clore
-
Posts
5,535 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by clore
-
-
You know you've won your argument when an **** retentive nitpicks your spelling.
I didn't see anyone pick on your spelling, just your punctuation and sentence structure which, in turn, renders your thoughts indecipherable.
-
Not at all. Of course there will be films that don't stand up to the passage of time, but can one really dismiss a whole decade? I mean if a person can find even two-dozen that they can appreciate this many years later, it would seem that the phrase might better be "Why I don't like most 30s movies." He may find many more that he does like, so might you.
Personally, a well made story from any era will attract my attention and in my time here, I've complained about a lot of things but not about recent titles slipping onto the schedule for any reason. As with any scheduled item, if I don't like it, I don't have to watch it.
I mostly appreciate seeing 30s and 40s films because a lot of them have been out of circulation for years and I like seeing ones that I've read about and have never had the chance to see. These films all pre-date me as i was born in 1951.
Now I'm feeling that about a lot of 50s films which haven't been seen in ages if at all. The Universal titles alone could program TCM for months.
-
Yes, I can well understand the issue of pride. And I fully agree that that post was disrespectful. It was just a sensational headline followed by "IDK" which implies that the author really doesn't know.
-
There is a . period & then a new sentence. Are you that dumb or just acting?
Well, your posts can leave one dumbstruck. But your new sentence just threw out a bunch of additional titles and ended with a period. That's hardly proper sentence structure. It also threw in "Ecstasy" and "Enthusiasm which are not British or American films, so your intent was hardly clear. In fact, it wasn't clear to the degree of zero, zilch, nada.
I like a few British pix of the 30's : Things to Come, Man Who Knew Too Much, 39 Steps, Jamaica Inn, Secret Agent, Sabotage, Lady Vanishes, Rome Express, The Ghoul , The Man Who Changed His Mind, Non-Stop New York, King Solomon's Mines, FP1 Doesnt Answer, Phantom Ship, Young & Innocent. The Black Cat, Of Human Bondage, A Star is Born. Vampyr, Enthusiasm, Ecstasy, The Most Dangerous Game.
For what I could see, it's up there with your previous gibberish complaining that TCM never airs UA, Republic or AA films and that there were no (zero, zilch, nada) women directors in the studio era.
Speaking of punctuation, why not fix this sentence?
Mask of Fu Manchu I might like its one of Karloff's worst.
-
*The Black Cat, Of Human Bondage, A Star is Born* and *The Most Dangerous Game* are not British films.
-
For me it's not a matter of the truth - that doesn't bother me, not a bit. But this isn't really a forum to discuss the sexual proclivities of people. I no more want to read about Errol Flynn's conquests than I do about Clifton Webb's. There are plenty of other sites for that.
If it were really what people here want, then more power to them. But I notice that Robert Osborne never discusses that kind of behind-the-scenes info. He seems to avoid it regardless of orientation.
I just don't see the point of "So-and-so was gay" as being anything but someone trying to be sensational. After all, once you get past the revelation - what is there to discuss? It's one thing if it comes out during discussion of a person's life and times. It's just one part of what makes a person's composition. How intimate do we want to get with anyone's sexual orientation? It's not a matter of burying it, it's a matter of it really being of little importance.
But declaring Blanche Yurka being a lesbian and saying that Dee and McCrea had a long and happy marriage are two different things. One is a reference to sexual preference only, the other is a lot broader in scope. Should a person or a relationship be defined strictly by their sexuality?
No, I don't think that history should be white-washed. But I just don't happen to define someone by their sexual preference any more than I do their political preference.
-
I feel the same way Fred, I really don't care what consenting adults do when they go home.
-
It's a parody thread, Check out the one about Madame De Farge and Miss Havisham.
-
And that's about all that should matter to us.
-
Why stop at 1939? The code was in effect for another 25 years more or less.
-
It was shot like a 1929 film. Frame two actors talking to each other, no cross-cutting, no close-ups, just hold the camera there for five minutes. Then move on to the next scene and repeat the same approach.
I understand that Hawks turned it into a comedy, This could have used some humor, although Miles Malleson did give it a lift here and there. Everyone seemed to be talking at the same pace and the same volume regardless of the dialogue. Ennui set in and by the time we got near the end and some surprises popped up, it was too late.
-
*Three on a Match* has too great a cast for me to miss. I've seen it a few times already, but I can't get tired of it.
Can't wait for *Blind Alley* also. This day has been the best so far this month as I'm big on movies from the 30s.
-
I think that 800 films is a bit of a stretch. The IMDb shows him with 129 - including shorts.
But he does deserve a tribute.
-
I sure hope that they nail you because of this part of the rules and regulations:
*Any excessive posting, including without limitation, posting the same thing multiple times (in the same or different thread or forum) or posting content or comments that have no relevance to what is being discussed by others, is prohibited.*
BTW - if they didn't worry about the after-effect of showing THE DAM BUSTERS which had a dog named n-word, I think it disproves your theory.
-
Another thing is the policy to not allow new posts to threads over a year old. This strikes most of us as kind of weird, since most forums are the opposite, preferring that old threads be used, rather than creating new ones on the same topic.
I'll support you on that one. Over on the Classic Horror Film Board, there's a self-appointed traffic cop who manages to flag every thread that is "in violation" of the rules to search for an existing thread on the same subject. An pro-author on film, he has nothing to do with the administration over there, but I guess it gives him something to do other than to keep watching the skies.
It might help if the search engine over there was a bit better. Putting in "Voyage to the End of the Universe" might find you a post with that title in it, but you'll have to wade through every post that has "voyage" or "to" or "the" (and so on) to get to it.
-
As far as people getting sucked up into sand, you might want to look at INVADERS FROM MARS, specifically the 1953 version.
-
The first one should be VAULT OF HORROR with Glynnis Johns as the woman who finally learned how to be neat as she labeled all of the jars containing her hubby's body parts.
-
Why is it his last case? Does he die of boredom?
-
Clint Walker had only an unbilled bit in an Allied Artists Bowery Boys film prior to the premiere of CHEYENNE. His bit in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS was released after the series premiered.
-
I suppose you mean someone outside the likes of Arthur Godfrey - you're looking for someone who "acted" in a series.
Not that Godfrey's on-air personality wasn't an act.
I'll have to ponder that a bit, but don't anybody else refrain from taking a shot.
-
wheres your allied artists list?
You must be talking to me, the list was in the same post in which I provided the UA titles, but here it is once again:
*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.*
I'll let you go back and count just how many Bowery Boys movies were AA rather than Monogram. Still, even just one movie would be more than what you claimed when you said:
"You wont even see Allied Artists pix & WB owns that & UA owned by WB is gone missing."
-
Joan Davis hardly had the status of the rest of them, but I tossed in her name just to show to what extent TV producers would go to hire someone with even a modest name. She was also in the appropriate age bracket, unlike say Donna Reed or even Gale Storm who were a bit younger.
TCM had a couple of Joan Davis films on June 29, her birthday:
h1. 11:30 AM
h2. [beautiful but Broke (1944)|http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/28077/Beautiful-but-Broke/]
An agent's secretary puts together an all-female big band to cope with wartime male shortages.
*Dir*: *Cast*: , , .
BW-69 mins, TV-G,
h1. 1:00 PM
h2. [Kansas City Kitty (1944)|http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/3706/Kansas-City-Kitty/]
A piano teacher takes on shady music publishers.
*Dir*: *Cast*: , , .
BW-71 mins, TV-G,
-
I think that she would have gone to TV eventually. Stanwyck, Wyman, Loretta Young, Ann Sothern, Joan Davis, Jean Arthur, Ann Sheridan, Doris Day, Betty Hutton, Lana Turner - all of them eventually landed on TV, some were more successful than others. Even Bette Davis tried a couple of pilots - I saw one where she was an interior decorator.
It's just that feature-film wise, there are only so many good years for an actress. Joan Crawford landed in grade-Z schlock movies, she would have done better on TV.
-
To me it is a colossal waste of time as millions of viewers obviously cannot attend so they hold back on airing Spartacus because of it.
Do you know that for a fact? Renting a film for theatrical exhibition is a whole separate issue from leasing it to air on TV.
TCM has aired SPARTACUS in the past, it could be that it didn't air for Jean Simmons month because another channel had an exclusivity on it. TCM could conceivably present THE GODFATHER at the film festival, but AMC has the telecast rights locked-up on it until December 31, 2019. That means that neither TCM or any other channel can air it until then.
What's the big deal? You couldn't see it in June but you're getting to see it in August. Two months later really mean that much to you?
Why I don't like 30's movies
in General Discussions
Posted
He's dismissed a great many films that we all love and is probably sitting in his mom's basement just laughing his...head off.
He's listed quite a number of films with the comment that he's not interested in them. That could be interpreted two ways - either he's seen them and isn't interested in seeing them again or he hasn't seen them and isn't interested. He appears to be deliberately vague.
But given his posting history of outrageously false pronouncements and that he has a habit of not returning once proved wrong, I can't state that I'm at all interested in what he has to say whether he's being vague or declarative. I believe he's just banging on the keyboard to make a lot of noise.
While he pleaded "Give me credit. I, at least, have an opinion," I can't help but be reminded what Clint Eastwood had to say about opinions in THE ENFORCER. After seeing his "superjew" comment in the thread on Leonard Maltin, it's very difficult to give him any credit for any opinion.