infinite1
-
Posts
855 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by infinite1
-
-
Thank you, Rey.
I feel much better, now.
-
> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote}Hows about the following: (some of these may have already been mentioned)
>
> Backstairs at the White House
> Band of Brothers
> Benjamin Franklin
> Bleak House
> Blind Ambition
> The Blue and the Gray
> Brideshead Revisited
> Captains and the Kings
> Centennial
> Danger: UXB
> Fortunes of War
> From the Earth to the Moon
> George Washington
> Holocaust
> I, Claudius
> Into the West
> Jesus of Nazareth
> The Jewel in the Crown
> John Adams
> Lonesome Dove
> Marco Polo
> Masada
> Mildred Pierce
> North and South
> Once and Eagle
> On Wings of Eagles
> The Pacific
> Pearl
> Prime Suspect
> QB VII
> Return to Lonesome Dove
> Rich Man, Poor Man
> Rich Man, Poor Man, Book II
> Robert Kennedy and His Times
> Roots
> Roots: The Next Generations
> Shogun
> Space
> Tanner
> The Thorn Birds
> Upstairs, Downstairs
> War and Rememberence
> The Winds of War
Your position has certainly evolved from the day that anything developed specifically for TV was verbotten on TCM. I have yet to hear you rail against THE DANNY KAYE SHOW episode that recently was shown on TCM. What happened to your position on the TCM BRAND? You certainly beat me up on that one in that other thread on the HOT TOPICS board. I am all for people changing their minds on certain issues, but I wonder if an apology isn't due me for your change of heart? Nah, forget it, no apology needed, it's enough for me to see that you have embraced my original position.
-
> {quote:title=Dargo2 wrote:}{quote}Well then, I suppose this might all be for the better.
>
> (...and alas, any of my future labo(u)rs to further address this issue will be met with a less than colo(u)rful ending)
Kind of taking a chance, weren't you Dargo2? What if missw said yes and then turned out to be a mrw? Now that would have been a real less than colorful ending.
-
> {quote:title=gagman66 wrote:}{quote}What the Devil? Lon Chaney's THE PENALTY (1920) was definitely the wrong version last night. TCM Programer Chuck Tabesh told me a few months back that they would be running the new restoration with the Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra score. This was released on Blu-ray back in October. Unfortunately, what we got was the same old version with a dismal modern music score that TCM last ran in 2005 or 2006. I don't know if they had intended to run one the new one and goofed, or what the story is?
>
> *The story is Chuck played a gag on you, man. Don't know what his count is but wouldn't be surprised if it was 66 6. The Devil, you say.*
>
> Will hope for better with WINGS on February 3rd. Again, I was told that it would be the new restoration with restored tints, and the recreation of the original 1927 Orchestral score, if not in February, certainly in April. The same as was released on DVD and Blu-ray a year ago by Paramount . Replacing the older transfer from Laser-disc that TCM has aired a few times in the past. If it tunrs out of be the same old same old, and in Prime-time, that will be another huge disappointment. Hope they can get this straight.
>
Fool me once shame on you, fool me again shame on you, er me, fool me once shame on ugh, better ask George W., I forgot how it goes. Bottom line, count on TCM to disappoint you again. At least they're consistent with their dissapointments.
-
> {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote}Why are people talking about cars here?
I'ts either their cowardly way of saying that the threads' topic is FOS or they are mentally challenged. I would personally go with the later.
-
> {quote:title=RayFaiola wrote:}{quote}If you look at how most modern actors wear Fedoras and Stetsons, they invariably wear them straight on. No style. As Frank, Dean and Bing sang it - "a hat's not a hat til it's tilted"
>
I think they sang that song with GEORGE RAFT in mind. No one wore a FEDORA or a TRILBY better then RAFT.
-
> {quote:title=calvinnme wrote:}{quote}Could it be that the stuff shown on the old AMC - Fox, Universal, Paramount - is just in no fit condition to broadcast knowing that so many people have HDTV's? AMC's "classic" period was from 1984-2002, and I have some recordings of some of the old films of which you speak that aired on AMC back in the day. Believe me, "The Devil is Driving", "Girls About Town", "Murder By the Clock" etc. would need major restoration work for TCM to consider them seaworthy. The old AMC has not been on the air for over 10 years, years before Blu-Ray and HDTV raised people's standards as to what they would consider acceptable quality.
>
> *Even if what you are saying is true, which I doubt, there are plenty of films that were shown on AMC that have been updated to digital. Check the latest MOVIES UNLIMITED catalogue if you don't believe me. There is no reason, other then a lack of desire on TCM or TIME WARNER to spend the money to rent these films. No, they would rather spend money on those miserable film festivals and cruises that the majority of viewers couldn't care less about. And let me SUGGEST to you that Blu-Ray and HDTV did not raise peoples' standards as to what they would consider acceptable quality, these new formats suckered people into believing that they have missed something all the years that they never even gave a thought about while they were happily watching old movies on their 13 inch portable b+w analog sets, complete with rabbit ears, poor reception, and commercials. You are just repeating the same tired old TCM APOLOGIST mantra for the endless string of repeats from month to month, or the cheaper new post 1970 garbage that is added to TCM's roster of "classics".*
>
> If Universal or Paramount or Fox is not willing to foot the bill and partnership with TCM in the restoration of these old films, they'll likely never be shown on TCM. However, TCM is selling a restored copy of "Female on the Beach", a real trashy treasure from Joan Crawford's late career. I do wish they would at least show that one.
The hell with UNIVERSAL, PARAMOUNT, and FOX. TCM isn't even showing all the golden age digital films from MGM, WARNERS, or RKO. I have never seen THE BRIGHTON STRANGLER on TCM. Again, I direct you to the MOVIES UNLIMITED CATALOGUE which TCM hawks under their own banner. There are enough GOLDEN AGE films in there to rotate on TCM, for the eleven months that are non OSCAR months, that are not UNIVERSALS, PARAMOUNTS, or FOX films. And, they wouldn't have to do repeats. But, they have to be willing to invest the money and it appears that TCM dosen't give a damn.
-
> {quote:title=TikiSoo wrote:}{quote}There IS a limited pool: they don't make old movies any more. I don't mind TCM adding some TV (like Dick Cavett/Playhouse 90) when it's movie star related to freshen up the mix. TCM also sprinkles in their own documentaries & interviews occasionally. Good job!
>
Don't believe it TikiSoo. TCM hasn't even scratched the surface of all the golden age classics that are available. TCM reruns the same films over and over because we let them get away with it. If we are not going to speak up, AND LOUDLY, then we deserve the endless repeats of FROM HERE TO ETERNITY, NORTH BY NORTHWEST, SINGIN IN THE RAIN, ETC., ETC., ETC. There are tons of films that AMC used to run, when they were a decent channel, that have never turned up on TCM. But alot of them are being sold through TCM. Why is this, I'll tell you. TCM is spending too much money on that lousy FILM FESTIVAL every year an not enough on their channel.
-
> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote}
> > > {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}
> > > It is purchase on their terms or no purchase at all. That can happen at any time when there is only one source for an item.
> > Sorry, but I still don't understand how anyone in their right mind can trust a vendor and continue to do business with them when they sell faulty equipment, especially medical equipment. The situation is simple:
> The government approves only one manufacturer for some items which have low demand and high manufacturing overhead. This is done to control costs and guarantee availability. The manufacturer must agree to price controls and to maintain certain levels of stock.
>
> Every business has occasional errors in manufacturing and handling orders. A business operating on minimal-cost basis will have more errors than average.
>
> The customer's only recourse when there is an error is to appeal to the business which has very little reason to spend time and money fixing a mistake.
>
> The government board which oversees such businesses nearly always accepts the word of the business over the word of a customer who files a formal complaint.
>
> The business stops selling to any customer who files a formal complaint because responding to complaints costs time and money and every complaint to the government makes their overall statistics look bad which may make it difficult for them to retain their status when their license must be renewed.
>
> The customer must therefore decide between enduring occasional mistakes from the vendor or not providing equipment which relies on parts from that business.
>
> I UNDERSTAND YOUR SIMPLE EXPLANATION, BUT IT IS REALLY AN EXPLANATION TO CONTINUE BAD BUSINESS PRACTICES AND IN THIS CASE TO COMMIT MURDER. THE REALITY IS THAT THE "CUSTOMER" IS ALSO A MIDDLEMAN THAT TAKES THE EQUIPMENT COMPLETE WITH THE "OCCASIONAL" MISTAKES AND DISTRIBUTES THEM TO HIS CUSTOMERS/PATIENTS. IF THE FAULTY EQUIPMENT RESULTS IN THE DEATH OF THE PATIENT AND IT IS PROVED THAT THE MIDDLEMAN KNEW THAT THE MANUFACTURER HAD A "HABIT" OF MAKING MISTAKES WHO IS GOING TO HAVE TO PAY IN MONEY, REPUTATION, AND PERHAPS PRISON; THE GOVERNMENT, THE MANUFACTURER? NO, THE MIDDLEMAN BECAUSE THAT IS WHO THE PATIENTS FAMILY CAN PUNISH. UNLESS MONEY IS NO OBJECT AND REPUTATION MEANS NOTHING AND THERE ARE AN ENDLESS SUPPLY OF SCAPEGOATS TO TAKE THE FALL, IT WOULD BEHOOVE THE "CUSTOMER" OR A GROUP OF "CUSTOMERS" TO MAKE LIFE FOR THE MANUFACTURER AS MISERABLE AS POSSIBLE AND THEREBY FORCE THE GOVERNMENT TO RETHINK THEIR POSITION. NOT SO SIMPLE, BUT ULTIMATELY EFFECTIVE.
>
> I believe it is in this way that the situation is similar to what TCM faces. They must endure occasional mistakes such as receiving the wrong print from a library or stop doing business with that library.
>
> The library has no incentive to spend time and money to quickly fix a mistake because license revenue for older movies is not so great as to be a major consideration and they know there is no other supplier for their movies.
>
> For TCM to stop doing business with a library would deprive the viewers of a wealth of movies.
Not so similar a situation after all. This is not a life or death situation and no one is going to sue TCM over a film. But, since we are not privy to who the distributor/library is, TCM, by proxy, becomes the only whipping boy in town and it is their reputation that is on the line and one that will suffer as a result of doing business with a library that dosen't give a damn. TCM can avoid all this by acknowledging, through a disclaimer at the begining of each film, that it has no control over the films it shows and is not responsible for content. It's not that I blame them so much for showing a film that reeks of lousy quality control, it's that they ignore it and prefer to act as if the problem dosen't exist. That is unacceptable.
-
> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}Sloppy, lazy, indifferent perhaps, but never terrible.
>
> Kind of how I feel about George Raft! (oh just joking!).
james, I don't think your feelings about George Raft are sloppy, lazy, or indifferent. I suppose you put as much thought into them as you do about any subject you write about. Oh, you meant that's what you personally think about George Raft. Now I get the joke, funny.
-
> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}One thing I am trying to accomplish with this daily thread is that there is always something good on TCM. Some forum posters complain that TCM plays a lot of the same titles over and over. But if you analyze the schedule, it is clear that there is a lot of variety, occasional premieres, and really something for everyone in terms of artists and genres.
And there are also alot of the same titles being played over and over as your "airs again on" shows. Why don't you also add "aired last on"? I bet that would add more amunition to the "complainers'" complaints.
-
> {quote:title=JonasEB wrote:}{quote}The moral of this thread - "TCM, be butt-clenchingly perfect at all times or you are terrible!!!!!!!!"
No one said TCM was "terrible". Sloppy, lazy, indifferent perhaps, but never terrible. And, what's wrong with striving for perfection? I'd love it if TCM was "butt-clenchingly perfect at all times" wouldn't you?
-
> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote}
> > No one in their right mind would or should ever do business with them again.It is purchase on their terms or no purchase at all. That can happen at any time when there is only one source for an item.
>
> *Sorry, but I still don't understand how anyone in their right mind can trust a vendor and continue to do business with them when they sell faulty equipment, especially medical equipment. And, I find it hard to believe that there are no recourses available to the consumer for protection.*
>
> > If TCM chooses not to do anything about it, it's their choice, and ultimately their responsibility.The only choice might be to not do business with that library. Would you want to be deprived of an entire library of movies because the owners do not always deliver what they promise?
>
> *No, but if TCM cannot trust the vendor to provide what they ask for then TCM OWES it to it's fans to include a warning or disclamer at the begining of each film that states something along the lines of the following:*
>
> *"TCM is not responsible for the quality or condition of the following print. We make every effort to ask for the best and most complete print possible, but we cannot view each and every film prior to it's scheduled showing. There is just not enough time."*
>
> *That spells out TCM's excuse perfectly. Still a cop out, but better then saying nothing. Because saying nothing means that TCM is indifferent to what they have just shown and indifference is LAZY and contrary to TCM's MISSION STATEMENT.*
>
-
> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote}
> > > {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}
> > > It seems to me that the owners and distributors do not consider it a major source of income and so they do not take great care in delivering the type of print which TCM requests.
> > It is TCM's responsibility to make sure they are getting the type of print they request.I doubt that there is little that they can do. The print likely arrives ten days prior to the first scheduled airing under a new license. The only choice for TCM would be to replace the movie in the schedule if the print is not the one stated in the contract.
>
> I believe it is ridiculous to think that TCM can make any demands on the owners since the owners know that TCM can not go to some other supplier for the same product and the licensing fees are not so much as to make a major difference to the owner's bottom line.
>
> I have encountered similar situations in repair parts for medical equipment. There are low prices and wonderful service for those items which can be purchased from many vendors but for those parts which come from a single source it is necessary to pay new price for used parts and to be blocked from ever purchasing from them again if you complain often about parts which are wrong or faulty.
>
> It is clearly a seller's market and TCM must take what it is given or quit trying to show any of that owner's library.
I'm sure that there are relatives of patients that have died or were injured, that would love to know that it was because parts for medical equipment were used that were wrong or faulty and that no one complained because the vendor would block future purchases. That's a lousy analogy. Those vendors deserve to be put out of business. No one in their right mind would or should ever do business with them again. Wouldn't you agree?
Sellers, of I don't care what, don't have the right to lie, cheat, or steal. If TCM chooses not to do anything about it, it's their choice, and ultimately their responsibility. A quote from an old horror movie was "IF THE MONSTER KILLS, THE SCIENTIST HANGS". The vendor being the monster and TCM representing the scientist.
-
> {quote:title=jamesjazzguitar wrote:}{quote}
> Well we agree that Raft wasn't a very good actor, but to me if one is an actor it helps if they know now to act.
>
> Yea, there are people that make music that are not very good musicians, but the musicians I like the best tend to be, well, good musicians.
>
> But yes, Raft did have style and class. I think this is what carried him as far as he went (which was a middle of the road career).
>
Never agreed to anything. What I said, in a roundabout way, was that it didn't take much acting ability to perform the type of roles that RAFT was asked to play. He played them straight and that was evidently all that was asked or expected of him to do. Obviously WARNERS was happy enough with his performances, AND HIS BOX OFFICE APPEAL, to offer him the leads in MALTESE FALCON, HIGH SIERRA, CASABLANCA, and ALL THROUGH THE NIGHT. He was also offered the leads in DEAD END, DOUBLE INDEMNITY, and THE STORY OF TEMPLE DRAKE. The fact that he turned them down was indeed a stupid move that I'm sure he, in retrospect, kicked himself for the rest of his life. But, it was by no means a reflection on his acting ability or perceived lack thereof by some couch potato critics who prefer more "accomplished" actors like Jimmy Cagney and Humphrey Bogart. Please note, for fans of CAGNEY and BOGART, there is a difference between acting and hamming it up. Besides, acting ability, in film, is a dubious asset which pales in comparrison to box office receipts. Great acting talent was/is more important to a career on the stage then before the camera, otherwise movies would have all starred clones of JOHN BARRYMORE or his brother LIONEL. Imagine JOHN BARRYMORE as TARZAN, playing the character in the same style as JOHNNY WEISMULER. A great actor to be sure, but would you pay to go see it?
-
> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=infinite1 wrote:}{quote}
> > What was the deal with LOVE IS A RACKET? It was included, I'm assuming, because it is listed as a George Raft film, yet he wasn't in it. Dirty pool on the part of TCM?
> While the IMDb does have it listed on Raft's profile page, they do note that his scenes were deleted. That's not the first time that this has happened.
Right, I saw that too. So, assuming that the TCM programmers have access to IMDB, the question remains, WHY DID TCM SCHEDULE IT?
-
> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}I have for very long wondered what it costs to rent a movie.
>
> It seems to me that the owners and distributors do not consider it a major source of income and so they do not take great care in delivering the type of print which TCM requests.
It is TCM's responsibility to make sure they are getting the type of print they request. There has to be better quality control on TCM's side before they present these films to us. Remember, they have a reputation and a mission statement that they have to live up to and showing sub par product is not the way to do it. Perhaps if TCM withheld payment for films that are cut, have chopped off endings, or all around lousy copies, the distributors would take better care on their side. TCM should be the one calling the shots, not the distributors.
-
What was the deal with LOVE IS A RACKET? It was included, I'm assuming, because it is listed as a George Raft film, yet he wasn't in it. Dirty pool on the part of TCM?
Weren't INTRIGUE, BLACK WIDOW, and OUTPOST IN MOROCCO also scheduled to be shown, or am I imagining things?
-
> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Raft was by far the worst actor out of Warners' "Murderers Row".
Actor shmactor, so what, Raft brought something to his Gangster parts that the others lacked, real life experience through his association with underworld types. He was the closest Warners came to having an actual GANGSTER on their payroll. The others in Warner's "Murderers Row" were just acting the part, Raft based his portrayals on the mobsters he grew up with. If he appeared stiff, well..... his Gangster pals, from what I have read, carried themselves much the same way. CAGNEY, BOGART, and ROBINSON were actors first and based their Gangster portrayals on their limited knowledge of what a GANGSTER was and tailored their characters to comply with the publics' limited perception of the UNDERWORLD. Another thing RAFT had that the others lacked, STYLE and CLASS.
-
> {quote:title=Filmgoddess wrote:}{quote}Infinite: I'm sorry that you don't know what your talking about. I've written 8 books on film history and taught it for over 20 years. NOT all films are dated. If you think all films are dated, I'm not sure why you have any interest in TCM or film at all.
>
>
> *Teacher, the definition of dated is "old-fashioned" or "outmoded". That would apply to 99% of what is shown on TCM. See, it's never too late for anyone to learn, even a teacher. But, why a**re you trying to impress me with your resume? Frankly, I'm not impressed. Besides, since I don't know who you are I can't confirm or deny what you claim, can I? But, for someone who claims to have written 8 books you lack an understanding of what you read. I did say that a "dated" film does not mean it is a bad film. So, it follows that a "dated" performance does not mean that it was or is a bad performance. Besides, it was you who decried "dated" performances, not I. So, why are YOU watching TCM?*
>
> As for Mr. Kaye, I've done quite a bit of research on him for 2 books I did about film comedy. I found near-universal disdain for him as a person including the use of words I can't type here from the likes of everyone from Mildred Natwick to Barbara Stanwyck to Celeste Holm and others. I was relating that experience.
>
> *Whether or not DANNY KAYE was an SOB is irrelevant. I have read that LOU COSTELLO was one of the biggest SOBs in the business, yet he was and STILL IS beloved by fans. SINATRA, MARTIN and LEWIS, DAVIS, and CRAWFORD all had nasty streaks and personality quirks that would have disqualified the average Joe or Jane from winning, let alone participating in popularity contests, but they have the biggest followings on TCM even though they are "dated". You have a PERSONAL dislike for DK as an actor and a performer based on what, I still can't quite figure it out, maybe it's taste, whatever it is I don't think you know either, and you are defending your "position" with second hand gossip from the "likes of everyone from MIldred Natwick to Barbara Stanwyck to Celeste Holm and others." But, I don't want to hear from the likes of the elusive and invisible everyone and others that are always trudged out when one needs to pretend that they have universal support for their position. I want to hear straight from Filmgoddesses mouth, so to speak, what personal affront DANNY KAYE did to you, to rate such vindictive bilge. Maybe then I'll understand.*
>
> As for Mr. Kazan. If one looks at the tape of that event, you'll see that at least 50% of the audience rose to salute. Others, prominent in the audience (like Ed Harris and Spielberg) chose to stay seated and sit on their hands. A rather permament and shameful blot if you ask me about one of the greatest directors the American cinema and theater has ever known.
-
> {quote:title=Filmgoddess wrote:}{quote}Infinite: no, all films aren't dated. Some, many performers are timeless. Danny Kaye isn't one of them.
>
> I love Laurel and Hardy and Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd. They're all funny; Danny Kaye is just annoying.
>
> You can have the Three Stooges. It's been my experience that the only people who like them are 12 year old boys who have yet to reach puberty.
Guess you haven't had that much experience. But, all films ARE dated. The only way you can have a film that isn't dated is if the cast is white, bald, nude, no make-up, body art or piercings, and sits around on an all white floor in a studio with an all white background, and dosen't say anything and there is no music or interaction with the outside world. But then again it would still be dated by the type of film stock or video used for the production.
Just because you have a personal dislike for a commedian/performer or a comedian's shtick dosen't mean the comedian or his/her shtick is "dated". And, EVEN IF IT IS, "dated", by the way, is not a synonym for bad, except in the minds of opinionated people with an axe to grind.
-
How long has TCM been doing the TCM REMEMBERS and are any of the older ones still available for viewing?
-
> {quote:title=Filmgoddess wrote:}{quote}Lonesome: no flaws? Seriously? And unless your'e a man, I don't think he'd be much interested in marrying you
Not that there's anything wrong with that.>
> This is a deeply flawed film and I think the only appeal Kaye would have to modern audiences is as a camp factor. Have you ever seen the film in a theater? It's hilarious but it's because the audiences make complete fun of him and laugh hysterically -- in the wrong way -- at his over-the-top effeminate antics.
>
> When one talks about "dated" this film could be a prime example. It's so artificial.
Since you obviously detest Danny Kaye so much I would recommend a strong dose of Eddie Cantor films, just to stir your juices. Throw in Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, Abbott and Costello, The Three Stooges and you'd have a real hate fest. I think you're missing the point regarding Danny Kaye. He WAS FUNNY and folks liked him, they paid to see him. You don't think Hollywood was in the charity business do you? As far as dated, let me inform you, all films are dated.
-
> {quote:title=AddisonDeWitless wrote:}{quote}I like Van Heflin, although he runs (like most stars) the full gamut from great to so-so in terms of performances, and he was often miscast- bad luck he managed to overcome sometimes ( Madame Bovary ) and other times notsomuch ( The Three Musketeers ) And he's one of those genre-crossing stars who could do (and did do) ALL SORTS of pictures, and he's a *very rare* supporting player who successfully transitioned to leading status over time- no small feat seeing as how he was not traditionally handsome in Gable, Cooper or Taylor terms and not as BIG an ACTOR! as Cagney or Barrymore and their like.
>
> That said, I liked him very much *until* I saw Johnny Eager, the film for which he won the 1941 Best Supporting Actor Oscar earlier this year on TCM (was it during SUTS?)
>
>
> It's not a good film and it's not a good performance. Maybe it's just the fact that everything about it has aged so badly. I could barely watch it. It is "Soap Opera Acting 101"
>
>
> And now, everytime I see a film where his (sometimes drunken) character persists in high-fallutin', quasi-intellectual, thoroughly unnatural extemporizing and ham-fistedly pretentious dialogue (prime example: Black Widow ) I think "oh, poor guy, they were making him do Johnny Eager. "
>
>
> That Oscar can be a curse, no doubt.
>
>
> Of course to be fair, the bit works sometimes ( Possessed comes to mind) but more often than not, it doesn't.
>
You are right on target. I think his greatest performance was as Joe Starrett in SHANE, lousiest AND MOST ANNOYING as Jeff Hartnett in JOHNNY EAGER.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Hey will everybody please recomend Dancing Lady(1933)
in General Discussions
Posted
> {quote:title=AndyM108 wrote:}{quote}I wouldn't lose any sleep over it, but if you should, once they show it you'll have plenty of time to catch up. Considering that it's got a cast of Crawford, Gable, Fred Astaire and Robert Benchley, it's hard to imagine how they could've made such a snoozer, but somehow they managed to do it. It's amazing what the fear of censorship could do to some studios and producers.
SNOOZER????? How could any film with TED HEALY and THE THREE STOOGES be a snoozer?