislike of this man, Tiki. I have, but I suppose too long ago for most to remember. I used to feel exactly the same way about Kevin Costner and would be blasted for it until others kind of realized it too. Tom Hanks started out as a "cute guy", and generally likable when the writing and directing carried the film. Well, now he's not so cute and he truly needs better support to make his acting successful. A perfect example is APOLLO 13 where everyone else's acting completely outshines Hanks, and believe you me, I never would have thought I'd be impressed with Kevin Bacon, but I am. I know people who have worked with Hanks on films, and they all see it too. In fact, they have extremely unflattering things to say about his acting, but it's not really fair to repeat. I just find him wooden and not believable. Everyone relates to actors that emphasize their role by using facial expressions, their body and voice. Hanks just seems to stand there, seemingly resting on his past laurels and it just doesn't work for me.

>I've often wondered if studios buy off-the-shelf common clothes for films set in modern or recent times, or do they design everything and make the clothes at the studio I have a friend who is a professional costumer and according to her, yes, they DO often buy "off the rack" often from used thrift stores. Recall the story of Frank Morgan & Baum's coat....guess it was always the case. BUT, also realize everything a star wears has been professionally altered. Even Brad Pitt's JC Penney t-shirt has been fitted to flatter his body. This is the biggest issue I find with the average joe buying clothes off the rack in stores-clothing almost _always_ needs alterations to make you look your best-even simple things like the sleeves or hem falling at your "sweet" spot can shave pounds or highlight your best features. Walking through any mall you'll see 90% of people do NOT KNOW how to buy clothing (or underwear) that truly "fits" them. (or muffin tops or carpenter crack would be a thing of the past)

>I believe that Saving Mr. Banks will appeal to many TCM fans Not this one. It has cr*p written all over it; from the cheesy title to unimaginative subject with the added handicap of talentless Tom Hanks... I know, I shouldn't judge before seeing it..but I also knew ABRAHAM LINCOLN VAMPIRE KILLER would be dreadful. Did you not see the thread in this forum already discussing this weeks ago?

>the fact that Dangerfield had a wife who had some mental health issues and was institutionalized. They ALL say that! I have met several stars I admire through the years, but will only approach them if they are "on", never a private moment, like dining. I'm always struck seeing the "real" person but try to act relaxed and cool about it. I just thank them for their excellent work & dedication and move on to let the next person by. For several years I made public appearances connected with my job and got a little taste of privacy invasion. I really disliked the guy who would come up and either try to "stump" me with obscure facts, or worse, quote some long forgotten interview. Know-it-alls are tiresome. So I try thinking of what *I'd* like to hear from someone when meeting a star or celebrity. And keeping composure when a stranger approaches you in the bathroom or trying to read/eat/converse with collegues isn't as easy as you think. As for "locations", I actually research before I go on the road and photograph film locations or visit movie star's final resting places. It's a fun photo album, but sometimes sad to see whose been forgotten.

I hate serial type mysteries because you know the convoluted story will be resolved by the end. Then why tell it? I also hate Asian charactors played by non-Asians (as well as ANY ethnicity reduced to a cartoon) so Charlie Chan is a double revulsion. You must convince me to watch a Western by a very good story, good charactors. And while I am not attracted to war pictures, they always have positive stories to tell and I'm always glad I watched it. I'm with the SCHINDLERS LIST & AMISTAD crowd- I want escape, but not the whirling CGI crap that makes me nauseus. I box my DVD copies in "sets" and my "fantasy", "horror" and "pre-code musicals" (all are fantasy, really) are brimming. By "fantasy" I mean anything to do with ghosts, afterlife, angels, magic, etc. My 85 year old mother will NEVER borrow a fantasy or horror from me, funny how different our tastes are. I have no problem with more recent movies vs golden age classics either-a good movie is a good movie.

>All good films but (long) commercials ruin the experience. And you've hit the nail on the head, Kid. I think people really hate commercial interruption during a movie. We are spoiled watching TCM, it's the stuff we like seeing without having to tolerate what we don't like. I think that's why so many are protective, possessive of TCM-in many ways it reflects our values. I'll have to check and see if I get THIS (doubt it) I tolerate a lot of rough public domain films on PBS because they are broadcast uninterrupted, although they show commercials in-between features.

>"The Beginning Of The End" and the schedule reads "The Beginning Or The End", so just a heads up that there are two films with similar titles Thanks for noticing....just a slip on my part, I already have "OF" the crazy grasshopper invasion movie. Looking forward to having a completely different movie. My viewing choices are limited, so I have to pick & choose. Glad others think January is great too!

> "My girlfriend talked me into coming to see this thing." I will never forget being dragged to the theater by my bf to see CLASH OF THE TITANS, I thought- what a horrible title! Well, of course, I loved it. It was before I was Harryhausen-aware. RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK was another terrible title I was dragged to-obviously I had larned my lesson about prejudgement. I've sat through a lot of what I consider horrible films and definitely leave for popcorn during sex scenes. I do not understand WHY anyone feels the need to include these scenes-we all know what it looks like-and it never furthers the story at all. 2 movies that come to mind are AN OFFICER & A GENTLEMAN and WATER FOR ELEPHANTS. And I did walk out for AO&AG. That, and ARMY OF DARKNESS are the only two.

I'm with you-seven films penciled in my schedule compared to 2 for December! Funny, a few that excite me are not on your list: 1/4 FOR ALL MANKIND (1989) For any space buffs, this is a fun film filled with footage from the moon that'll look great on your big flat screen TV (bonus if you have 5.1 sound) 1/19 WINGS OF DESIRE (1987) A glorious spiritual romantic film well told by Wim Wenders. Superior to US remake CITY OF ANGELS. (bonus-Nick Cave on stage) I urge any film buff who hasn't seen this gem to take a look. 1/9 offers a Bette Davis film THE SISTERS followed by 1/12 rare CHAINED FOR LIFE featuring the Hilton Siamese twins seen in FREAKS. Fun double feature! I also like 1/18 THE BEGINNING OF THE END with following THESE ARE THE DAMNED for a downer double feature. Sorry I will miss Dane Clark day, I really like him too.