clore

I am pretty sure Conrad Veidt is okay that no Nazi Propaganda films are showing on his day. As I told this same person on the IMDb message boards, given that the day is to honor Veidt, it's only fitting to show the films in which he was honored to appear. He's now spamming the boards over there with the same plea for a boycott. Meanwhile, he's equating the administrators over there to Nazis because they won't let him review a film and include a phrase that the Nazis considered jazz to be n-word music. Somewhere a village is missing an idiot.

I've seen WE WERE STRANGERS before and wanted to watch it last night but too little sleep the night before had me conking out about half way through. It's true, that's another one that doesn't get much play. One thing that I really admire about Huston's films is that he takes a lot of chances. He was not one to repeat formulas. Here he is paired with an actor who was much the same way and if the film isn't a total success, it's not that they weren't trying.

On Aug. 2nd, in the General Discussions forum, Mike M. opened a thread about exactly the same subject, so the Admin. should close one of them. He had another one locked that he started on August 4: http://forums.tcm.com/thread.jspa?threadID=161107&tstart=0

I've got an ignore list a mile long over at the IMDb message boards, but I've yet to use it here. He's also posting the same stuff over there and the reaction is quite the same as he gets here. I may have to resort to giving him sole billing on my ignore list here. It's not as if I haven't criticized things about TCM, but I try to do so with a sense of being constructive and remembering that I'm a guest in their house. This guy just keeps repeating himself and fails to consider that there just might be some valid reason why certain films can't air. Here he's asking for such obscure items that they might not even be available for airing on U.S. TV with English subtitles. I saw an old post the other day that referred to TCM having once aired *Triumph of the Will* and I've seen the German version of *Titanic*, so I really doubt that politics or the need to be politically correct applies here.

Me and other serieous fans of film history , will boycott this aspect of Summer under the stars as a protest against political correctness. Why not also boycott the message boards? Maybe spend a little time on some remedial English course. No offence, but your stance might be received a bit better were it properly presented. It would also garner less criticism if you refrained from calling TCM management a-- h----. You could also stand to take a little of your own advice: Why get offend (sic) at it?Your (sic) wasting your energy.

Clore, that was a nice review of The Breaking Point. Thanks for the kind words Tom. I rarely do that kind of thing anymore, it takes a lot to get a film to inspire me to try to sum up my thoughts on it. Plus it's hard to be encouraging to others and also not reveal too much of the storyline. It's great to find someone else who feels as I do about this film. Even among Curtiz and Garfield fans, it seems to be the one they haven't seen yet.

At least it's better than last year when they has the audacity to show A Face in the Crowd (AGAIN!) as part of Lee Remick's day, she's barely in the thing for five minutes! Heck, they showed CITIZEN KANE as part of an Alan Ladd day a few years ago. He's easier to spot by his voice than he is visually as one of the reporters in the shadows. He doesn't even get five minutes.

We think similarly on this one Tom, here's something that I just posted on the IMDb Message Boards: I must have been ten years old when I saw this 1951 adaptation of *To Have and Have Not*. It would be another 30 years before I got to see it again, for some reason it hardly ever aired in an accessible time slot for me. Last night it aired on TCM and I have to say that this film gets better with each viewing. Michael Curtiz may be associated with some of the greatest films ever made, but this one is barely ever mentioned. John Garfield plays Harry Morgan, the skipper of a charter boat and unlike the previous version of the character, he gets to keep his name for the rest of the film. That always bugged me about the Hawks version of the story, why was Bacall calling him "Steve" while everyone else called him Harry. I know the origin of the use of "Slim" and "Steve" but it still seems odd that no other character notices that Morgan responds to two different first names. Garfield's Harry comes off initially as a guy who is pretty much in control and Ted McCord's camera emphasizes this at first by always shooting at an up angle. But there's one thing he isn't in control of and that's his finances which get worse when a customer skips out on him, leaving him stuck in Mexico with Patricia Neal. Neal was the customer's "companion" for the trip from Newport Beach to Mexico and she's also stranded by the dead beat. As the film progresses, Harry seems to grow diminutive in stature as the camera shifts to head-on and overhead shots. Needing money to get home, Morgan agrees to sneak some Chinese refugees into the States, a deal arranged by sleazy lawyer (a redundancy?) played superbly by Wallace Ford. Harry has a few problems getting his money from the Chinese agent who represents the refugees and in a fight ends up killing the man who brought a gun to the confrontation. In true noir fashion, this is just the start of Harry's downward spiral, a tragedy underscored by his relationship with his wife and two daughters. He's really a loving family man who does his best to avoid any entanglement with Neal who would just love to seduce him. Neal however isn't the prototypical femme fatale, she really has no part in the unsavory events to follow. She does however cause some jealousy on the part of Harry's wife played by Phyllis Thaxter who even goes as far as to copy Neal's hairstyle when she thinks hubby may stray. The two women have a nice exchange of dialogue in the one scene they share, Thaxter isn't quite the mouse that one would assume. One important element in the film is Harry's relationship with his partner played by Juano Hernandez. Never once is his skin color referred to and Hernandez is not given one word of stereotypical speech. So key is their friendship that the final shot of the film is something that stayed in my head from the first time that I saw the film. It's truly haunting. The source material has an interesting history. Hawks thought that it was the basis for a good film despite Hemingway's sentiments otherwise. Still, Hawks threw most of it out and added bits of *Casablanca* and his own universe with elements that showed earlier in *Only Angels Have Wings* and even later in *Rio Bravo*. John Huston used the ending of the story to close his adaptation of *Key Largo* and eight years after the Curtiz film, Don Siegel presided over yet another adaptation in *The Gun Runners*. There's also an uncredited adaptation titled ****** which was released in 1956 and which seems to have gotten scant distribution theatrically or on TV.

You wont even see Allied Artists pix & WB owns that & UA owned by WB is gone missing. Within the past year TCM has aired all of the Bowery Boys movies, AL CAPONE, FRIENDLY PERSUASION, LOVE IN THE AFTERNOON, THE CYCLOPS, CRIME IN THE STREETS, SNOWFIRE and AL CAPONE. All of these are Allied Artists films. In another post in the thread on "Lousy Summer Movies" I've alredy noted UA films that have aired just this week. I guess you missed IT: THE TERROR FROM BEYOND SPACE, THE MONSTER THAT CHALLENGED THE WORLD, and THE MAGNETIC MONSTER, all are UA films and aired in June. Within the last year, TCM has aired: KANSAS CITY CONFIDENTIAL THE TWONKY DONOVAN'S BRAIN 99 RIVER STREET TOP BANANA WITNESS TO MURDER RETURN TO TREASURE ISLAND VERA CRUZ BIG HOUSE USA MARTY SUMMERTIME NOT AS A STRANGER THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN ARM TRAPEZE RUN FOR THE SUN AROUND THE WORLD IN 80 DAYS THE KING AND FOUR QUEENS DRANGO MEN IN WAR 12 ANGRY MEN SAINT JOAN SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS THE PRIDE AND THE PASSION MY GUN IS QUICK RUN SILENT, RUN DEEP THUNDER ROAD I WANT TO LIVE GOD'S LITTLE ACRE THE BIG COUNTRY THE GUN RUNNERS MAN OF THE WEST THE LAST MILE SOME LIKE IT HOT These are just the UA ones from the 50s and just those that I watched. I could probably come up with more from the decade that I didn't see.

TCM has taken out all the film noir/crime pix & no UA or AA. Are you saying there are zero, zilch, nada UA films? So far this week I've seen VICE SQUAD, ON OUR MERRY WAY, MODERN TIMES, THE GREAT DICTATOR and HE RAN ALL THE WAY. They were all released by UA.

From an article on the Classic Images web site: The war, however, would put a dent in Payne's career. On October 13, 1942, he entered into military service as a Student Aviator, serving in the 11th Corps Training unit of the Ferry Command. He enlisted for Army Pilot training in Phoenix, Arizona. He reported to Camp Williams, Arizona, on January 11, 1943, and after completing his training, in June, 1944, he was assigned to the Ferry Command at Long Beach, California. Basically a non-combat group, Ferry Command was assigned the job of flying planes to where ever they were needed. He received his honorable discharge on September 1, 1944, when this group was no longer a unit of the Army Air Forces.

The question was asked whether Mabel Albertson ever played a pleasant character, and I have to wonder the same about Will Wright. It's been a while since I've seen it, but wasn't Will Wright the man who was giving Frankie a shot at being employed in THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN ARM. Only Frankie blew it by getting high before the audition. His casino owner in THE LAS VEGAS STORY was a decent guy and he has a bit as an investigator questioning Robert Cummings in Hitchcock's SABOTEUR.

I have to say that I've always found it on a par with the original. And well, it WAS a frame-for-frame remake, as I'm sure you know. Not as much as legend has it. I watched both back-to-back several times and while there are many similarities, it is not the frame-by-frame remake as is the 90s version of PSYCHO. For example, while they are planning the ruse, Colman is sitting down through the scene while Granger does move about. The shots of the guards and trumpeters during the coronation are actually more elaborately staged in the 1937 film. Thorpe just went for a simple head-on shot. He never was one for complex staging, a "just-get-it-over-with" approach, leaning mostly toward coverage shots. I've got enough pluses and minuses for each version to declare a tie also.

That ad for THE MAGNIFICENT FRAUD had me thinking that Lon Chaney came back.

Well, all else aside, i think that Burt Lancaster deserves credit for both THE FLAME AND THE ARROW and THE CRIMSON PIRATE. The former is practically a remake of ROBIN HOOD but it's very well made and it has Robert Douglas as the villain - probably the best other than Basil Rathbone. While not up to the Warner/Flynn level (and I do enjoy the later MASTER OF BALLANTRAE), the Monte Cristo films are fun, especially the ones with Louis Hayward as there is some more action to them. The first one with Robert Donat is more akin to THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL - a lot of swash but not much buckling. Hayward's two Captain Blood films are disappointing as they are mostly land-based. Hayward is also quite good in THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK but that's more a costumer than a swashbuckler. I wish that Cornel Wilde got to do some better films than he managed to get as he was an Olympic-caliber swordsman. Still, THE BANDIT OF SHERWOOD FOREST and AT SWORD's POINT have their moments. There's even some fun to be had in the ones that Tony Curtis made at Universal such as THE BLACK SHIELD OF FALWORTH and THE PURPLE MASK. No, they aren't up to the best of the genre, but they were good enough to keep me entertained at a Saturday matinee.

Make sure to check the synonyms below! opinion [uh-pin-yuhn]   Origin o?pin?ion    [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal. 3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion. 4. Law . the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case. 5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion. EXPAND Origin: 1250?1300; Middle English < Old French < Latin opīniōn- (stem of opīniō ), derivative of opīnārī to opine Related forms pre?o?pin?ion, noun un?der?o?pin?ion, noun Can be confused:  opine, opinion (see synonym note at the current entry ). Synonyms 1. persuasion, notion, idea, impression. Opinion, sentiment, view are terms for one's conclusion about something. An opinion is a belief or judgment that falls short of absolute conviction, certainty, or positive knowledge; it is a conclusion that certain facts, ideas, etc., are probably true or likely to prove so: political opinions; an opinion about art; In my opinion this is true. Sentiment (usually pl. ) refers to a rather fixed conviction, usually based on feeling or emotion rather than reasoning: These are my sentiments. View is an estimate of something, an intellectual judgment, a critical survey based on a mental examination, particularly of a public matter: views on governmental planning. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion

If you saw someone on the street and you got the *impression* that the person might harm you in some way,maybe rape you,would you consider that you need to explain it to somebody,and that if you couldn't explain it cuz it's a feeling or impression then would that mean you're an IDIOT???.Because That's what you just called me.JR. No, just consider that such is my impression of you. This would save me the need to explain it according to your standards.

That's kowtow, not cow-tow. i never *accused* the man of ANYTHING,it's all in your head,so don't accuse me of something i didn't do! So, you just want to be able to run off at the mouth without being responsible for what you say. You seem to realize that *you* can say what you think,but others can't,that is,if you *don't like it*. You can say what you want - but if you're thought to be careless in your actions, you have to be able to defend it. I can't sit here and type that I think that you're an idiot. I have to provide reasons as to why I think that. But fortunately you save me the need to do so.

Yes, i can fine tune the audio. There's a six-band equalizer that can be altered on the "custom" setting as well as various pre-set configurations, most of which aren't prefereable. I haven't watched a TV program in ages, I only watch various movie channels with the exception of some BURNS AND ALLEN episodes on Antenna TV. But they're edited for additional commercial time so I stopped watching them. I get all of my news from the web or actual newspapers. When I watched AVATAR on HBO the volume changes were wearing out my fingertip. I haven't noticed it while watching any of my own DVDs but my son's THE DARK KNIGHT was another frustrating experience.

clore, i don't owe you any explanation.Get off it. In other words, you don't have an explanation. Who appointed you as the arbitor of "correct speech"?? Who appointed you as Ben's accuser? By the way, as long as I'm correcting you, that's arbiter. Who are you,the thought and speech police?? If I were, you would be under arrest. I'll say as i feel w/o your interference or input. That works two ways then fella. I'm just saying what I feel - or to put it correctly, what I think. I can see you're too emotional to be rational,so i'll drop it here.Take your political correctness somewhere else. JR. That's the first time i've ever been accused of being politically correct. And judging by the reaction that you're getting, I'm not the one here who is considered too emotional or irrational. Well, chances are they are going to clip your wings so I hope that your have a parachute.

hlywdkjk, i never said that Ben IS that way,i said that's how he strikes me,that's the IMPRESSION i have always gotten from him.I don't know why.But mine is an honest statement of an impression that i have.Right or wrong.The mere statement of an IMPRESSION is not "hateful".*No ACCUSATIONS of coke use as one poster claimed.* Nor charges of "sexism" "racism" or "anti-gay" actvity as another claimed. Maybe people should read posts more carefully before reading what they want *into* a post.JR Earlier you said: Ben has always struck me as being the ne'er do well,skirt chasing,*coke snorting*,hard drinking grandson of a once bigtime hollywood director who has to do SOMETHING to make some $$$$. Note: emphasis mine. Maybe you should tell us why he strikes you as a coke snorter. Does he chortle a lot? Is his nose dripping? Does he have trouble keeping still and is he making wild hand gestures? Is there white powder on his mustache or just below his nostril? If he fits a stereotype, tell us how.

Actually, , . I, misswonderly, am the one creating ids and fake screen names and sock puppets... Where are your alter egos O'Shaughnessy and LeBlanc?

Coke snorting is a crime and one should be able to submit proof if they are going to accuse someone of committing a crime. At least a link to your source of this info.

I was looking at the credits before I watched the film. I noticed the Robert Ryan credit and I thought that I had better keep an eye out for Robert Ryan but I couldn't spot him. I paid very close attention, it was early in the AM and I wasn't nodding. It seemed highly possible since it was an RKO film and that's where Bob was working at the time. So, when it was over, I was going to have the IMDb delete the erroneous info, but I double-checked just in case and that's when I discovered that it was another Ryan. I just hope that the paychecks didn't get issued to the wrong Robert Ryans.

I just saw *Johnny O'Clock* again last week - Robert Ryan is not in that film at all. Not the one who was in the other films anyway. This film's Robert Ryan (who had an uncredited bit) is an actor born in 1896 and who made his first film in 1926. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0752814/