clore

Eva Marie Saint is in FROM HERE TO ETERNITY? I know that this is one of TCM's perennials, but to run it on All-Saint day seems to be stretching it since she isn't in it.

> {quote:title=slaytonf wrote:}{quote}The OP would have been happy to see another poster start a new thread about the film. He thinks Curtis' performance merits discussion and comparison with other actors' finest work. I don't disagree with you that the performance merits discussion, but am thinking that you could have set-up the thread for it in a better way. Perhaps to have declared it as a film worth going out of the way to see to marvel at his performance, rather than just "he's coming." When Curtis passed away, there was a thread on the IMDb asking about what users thought to be his best performance and this was the one that I chose. My perspective was that while Sidney Falco may have put him on the map dramatically, it was in some ways a role that still relied upon him to use his natural charm, he was just using it for a different kind of personal gain than to end up with the girl. I've always thought that his best performances were when he played real-life people - Houdini, Ferdinand Demara, Ira Hayes and Albert DeSalvo.

> {quote:title=stjohnrv wrote:}{quote}Many many years ago when i was just a pup I vaguely remember a horse race film with Walter Brennen( I think) wherein he goes to rich neighbor to claim a horse owing to him. Now this rich neighbor is a dishonest bloke and attempts to hide what he believes is his best horse where Walter won't find him. While walking through the farm Walter hears a groom singing "postman run the mile in 48, 48 going to the races going to the races" ... and that's how much I remember anyone out there got a feel for this movie and remembers it name? That was KENTUCKY, there's a pic of a poster and a shot of Brennan further down the thread.

> {quote:title=ginnyfan wrote:}{quote}Obviously, this dense poster didn't get it yesterday, but the film is the highlight of Curtis' work. It does amuse me that he comments on Curtis' performance not being discussed after the film has aired, when he's had two days and how many posts here beforehand, and he never mentioned it either. Other than to say a hole in Curtis' filmography will be filled and he hoped it would be as good as he remembered. OK, that's his right but there's some proverb about reaping and sowing that may apply. It started out seeming as a gag thread (as in the old "the viper is coming" routine), so I'm not surprised that it hasn't encouraged any discussion. Nor had anyone made a mention about the less than satisfactory print in this thread until the OP did, so if the conversation wasn't going the way he'd prefer, maybe he should have driven in another direction in the first place. The old routine I spoke of had numerous warnings of "the viper is coming" but ended with a knock on the door and the gag line of "I come to vipe your vindows."

A lot of talk about run times and prints, but not a word about Tony Curtis' performance. Sorry, but I refused to watch it the way it was presented, I would not have been able to appreciate his performance - or that of anyone else. But since I was pumped up to see the film, I did order a DVD. I've seen it already. I saw it back in 1968 plus several times since and I agree that it's a great performance, up there with his work in SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS and THE OUTSIDER.

I tried different settings, I even turned to the SD version - it was hurting my eyes to watch it this way. I just ordered a DVD from a secondary seller at Amazon, cost me less than seven dollars with postage included.

It's a Panavision film, should be a 2.35:1 ratio. But it's filling up my widescreen TV from top to bottom. There should be black bars top and bottom. It looks to be too squeezed, the actors appear too slender.

The release date is June 26, 2012.

When I go look at the user comments on the IMDb for some of Scott's 50s films, it seems he gets some criticism for having such young female co-stars. The thing is that we usually don't see him aggressively pursuing them, they are rarely more than just decorative. He did stay in shape and thus could have a lengthy shirtless scene in 1952's CARSON CITY and not be embarrassed. James Stewart in REAR WINDOW should have kept his shirt on, ditto for Gable in MOGAMBO. Bronson should never have gotten mixed up with the Cannon people. DEATH HUNT was perhaps his last decent film and that one was away from the Golan-Globus guys. But doing DEATH WISH films into his 70s was a poor idea and by then he seemed to have little enough breath for speaking. Never really one with a strong delivery, by this point he was capable of little more than a whisper. Neither he nor Burt Reynolds appeared to be interested in anythng other than the check, so whatever they had going for them in the 70s didn't carry on into the 80s except for the most dedicated fans.

Free Daily Racing Form past performances can be found here: http://www.drf.com/sites/default/files/HGDERBY.pdf

The most impressive thing about Scott, for me anyway, is that he did keep working. The guy already had more money than the U.S. Treasury, he wasn't making these four-week (at best) films for the need to put groceries on the table. Making the decision to just make westerns from 1948 on, just goes to show that he just wanted to please his fans and not worry about pleasing critics or winning awards. Gable was actually quite lucky, he had GWTW in his back pocket and the constant re-release of that film kept him propped up in the polls. You know, I've hardly seen any Jane Withers films. Even the Fox Movie Channel barely aired them when I had them as part of my line-up. They went to premium status in July 2010 and I could not see paying for it as after a decade, I had seen most of what I wanted to see and wasn't crazy about paying for triple-plays of the likes of PORKY'S or REVENGE OF THE NERDS. Connery was lucky. Other than Bond, he didn't have a hit film until THE ANDERSON TAPES and a lot of his subsequent output was marginal. But THE UNTOUCHABLES, for all of its faults, put him back in the public's embrace and got him an Oscar to boot. I can remember when around 1971, Life Magazine had Eastwood on the cover with the blurb "The world's biggest movie star is - no kidding - Clint Eastwood." I think that the public knew that already, it was just that Life was almost embarrassed to admit it. I still have some of the reviews of the Leone films and most were not good. The public was way ahead of the critics there.

Big Boy Williams going against type playing a bad guy was terrific and I always love the way he fired his revolver, like he was throwing the bullets out of it. That's probably my biggest complaint about the film, but as you note, Williams did that often. So many in the cast of THE RETURN OF THE 7 do that little piece of action and for me, it makes it more of a comedy than anything else. I hereby suggest that all directors make a visit to the pistol range to observe how it's done. Scott did have an incredible surge in popularity in the 50s. According to the Quigley poll, he ranked as follows: 1950 - 10th 1951 - 7th 1952 - 10th 1953 - 10th Here's a man, already in his 50s, making B+ westerns, and showing up in the top 10 for the first time. Certainly his films weren't given the critical appreciation of those of Wayne or Stewart, and Cooper wasn't even in the top 10 in 1950 although he saw a comeback the next year. It reminds me of what would happen to Charles Bronson some twenty years later at the same age. The Quigley polls can be seen here: http://www.quigleypublishing.com/MPalmanac/Top10/Top10_lists.html

Also, there are many TV shows that have not been released on DVD, take BATMAN for example, yet that show is still in syndication. Are you saying that show has been digitally mastered or else it would have been taken out of syndication? There's a rights issue behind not releasing BATMAN on home video. Fox can syndicate the series as that right was always in the initial contract. But homevid rights weren't and Fox and Warner Bros, who own the rights to the Batman character, have yet to come to some agreement.

They aren't sold in stores as most of the titles in the Archive aren't in great demand. Regardless of what I may think of some Warren William films, most out there just aren't interested. Stores aren't going to give up space for a less in-demand title when they can stock 100s of copies of the latest blockbuster. Thus, the Archive cuts out the middle man and sells direct to the customer online. However, even Warners isn't going to set aside tons of space for stuff that few want. Thus, they are made on-demand. Heck, this is why so many of the formerly commercially available titles ended up in Big Lots or drastically reduced via Amazon - they over-anticipated the demand. I've gotten what I think are some great films, at five bucks a pop, some even less. I admit to being initially opposed to paying 20 dollars per title for Archive films, but now the sales are quite frequent and the ones that I've gotten in the last year have cost me ten dollars each, usually with free postage. Get added on their mailing list and you'll get bulletins for the sales via email.

Wow, I'm disappointed that you don't share my enthusiasm, but that's what makes these forums so interesting. For example, I'm not fond of the westerns that Scott made for Nat Holt at RKO, and I only have three of them because they came bundled so cheaply with two titles that I did want (WESTBOUND and CARSON CITY). Yet some here seem to love those particular titles and I haven't even opened them. I've seen them, so it's not as if I have to see them again until I have to when I can no longer pay my cable bill.

I partied a little too much in my youth (which lasted until 50 or so), so these days I have to justify it to myself, lest I fall into bad habits.

Movie fans who just want to make a hunch bet could do worse than picking either "Went the Day Well" or "Daddy Long Legs." The former does look particularly strong, but I am always concerned when a horse appears to have a lack of seasoning. However, that has been the trend of late, so one either deals with it or not. Other than his maiden win, "Went the Day Well" has just one Grade 3 race win to his credit. Generally I prefer to isolate those horses that have won a Grade 1 or 2 event. Meanwhile, "Gemologist" has won all five of his starts including both a Grade 1 and Grade 2 event. "Union Rags" has won a Grade 1 and two Grade 2 races with a very close finish in another Grade 1. But I make no predictions until post positions, scratches and track condition are known. There is a saying around the track that mud is the great equalizer and it's quite true. Even at this distance, a speed horse can get loose on the lead and some come-from-behind horses don't like having dirt kicked in their faces. It's also Cinco de Mayo on Saturday, so there's two reasons to party as far as I'm concerned.

The storyline has me interested as it sounds like THE BARON OF ARIZONA, only with the Ponderosa being the target of swindlers.

By coincidence, she just happens to be on the BONANZA episode that airs at 4pm Eastern today on TV LAND.

I was so disappointed when I heard that new music. Even though I had not seen an episode in 50 years or more, I knew that music by heart.

Around here there are a bunch whose primary concern is the guy who is coming tonight at 8pm Eastern. Yay yay It's Joel McCrea Star of the Month All this May

Thanks so much for the info on Joe Sawyer, he's caught my eye at least eight times in the last month, and I may have to go dig out some more of his stuff, now that I'm a fan. Maybe I can find some Rin Tin Tin eps to watch. I love Rinty! If you get AntennaTV in your area, you can see the show on Saturday mornings at 9am Eastern time. They run two episodes back-to-back.

> {quote:title=casablancalover wrote:}{quote}Wow, 3500 post.. > Hey, thank you for noticing - I didn't spot that at all.

Playing devil's advocate Fred, there is probably someone on the west coast wondering why MAN'S FAVORITE SPORT is airing while he's stuck in traffic on the freeway. At least he's getting to see STROMBOLI at 10:45pm, a more reasonable hour. I've never seen the latter, and am debating whether to stay up or not as I no longer have any recording equipment. This drives me nuts on a Sunday where I have to start reading the intertitles and subtitles of silent and foreign films starting at midnight. Here's where I have to admit that I need to catch up with modern technology, but it's an additional expense that I can't bear right now. As for FLIPPER, it does stick out like a sore thumb as a kid's vehicle among a bunch of adult-oriented titles based on a fishy theme.

> {quote:title=casablancalover wrote:}{quote}That's a question I've always wondered.... > > If I saw THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE > > -2 times, > > can I count it as 4? I'll make it even more complicated, what if you watched THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE and then this film: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0035204/