Jump to content

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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About infinite1

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. How about: LUCKY BOY 1929 - "Lucky Boy is a 1929 American musical drama film starring George Jessel. The film was mainly a Silent film, with synchronized music and sound effects, as well as some talking sequences." from Wikipedia Description is not unlike Jolson's JAZZ SINGER or the 1929 adaptation of SHOWBOAT Other Lawrence Tibbett musicals that may or may not be on the list: ROGUE SONG 1930 - PARISIAN BELLE 1930 - THE CUBAN LOVE SONG 1930 - THE PRODIGAL 1931 - METROPOLITAN 1935 - UNDER YOUR SPELL 1936 -
  2. I will grant you that during OSCAR month SVENGOOLIE and indeed any other programming on other channels is a welcome alternative to the banal programming on TCM, but for a steady diet, come on. Isn't SVENGOOLIE the classic horror film program for people that hate classic horror films? That's the way I view it. Mocking the films, cutting the films, cutting into the films, superimposing his visage over characters faces while the film is in progress may endear him to the sophomoric fan who giggles incessantly over bathroom humor, but it doesn't endear him to serious fans of the classic horror film genre who love these films. I don't much mind his informative breaks where he talks about the cast or gives some historical info, sort of a bloated Robert Osborne in Goth, but the humor is trite, old, and for the most part bad. I know this shtick is his selling point, but he doesn't even need to show the films for that. Let METV give him a half hour or hour where he can prance around the sound stage in his getup making a total **** out of himself and his fans will eat it up. Most if not all of the films he shows are already available on DVD so they are readily available to anyone who really wants to see them. Believe me Sven's real fans don't turn in to watch the films, they turn in to watch a fat clown make a fool of himself every week and get pelted by rubber chickens. That's no way to honor these films and the performers who starred in them.
  3. Dargo and James, I'm not arguing with you, but if what you say is true, then why do you think Warner's was trying to push Raft as their "new" tough guy lead? Was it his star status at Paramount, his shady background that they were hoping to cash in on, did they feel sorry for him, or did they see something in him, some potential, that we just do not? In everything that I've ever read about Raft and his relationship with Warner's, I've never read or heard it said that they were upset with his performances in any of his Warner's films. The only bad press he got was due to his refusing parts that ultimately went to Bogart. Certainly the fact that Warner's did want him for the leads in MALTESE FALCON, HIGH SIERRA, CASABLANCA, and perhaps one or two others could be viewed as a reward for the job he did in INVISISBLE STRIPES and the other films I mentioned. (By the way, I thought Bogart's performance in INVISIBLE STRIPES was kind of HAMMY.) Wasn't Raft's acting, in his gangster films, a case of art imitating life? I've read that he copied his movie gangsters from the genuine articles who didn't emote much in the vein of Bogart, Cagney, or Robinson. Not to knock these three talented gentlemen, but their gangsters were based on caricatures of what the public thought gangsters were supposed to act like, not the real deal who tried, for the most part, to keep a low profile and were stoic silent killers. And the three stars while they were more talented actors then Raft, and went on to play varied types of roles, were not above turning in a stinker or two themselves, no matter how good they were. As for Raft, I liked him, still do. You know what you're going to get when you watch a Raft performance, a damn good tough guy.
  4. I'd like to pose the following question. Suppose for a while that BOGART was unavailable for CASABLANCA for whatever reason. There was no one else available for the lead except GEORGE RAFT who, if you accept the back story, was Warner's original choice for Rick. I think, based on Bogart's subdued performance, and RAFT's reputation as a no nonsense tough guy, that RAFT, with the able assistance of CASABLANCA'S excellent supporting cast, could have turned in at least as memorable a performance as BOGART did. I base this on the fine work and reviews that RAFT received in other Warner films like INVISIBLE STRIPES, EACH DAWN I DIE, MANPOWER, and THEY DRIVE BY NIGHT. It appeared that Warner's, at least, was grooming him for bigger and better things and the fact that they considered him FIRST for other films like THE MALTESE FALCON and HIGH SIERRA over BOGART meant that they must have had more faith in RAFT'S star status, at the time, to sell the film. The fact that RAFT sabotaged his own career and handed BOGART the pathway to success aside. Do you think, now please try to be objective, that there was the slightest possibility that under different circumstances we could have been singing RAFT'S praises for being an integral part of such a CLASSIC film. I do and I am in no way belittling BOGART's performance. I just happen to believe that there are some roles that can be successfully portrayed by more than just one actor. Which is why, I may add, many actors succeed on BROADWAY, for different reasons, in the same part. I also know the opposite is also true, so if that is your opinion of a possible RAFT CASABLANCA performance please feel free to give it as well. Thank you.
  5. To be honest, and to my shame, I have never read any biographies of Gleason, Carney, et al, or any books about the Honeymooners TV show. However, that being said, I don't think that anyone would argue that there are some similarities between the characters of Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton and that of Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. I think that Gleason and Carney even did a homage to Stan and Olie in one talent show episode of Honeymooners The Lost Episodes. What I want to know is if Gleason or Carney ever acknowledged the similarities between their characters and those of the earlier comedy team?
  6. No, I never "just walked out" and I never would. I wouldn't give the theatre owners the benefit/satisfaction of a free donation just because I was stupid enough to not know what I was going to watch. I would watch the damn thing for the spite of it and kick myself afterwards for going to see it. Money is too hard to come by to just throw it away.
  7. But, it left the airways in a most memorable way. I can't think of any other series where the main character was gunned down and avenged by his no nonsense twin brother in the same episode, and the final shot had him, in effect, telling the townspeople to go blank themselves because none of them came to his brother's aid after they begged him to be their Sheriff.
  8. LON CHANEY SR. in THE MIRACLE MAN 1919 TOWER OF LIES 1925 THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA 1925 LONDON AFTER MIDNIGHT 1927 THUNDER 1929 THE ROGUE SONG 1930 - starring Lawrence Tibbett and the first sound feature film appearance of Laurel and Hardy. THE CAT CREEPS 1930 - UNIVERSAL's real 1st sound horror film made before DRACULA.
  9. Gee, I don't know. Corporate greed, change in management, taking company in a different direction, all of the above. It's not like it hasn't been done before with other companies and much more "successful business ventures" then TCM. And they usually don't broadcast it until after it happens. And with all due respect to MovieCollectorOH, while his explanation appears to make sense, it is still a theory of what happened in this case, not a definitive explanation from TCM or darkblue's TCM provider. So, my old "chestnut", while you may not like it, is just as valid a guess as anyone else's.
  10. History repeating itself????? I don't mean to be raising the "TCM is changing into AMC" mantra again, but it does sound an awful lot like AMC all over again. Isn't this how AMC started sneaking commercials into their films?
  11. ********************************************NEWS FLASH************************************************** TCM is going to finally live up to it's name and only show bonifide classics. However, because the definition of what is a classic film is so vague and means different things to different people and TCM doesn't want to alienate anyone, TCM will be showing the same type of films it always does. "BOLD MOVEMENT ON THE PART OF TCM" DECLARES ROBERT OSBORNE. "I'VE NEVER SEEN SUCH A LARGE MOVEMENT" ECHOES BEN MANKIEWICZ ****************************************************************************************************************
  12. Bogie56 really looks like his avatar.
  13. You're right, it was FOUR WIVES I was referring to. However, I don't think Dean and Garfield were promoted as a couple for the first film. It was Garfield's first film after all. Maybe they were promoted as a couple for reissues of the first film due to Garfield's popularity.
  14. TopBilled, I don't mean to be picky, but far from being lovers in the above two films, wasn't Dean's character really in love with Jeffrey Lynn's? Dean more or less ran away with Garfield as a kind of rebellion. She didn't seem, at least to me, too broke up, when his character died. And in the second film, he was kind of there in spirit only, no romance. It wasn't until DUST BE MY DESTINY that they really satisfied the lover criteria. I'm not questioning the chemistry, just the romance aspect, after all Garfield's big selling point was that of the misunderstood outsider that didn't always quite fit in. He wasn't a classic romantic lead.
  15. TopBilled, I guess you also forgot the oft repeated FROM HERE TO ETERNITY (1953). Frank's Maggio character was beaten to death by Ernie Borgnine. If something like that was forgotten maybe it hasn't been repeated enough??????
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
  • Create New...