Tikisoo

...let's hope the picture is good at least.... Never saw this listed on TCM. Looks like a great cast but preposterous plot. Just requested from my library.

...not even love. Things. ...not even things made with love, but simply purchased.

On recommendation of another TCM forum member, I watched THE MISTS OF AVALON which was a TNT mini series in 2001. It clocks in at 3 hours, so I watched it over two evenings. This is the story of King Arthur told from the female character's perspective with Julianna Margulies as Arthur's sister, Joan Allen as her Aunt and Angelica Huston as Lady In The Lake. Much of the tension comes from the old Pagan "witch" ways of these ladies and the new emerging Christian religion. I don't know much of Arthur's story, so I'd enjoy any portrayal that fleshes them out as people and this movie delivered. It was an engrossing story centering more on the charactors & their personal situations than on history, battles, conquests, etc The writing was excellent, I never got confused about who was who or their motivations. I especially liked a scene where Guinevere interrupts the King's war strategy meeting with an "issue" and he drops everything to console her like any suburban husband would do. The look of the movie was dark, dirty, perfect for the most part, there was some cost cutting in the sets/ backgrounds, but not too distracting. There was little CGI, mostly "acts of magic" which is fine in my book. Costumes were as I expected -beautiful. I did like that the ladies wigs were ratty & tangly, like long hair would look back then. The group scenes just looked like Larpers at the Ren Faire so smaller scenes were preferable. The acting was stellar by all. I imagine lovely, dramatic Angelica Huston rolled her eyes at being cast another powerful witch sort, but she does great with it. I wasn't so enamored with Margulies, but she carried the film OK. Joan Allen was the standout for me-it was SUCH FUN seeing her play a beautiful evil conniving charactor! She's too often typecast as the goody 50's housewife/mother. Go Joan! I'm unfamiliar with the male principle actors, but definitely enjoyed the eye candy, thank you.

Well yeah, that is long, but I love that movie. For me, it's an illustration of what "patriotism" is. Manipulative? Yeah, but it tells different scenarios about what really went on & how people reacted. I especially like the Agnes Moorhead charactor. According to my Mother, a LOT of people reacted similarly during WW2. Heck, I see that attitude/mindset in some during this pandemic. I always found Since You Went Away a perfect companion piece to Best Years Of Our Lives.

That's not affluence, that's narcissism.

Because some are a real joy. My friend's custom designed 2020 card: I send out New Years Cards, usually Mae West. Not this year... I scored these Hallmarks off a "free" table & sending them out:

Haha, it's like an addiction: occasional users, weekly doses or daily habit!

When I visited my cousin who lived in Hollywood, she seemed way more star struck than I. We were around 16 at the time, mid to late 70's. She went gaga over meeting both Leif Garrett and Nick Nolte, whereas I wasn't crazy about Garrett and had no idea who Nolte even was. Maybe if Fred Astaire walked by, it may have been a different story. Growing up in Rochester NY, I actually walked by Louise Brooks' apartment every day from work and sometimes loitered around hoping to catch a glimpse of her to no avail. While thrilling to spot John & Yoko around town (they often visited the Eastman House) and spotting several rock stars in the record store, I never would approach them in their "time off". I was a rep for the radio station and met them all anyway. Most likely because of that, I don't approach celebrities unless they are at work, it can be an awful intrusion. That said, isn't it hard to take your eyes off them? And I've been the person out to dinner with a celebrity & had all eyes on us-awful! Many get "used" to it, I never would.

Oh so glad to hear I'm not the only one! I absolutely loathe THE GOOD EARTH '37 mostly for Rainer's insipid performance. I absolutely think our disdain for her "suffering" charactor is because of the passage of time and modern mores. We just want her to grow some kahunas & kick Muni in his. The Great Waltz was a one viewer for me as well because of her performance. She's not a bad actress, just hate her part & how it's played. To me, it's no different than the outdated mores of GUESS WHOS COMING TO DINNER '67. Only those who actually lived through that time period can really feel what's happening in the story. Kingrat said: I also think that after Stewart knows Sullavan is his pen pal, he is rather sadistic in his treatment of her. Agreed 100%, good call.

Oh my! I'd date that picture circa 1963-5. Hard to believe (those prices!) 99% of all fabric & garments sold in the US were made in the US. 35 years later only 5% of clothing sold in the US would be woven & sewn in the US. This is why I wear vintage clothing. High quality.

I just watched ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD and loved how they manipulated the audio whenever he swore. It sounded like they played snippets of his voice backward & doubled to come out as gobble-d-gewk, although you knew exactly what he was saying.

DVDs are NOT DEAD!!

Agreed. I really liked that one, it has a kind of positive vibe to it. Some of the past songs sentiments expressed while seeing the images can make me tear up. I despise this year's song (even though I love the poem) & had to mute it to watch the video. Can't wait until that zero energy, breathy, non melodic zombie style of "singing" goes out of fashion. What's next, a rap memorial?

Re: Lurking: Posts being read without comment/acknowledgement? I feel like I'm at a coctail party naked.

Because I thought he was Mike Rowe from Dirty Jobs.

It was a rhetorical comment. I just wonder what fantasy creatures may be equipped with. I have been surprised before....grew up on a farm. Ducks.

AMAZING! I came across my TCM recording of this in my fantasy box set with Angels In The Outfield & set it aside to view later this week! (what's Pan hiding in those fur trousers?)

I just watched 2 movies sparked by talk on this board with 4 more in the queue. (keep decribing/recommending!) In the Pittsburgh thread, ANGELS IN THE OUTFIELD '51 was mentioned. This was one of my favorite movies as a kid, the kind that actually got me into classic film & it was time to revisit. The plot is pure fantasy- a loudmouth baseball coach continues to browbeat his team players, resulting in further morale loss & continued losing. Gorgeous Janet Leigh is assigned to cover the Pirates baseball team from her "homemaker" column. (first fantasy) The Coach, perfectly played by Paul Douglas, gets visited by an Angel who warns him to change his attitude and entices him by making a few "miracles" every time the Coach controls his temper. (second fantasy) A Christian orphanage brings their charges to see a baseball game and one little girl SEES the Angels in the outfield! (third fantasy) Circumstances bring Janet Leigh's charactor to Paul Douglas' charactor and they fall in love (fourth fantasy) after she kind of stalks him, following him around town. I love this kind of "neat" story that has a perfect ending. The pace is quick, the storyline simple and is exactly the kind of heartwarming, hopeful movie I need to see right now. The location shots of the stadium full of people warmed my heart in this year of isolation. The performances of Leigh, Douglas, Keenan Wynn & Donna Corcoran as the little orphan were all spectacular-they had to be for such a preposterous movie to work. (Donna Corcoran is now 78-God Bless Her!) The other movie I watched was a (gasp!) 2017 HALLMARK movie, "A Fixer Upper Mystery" starring singer Jewel. I know how popular tv mystery series like MURDER SHE WROTE are, but never really got into any of them, seeing them as fantasies of a different kind since we don't come in contact with murderers regularly. I loved the story, loved the "mystery" and how it was resolved. Jewel is beautiful and plays a clever restorationist (which of course, I wholly relate to 😎) & was very impressed with the high quality acting talent & production talent. This is another example of the excellent work coming out of Canada-they have great locations, great lighting & camera work, nice clear sound, perfect editing, making an enjoyable 90 minute show. Lots of attention was spent on Jewel's clothing & hair which I found unrealistic until it was shown she's just the coordinator & has grunts do the actual renovation work....a little disappointing. But hey, it's TV and it's as realistic as the guy next door turning out to be a killer. It was fun & I'll watch more of these Hallmark productions, they're excellent entertainment. ...thanks for recommending it!

I'd venture to guess very few involved with TCM check the message boards for their own protection - some posters can be cruel nit picking every little thing about their appearance, their voice/accent, their manner, now the back grounds. No one wants to read those kind of criticisms about themselves when trying to remain confident about doing their job well. I remember a thread about Kim Novak a few years ago where people posted the CRUELEST things about her face. Her FACE. As if people expected her to appear 25 forever. I cringed just reading it.

Apparently he's a film critic who has written freelance for TCM for years. We'd often catch errors in what was written for Robert Osborne's intros/outros, so this doesn't surprise me. I'm sure he just elaborated the point in his own mind, just sloppy writing. People often bristle at my comments of writing competency....but as an editor, assumptions that can lead to misunderstanding by the reader are a big red flag.

Looks like it to me but no word of it from any of my location searches. Maybe they inserted shots of San Simeon using CGI. I've joined streaming channels on a 30 day trial, watched what I wanted to see then cancelled subscription. My typical M.O. is to wait for it to come to my library. What's the hurry? That said, libraries aren't in the position to buy anything new right now. May be awhile.

Wow sounds like a real laugh-fest. I'm getting my January TCM DVR list together....longest list I've had in a long time! (anything with fewer than 3 stars gets eliminated first)

And this is the danger of dramatizations of "celebrity" stories like THE CROWN. It's nothing new, consider the studio biopics of Cole Porter, Jerome Kern & Gene Krupa in the 40's-50's. As a historian, I am forever appalled by someone making some flippant remark in an interview that is picked up & quoted as "fact" by a writer/reporter/journalist. It happens ALL THE TIME, it doesn't matter the subject or field. Thanks for calling out the FOUL on this "author", Ray (and Stan resembles an older Fred Astaire in that pic, doncha think?)

Pretty embarassing when your friend was a camera on the production. But I agree 100% of your "crispy" description of the B&W photography. It's as if it was too sharply focused, there weren't enough large empty areas to balance all the detail. And as I recall classic period B&W photography, there's even softer, somewhat blurry fields giving a sense of depth. Like I said, PAPER MOON was successful while this was a total fail. Also agree on the overlapping dialogue. There were several times we "reversed" to hear the dialogue more clearly. I got the sense Mank was an alcoholic and like most creative types, has a bit of a problem with discipline & work flow. But this movie did not communicate his genius as an artist, we never SEE ANY EXAMPLES of what makes his screenplay a classic for the ages. Nor do we see anything indicating Welles' creative genius either, we are just supposed to believe it.

Thank you BOTH for actually writing about these movies. Your experience as classic movie fans & viewers show in every line.