clore
-
Posts
5,535 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by clore
-
-
> {quote:title=markfp2 wrote:}{quote}
>
> Even that's not foolproof. A lot of these guys don't even give a mailing address so there is no choice but a credit card. I've also noticed that some of them that do have one refuse to take money orders but will "happily" take checks or credit cards. Hmm. Now I wonder why that is? (he asks in a very sarcastic way).
>
>
>
No way for me then. I guess that I can't be too much of a film fan then if I'm not willing to take a chance.
There is nothing that I have got to own so much that in the internet age, I'll provide a crook with such info.
I do know of one guy who will accept money orders and still I'm hesistant. Why? Because he can cash the money order and fail to send me the goods and there's nothing that I can do about it. Where do I go to complain that I paid for something illegal and didn't receive it?
If that's the case, there's a guy who took my money and never came back with the nickel bag that I wanted.
-
> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}I was looking forward to VOICE IN THE WIND, because it seemed interesting. But when I watched it this afternoon, I came to the conclusion that it was pure junk. Shot in thirteen days and it shows. I am sure there was very little rehearsal time. It does not seem like they had much opportunity to really hone it and put their best work into it.
>
> VOICE is sort of a time capsule, showing what a group of artists managed to produce in under two weeks, and here we are decades later watching that document but it is not a classic document. It is rather frayed around the proverbial edges, all scratched up and about to disintegrate in our very hands.
>
I'm not certain if more money or time would have made it any better. I'm a "B" movie enthusuast, I adore the cinema of Ulmer, Cahn, Beaudine and the like. I can make allowances for time and budget if there are enough elements there in the first place.
This one had a story that was just shoddy. Francis Lederer actually did great work under the handicap, Granach was OK, but why were he and Naish employing Italian accents when they were supposed to be Portuguese? As I said earlier, Naish was doing his Chico Marx impression which is different from his Italian soldier in SAHARA where he isn't piling on the stereotype. As for Sigrid Gurie, what can I say? I've seen more expressive department store dummies.
Maybe the whole thing was supposed to be director Ripley's CALIGARI, where we're seeing it all through the eyes of a madman. I won't call it junk, but it was hardly the treasure that some have called it through the years.
-
"Baseball been berry, berry good to me."
Garrett Morris as Chico Escuela on SNL is what comes to mind when I think of that movie. Granted, I saw the film first, but once SNL introduced that character, I could not help but think of ALL FALL DOWN.
I'm glad that you liked the post, thank you for commenting.
-
it is such a tedious, overwrought, mundane little affair- and honestly, it's been in heavy rotation for the last two or three years.
I don't consider it a berry, berry good movie. Yes, it is berry, berry overwrought, and it is berry, berry much in constant rotation. And there is one character name in there which is berry, berry annoying with its constantly being mentioned. It goes to show that his parents didn't have berry, berry much imagination.
-
> {quote:title=markfp2 wrote:}{quote}
>
> My feelings exactly. I know people think it's only a few bucks so if they get a bad copy or none at all they aren't out that much, but the real loss could come from the fact they gave the bootlegger their credit card number or a check with account info on it. It ain't worth it folks.
>
You're right about that. Here's someone already doing something illegal, and you're going to trust them with such information?
My suggestion is to pay by a money order if you just gotta have the bootleg.
-
> {quote:title=MGMWBRKO wrote:}{quote}FYI - Joel McCrea is the SOTM in May.
Thanks for the word. Did you pick May because it rhymes with McCrea so his biggest fan here, misswonderley. can make up a new poem?
-
I am saddened to hear you may have to drop cable, 'clore'. I can empathize. Truly, I can.
Thanks for the thought. I'm going to stave that day off for as long as I can, maybe I'll learn to eat less.
As for HOW THE WEST WAS WON, I did watch the DVD in that Smilebox format over a friend's house on his 50-inch set. I'll put it this way, the Cinerama version was meant to be seen on a curved screen. On a flat screen, that image shape is most disconcerting.
-
But since I am not a fan of the Oscars and the politics of Oscar, I am not into TCM's marketing in February. I am just interested in finding films I haven't seen or films I have seen that I think are worth watching again.
Well, on that note today I finally saw VOICE IN THE WIND, a film that UA picked up from PRC so it has always had that curiosity factor for me. It was difficult to watch as the print was terrible, and the music score drowned out whatever the actors were reciting. But I'm glad that I had the chance to check it out. Oddly enough, it was nominated for the score and sound recording. It was fun to see J. Carroll Naish doing Chico Marx again.
Tomorrow is THE NAVY COMES THROUGH which has Pat O'Brien and Dennis Morgan, but amazingly it was made at RKO and not Warners. It's one that I've never seen though and I'm always glad to add one more to the list.
Other than PETE KELLY'S BLUES, I don't see a thing for the rest of the week worth going out of my way to see. That's OK, I have tons of stuff to catch up on, some of which has nothing to do with movies.
But I know where you're coming from. Despite having seen all but one Oscar telecast since 1963, I don't care who wins what because most of the time, the films that mean the most to me never get a nomination. But even the telecast means less to me each year as I become less familiar with the players and I'm no longer at an office water cooler the next day to discuss it.
-
The only reason that I recall the distributor was because the Warner folks sent me an email when it came out. It was one of the first in their overpriced line to claim that it was remastered. At first they were charging five bucks more than the usual WB Archive title but I thought that they must have figured it to be sell-worthy to go through the extra trouble.
-
But this month, you don't need to be a classic to air, you just need to have gotten an Oscar nomination or win to air.
Thus, a routine film such as the Robert Wagner BANNING could be on the schedule because it was nominated for Best Song - a song that even when it was new, just about nobody had ever heard since the film was there and gone in a week.
Personally, I didn't even consider THE INVISIBLE WOMAN to have great effects. They weren't even up to what the same John P. Fulton did seven years earlier in THE INVISIBLE MAN.
-
THE GREEN SLIME is a Warner Archive title now. It's "made to order" and supposedly remastered, they have clips on the WA site:
http://www.wbshop.com/Green-Slime-The/1000180218,default,pd.html?cgid=
-
> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}Some of you are very critical of TCM in terms of this issue. Now I can see why they started airing that recent disclaimer before movies. I wonder why so many folks over-analyze this when it is much easier to just get widescreen copies on Netflix. Maybe I am missing something...? LOL
It would be less of an issue for me if it weren't for the promo that's been running constantly for nearly a decade. It would be a similar issue if suddenly we started getting edited versions of movies more frequently. We're barraged by the butcher and the little girl who know how to cut and the claim there is that we get films uncut. Thus when REACH FOR THE SKY shows up in the Academy ratio and cut of a half-hour, it does violate the so-called mission statement.
As for Netflix, well I'm on a fixed income, I don't have the hardware to put it on my TV via downloads and I don't want to have to subscribe to yet another form of delivery be it online or by mail.
Eventually it's going to be a dead issue for me as with the way things are going, I'm going to have to drop cable anyway.
I'm glad that they put up the disclaimer, it shows that they noticed that we notice. It's a step in the right direction.
-
But I am perfectly resigned to the idea that the theater will likely become "The Coca-Cola Theater". I wouldn't be surprised if that Atlanta company has already made inquiries.
After the debacle of their ownership of Columbia, I doubt that they want to be associated with Hollywood except for product placements.
-
I thought that at times he was doing brother Lionel, but yes, there is a bit of Frank Morgan in there also.
There was one scene that had him drinking some concoction in his lab and it had me thinking of how little he resembled the man who was Dr. Jekyll twenty years earlier.
-
I'm sure there are plenty of Universal fans, user Prince Saliano has posted quite a bit about MIA Universal titles, supplying lengthy lists of them.
I've been wanting to see NORTH TO THE KLONDIKE and THE ROAD BACK for many years as well as some of the Abbott and Costello or Olsen and Johnson films.
Poor Jeff Chandler is poorly represented on TCM seeing as how he made most of his titles there.
-
It was nominated for special effects, but I WANTED WINGS won the Oscar.
-
It's all about exagerration, something from which most of the film's humor flows.
I think that you mean "It's all about exaggeration."
-
I remember first seeing her when I was a kid watching HOT OFF THE WIRE with Jim Backus.
To see her bit in ON DANGEROUS GROUND, you would think that she would have been the next Lauren Bacall or Gloria Grahame, but she never really took off. She had roles as the goofy friend of the leading lady in BUNDLE OF JOY and THAT FUNNY FEELING and as you noted, she was all over the place in the 60s on TV.
I think she's equally adept in comedy and drama but can only admit to her being scary once, That was in an episode of THE FUGITIVE where she was just using boyfriend Mickey Rooney and acting to set him up for a hit man since Rooney doesn't have enough money to keep her happy.
-
Many years ago, a client of mine who ran a UHF independent in a mid-sized market refused to deal with the edited versions that he was getting. Thie was when the networks were still airing feature films and the local stations got the versions that were sanitized for the network airings.
So, whenever he could, he would use a store-bought laserdisc as the source, converting to one-inch tape and editing out what he saw fit. Paramount found out somehow and filed a cease-and-desist action, claiming that it was in the violation of the contract.
The station's perception was that it was licensing the titles and not specifically the edited versions. I believe they settled out of court but Paramount and the other majors followed by warning all stations that they were not to use anything but the supplied copies.
But as usual, the major station groups could insist on unedited prints and it the potential deal was big enough, they got their way. I was at Columbia and we had some customers who insisted on 35mm prints and not tape.
-
> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote}That term has been around since home video in the 80's...some movies like Star Wars were originally time compressed for laserdisc release in order to fit it onto one disc (one hour limit each side).
I realized that, but how many here were reading Video Review or some other publication that might make use of the term?
I remember what my mentors in marketing used to tell me about writing presentations for N.A.T.P.E. - that the audience will be comprised of "slicks and hicks" and it's better to phrase things so that all will understand. An occupational hazard I guess, I don't mean to sound as if I underestimate the readers here.
There's a weird form of compression that I noticed a few months ago while watching a *Cheers* rerun on Hallmark. They actually jump frames if there's no dialogue going on within them. Thus, Sam could be at one end of the bar and Cliff at another and if there's silence going on, all of a sudden, Sam is handing Cliff a drink.
This went on while Sam and Diane were sitting next to each other, sudden head or limb movements where there might have been a pause during dialogue. I couldn't watch the whole thing like that, but I did sample a few more during the next week or so just to see if that was SOP. Unfortunately it was but I've only seen that on Hallmark.
Not that I watch much sponsored programming in the first place.
But if there's a phrase for that, I'm unaware as I haven't read a trade journal or home video enthusiast magazine since 2004.
-
I was actually concerned about using that phrase because I thought that I might have to define it as being speeded up anyway.
It's a compromise preferable to cutting and in their defense, only on a rare occasion do I notice any change in the pitch of voices or the synching of lips. We used to have a station here in NYC that aired the George Reeves *Superman* show and it was completely unwatchable. All the characters sounded as if they just sucked down a load of helium. My son was about six or seven then and even he noticed and he wasn't familiar with the performers.
-
I know the person named PeterAndres who put that clip up on YouTube. He posts on the IMDb boards and we met when he came to NYC last summer. I guess he didn't see the film last night because otherwise he would be waxing wroth
about the score alterations. -
I do watch the reruns of *Alfred Hitchcock Presents* on Antenna TV. They appear to keep the original break structure by slightly speeding up the program which is annoying, but I haven't seen most of these in at least 40 years. I also watch a few sports, mostly horse racing and that's because a race is over quickly and I can get back to dloing something else.
I've got about the same number of movies on DVD and still have about 2,000 on VHS. Not too many TV shows though. Just the complete *Barney Miller* and *Boris Karloff* Thriller (unintended rhyme there) - almost forgot since it's only a season, I have the first year of *The Fugitive* and the only year of *Ellery Queen*.
If Warners would put out *77 Sunset Strip* on DVD, I'd be all over it. I have a few on tape from The American Life channel, but they're cut shorter to add commercials (which I've edited out) and that gets me all annoyed when I watch them.
-
Many that I know who still follow TV pograms tell me that they DVR their favorites and watch them by zipping through the commercials.
I thought of doing that, but then decided that I'm just better off not spending the extra money. While I am a child of the TV generation, I've reached the point where I've decided that I've spent enough time watching shows. I was in the business for many years, I watched a lot just to stay abreast of what was going on. Most of the shows that did appeal to me had short life spans.
I don't want to get involved with the lives of fictional characters in continuing dramas any longer. Give me a self-contained feature film any day.
What's the excuse this time?
in Hot Topics
Posted
You would unfortunately ask something that I uncovered last night after watching the film.
The other one was FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL.