nightwalker
-
Posts
997 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by nightwalker
-
-
> {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote}
> I went to Catholic school for 12 years. I am well-versed in Christian morality and Rohanaka's semonizing is as inappropriate as anything else.
If people who start threads such as this one can do it for their viewpoint, people such as Rohanaka, Jake Holman, and I can do so in response. It's called "Freedom of Speech."
>Why do people continually visit threads they don't like? If you want to spend your time extolling >the virtues of Greer Garson (or whomever), do so. If controversial subject matter upsets you, >don't immerse yourself in it.
Again, if you have the right to make the comments, we have the right to respond.
>What happened in California is important to many people and they have every right to express their displeasure.
No one here said they didn't.
> And that expression may take the form of poking fun at the presumed nemesis (something that >filmmakers have done for decades).
Apparently the "tolerance" you all claim to desire doesn't extend to the teachings that, in many ways, form the basis of Western civilization. I'm not saying you and these filmmakers can't denigrate or insult Christ and His teachings, but when you do, those of us who believe in Him have the right to respond, at least, so far.
-
> {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}
> > A really bad movie alert:
> >
> > THE KILLER SHREWS on Wednesday AM. Bring air freshener for this one.
>
> I disagree. It's a low-budget, but fun, 1950s horror movie.
I agree with the Prince and with Fred. THE KILLER SHREWS is fun and spooky, particularly the sequence during the storm at night when the shrews chase "Rook" up the tree.
The attempted escape from the island at the film's climax is pretty suspenseful, too.
-
> {quote:title=scsu1975 wrote:}{quote}
> >I think Rich meant "Or he could join the Dallas police and fight Nazi-mad-scientist-in-hiding Jack Herman and his diabolical YESTERDAY MACHINE."
>
> That's one I've never heard of, and something tells me I should remain ignorant.
Yeah, this from the guy who defends THE GIANT CLAW!
THE YESTERDAY MACHINE, 1963, is one of Tim's last features. Made at about the same time as that other classic of Nazi wish-fulfillment THEY SAVED HITLER'S BRAIN, the film relates the story of Hitler's "Director of Scientific Warfare" (Jack Herman) who, while hiding out under a farmhouse near Dallas, conducts experiments in time travel with the hope of rescuing Hitler from the fall of Berlin and bringing him into the then-present of 1963 so he can lead the Fourth Reich.
Unfortunately for Herman, he kidnaps a high school cheerleader/baton twirler who happens to wander too close to his hideout. This, of course, alerts the local constabulary (Tim Holt), who, with deductive reasoning that would be the envy of Sherlock Holmes, knows that Nazis must be behind this insidious deed.
Yet another in the adventures of filmdom's fun-loving Nazi mad scientists (along with the afore-
mentioned THEY SAVED HITLER'S BRAIN, THE FROZEN DEAD, THE LUCIFER COMPLEX, etc., etc.).
-
> {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=scsu1975 wrote:}{quote}
> > Or he could join the Navy and fight off The Monster that Challenged the World.
>
> THE MONSTER THAT CHALLENGED THE WORLD, starring former western star Tim Holt, is one of the best sci-fi thrillers of the 1950s.
I think Rich meant "Or he could join the Dallas police and fight Nazi-mad-scientist-in-hiding Jack Herman and his diabolical YESTERDAY MACHINE."
-
> {quote:title=Film_Fatale wrote:}{quote}
> Having only seen the remake, I'd say the "Eastern" portion of the movie is the most >absorbing... -)
Yes, but that's due in part to the fact that the supporting cast of the '84 version can't hold a candle to that of the '46 version: Gene Tierney, John Payne, Anne Baxter, Herbert Marshall, Clifton Webb and Elsa Lanchester!
-
James Cagney in WHITE HEAT.
-
> {quote:title=rohanaka wrote:}{quote}
> I suppose it could be argued that the reason they kept things secret from the rest of the world >could be because they were attempting to preserve their ideal world from the corruption outside. >Still...it all seems less than "selfless". And I would also consider THIS sort of thinking >judgemental in a way because it is as if the Father/Lama is setting himself up to be the >sovereign "chooser" of who is worthy to be offered help and who is not. And on this earth...we >are all equal in terms of our unworthy status before anything (or anyone) holy. So who was he >to pick or choose??) Oh...I better stop because I am getting an attitude and my eyes may start >rolling out of my head at any moment)
Hi Kathy:
I think that is a very good point you've made. The film and the novel emphasize that Conway was chosen because of his "beliefs and practices." My problem with this is similar to yours: this seems rather "selfish" and "judgmental" on the part of the Father and I also believe no one on earth is capable (or worthy) of making that decision. Besides, it seems to me that I recall someone saying "Whosoever will may come..."
> I am afraid it is starting to sound like I disliked this story...and that is NOT the case...I just have >some struggles w/ these supposedly universal thoughts of inner peace and harmony. I don't >propose they are impossible....I just struggle w/ the professed source...and it cannot come >from "selflessness" or even "kindness" because I feel like some of the ideals the Father/Lama >put forth are among the most selfish I have heard lately. And even the best of men may set a >goal to strive to attain earthly perfection but will always fall way short of the mark. But again, as >I stated early on...it is a nice goal to have none the less.
Agreed again. I liked the story and found it fascinating and thought-provoking. I just don't agree with all its ramifications.
> April...you're not butting in at all. Feel free to dive in any time as we are all just a "travelers on >a path to higher wisdom" (at least where this film is concerned) Ha! :-) I have heard of The >Razor's Edge but did not know what it was about. Will have to check into it.
I'd like to second April's recommendation regarding THE RAZOR'S EDGE. As FF suggests, the Bill Murray version actually isn't bad, and he's surprisingly effective in it, but I'd still suggest you go with the Tyrone Power version first. It's the story of a young man who, upon his return from World War I, comes to feel that "everything is vanity" and sets out in search of "truth," losing his fiancee in the process. Eventually he feels he finds it in Eastern mysticism, but there's more to the story than that. Let us know what you think after you've checked out the film.
-
> {quote:title=rohanaka wrote:}{quote}
>
> I was thinking the other day after watching this about the whole "selfless" aspect of their way of >life, and I got to considering "Was Conway being selfless or selfish in his desire to return?"
I think a case can be made either way. Remember the beginning of the film emphasizes that Conway is a good, selfless man who has devoted himself to peace through diplomacy. As he sees his efforts come to nothing, I think he is becoming more and more "world weary" in that he has grown tired of the fight ("weary in well doing," if you will) and has reached a point at which he would like to "escape" or "get away from it all" and let events take their natural course without him. As his stay in Shangri-La progresses, through his interaction with Father Perrault and Sondra, I believe Conway finds some degree of healing for his soul (or "balm in Gilead").
I believe that after George and Maria's deaths, Conway had no real reason to continue his journey back to our world, but did so merely because he was physically exhausted and was closer to it than to Shangri-La. I also think that, world conditions being what they were at the time, Conway realized that there was little he could accomplish as far as spreading the philosophy of Shangri-La was concerned, so he decided to return there.
> As I mentioned, I thought it would have been just as strong a story had he stayed "in the real >world" and worked to fulfill the Lama's goals from the outside. And maybe went w/ more of >a "Shangri-la is within you" approach. ( I know...sounds downright new age to use that sort of >phrase....pardon me while I roll my eyes at my own self a bit) :-) But more than all that...I really >HOPED that would be what he did...because if I had a problem at all with this story it was when >the High Lama got to talking about how he left the world of men to their own sad and sorry >fate....and instead...he worked to save art and things of beauty...as if they were somehow more >significant. And to me...that seemed a waste. And I guess (without getting too "doctrinal) that is >because I was looking at it from the point of view of one who is living in this world...and wishes >to see evil men led to repentance rather than left to their own destruction. I guess I had a bit too >much trouble immersing myself totally into the " fantasy" of this story when it comes to this >particular aspect of it.
I agree that that would have been an interesting alternative ending, having Conway attempt to spread the Shangri-La point of view from the outside, but I am not certain that this would have been the desire of Father Perrault. Mention has been made here of the "mission" of Shangri-La to spread its philosophy, but I don't recall that its inhabitants (or its leaders) felt it incumbent upon themselves to undertake such a mission. I don't recall seeing any "missionary zeal" to spread the word. As I mentioned elsewhere, Christianity has been compared to "one beggar telling another beggar where to find bread." The impression I came away with here was that these "beggars" were keeping this "stash" pretty much to themselves.
-
> {quote:title=CineSage_jr wrote:}{quote}
> Hilton's point in making it unclear as to whether Conway's sturggle to return to Shangri-la is successful is that he, and his personal happiness, and ambition to take Fr perrault's place, is no longer the point. Rather it's the mission of the lamasery, itself, and it will survive, prosper and spread its message to a spiritually-hungry world irrespective of who leads the Himalayan refuge (as much of Chang's dialogue in the film makes fairly plain).
I'm not certain that I agree that it was Hilton's point in having the novel end as it did that Conway's presence is not needed in order for the lamasery's mission to go on, although I agree that it is possible that this was Hilton's intent. I think he may also have done it precisely because this is a work of "fantasy" and therefore wanted to avoid such a concrete ending. Do you know if Hilton ever commented on this?
-
> {quote:title=rohanaka wrote:}{quote}
>*(BIG SPOILER ALERT)* I would have almost been just as happy if Conway had not made it >back, but rather had stayed in England. I don't know what that says about me, I am sure others >might disagree...but either way, I think the ending would have been just as strong.
ANOTHER BIG SPOILER ALERT!
Hi, Kathy:
Glad you enjoyed the film. Interesting that you should say that: in the novel, it is not at all clear that Conway makes it back to Shangri-La. The book ends with two of Conway's friends discussing his disappearance during his attempted return there. Although there is some hope expressed by one of them that he made it, this is not spelled out as it is in the film. Would this have been a better way to end the film? I don't really know.
And by the way, at the risk of making another Biblical allusion, the attitude and ultimate fates of George and Maria did put me in mind of Rev. 20 and the end of the Millennium where, again, there's just no pleasing some people.
-
Hi 1smart1 and welcome to the boards.
One film that comes readily to mind that deals with your topic is THE MIRACLE WORKER, 1962, starring Anne Bancroft as Annie Sullivan, the woman who taught Helen Keller (played by Patty Duke in the film) to communicate.
-
Hi Kathy:
I've always felt that this is one of Capra's best films. It's a bit more dark than some others he's known for, but this is not to say its vision is ultimately pessimistic. Actually, it's one of the most optimistic films I know.
As you are aware, the film tells the story of a disparate group of people who end up in Shangri-La, a man-made utopia somewhere in the vast Himalayas. The film explains how this changes the lives and outlooks of each of these people, or at least of most of them, since there are some people who are unable to find happiness even in Shangri-La.
Although you have indicated that you wouldn't mind the inclusion of spoilers, I would like to wait until after you've seen it to comment on the ending, except to say that it differs from the book's and that I have found it to be the most moving climax to any of Capra's films I've seen.
Highly recommended (and happy viewing!).
-
...or Ralph Bates and Martine Beswick in DR. JEKYLL & SISTER HYDE?
-
There is a film called KILL, BABY, KILL! from 1966, directed by Mario Bava, which features the ghost of a young girl and a scene with a bouncing ball, however, it does not have the other plot elements you mention (team of paranormal investigators, girl possibly losing clothing and/or growing younger, house returning to "normal"). The film is currently available on DVD and is worth a look. Who knows? As Joefilmone suggested, you may be conflating two (or more) films in your memory.
-
I can't quote it exactly, nor can I tell you who wrote it if it wasn't the screenwriter or the novelist, but I can tell you that it's from IN A LONELY PLACE, 1950, with Humphrey Bogart and Gloria Grahame.
P.S. Vallo's quotation is correct.
Message was edited by: nightwalker
-
Well, Cine, you can imagine my interest when, after having posted that quote from Francis Bacon earlier, I "returned to the thread" to find your comments awaiting. Although we have discussed these matters previously, I too would like to add to what has been stated here in response to your post, particularly by ILRM.
So, taking your comments in order:
> {quote:title=CineSage_jr wrote:}{quote}
> Science can exists perfectly well without religion, but not the other way around (at least not if the religious want a world full of electronics, and airplanes and clean water and abundant, unadulterated food, modern medical care, and on, and on, and on...).
Although I realize you included this statement as a response to something gagman said, I would question not only its veracity but also its relevance to your position in general. After all, even if we accept evolution as fact, which I do not, by its own tenets mankind (in however primitive a form, including his religious beliefs) existed without "science" for a long, long time.
Furthermore, if we define science basically as the method by which man seeks to understand natural phenomena (of whatever kind), to that point there is no conflict between "religion" and "science." In fact, many early scientists, including Newton, Bacon, etc. considered science to be a tool by which they might understand the mechanics of creation (i.e., everything). In other words, I would hold that "science" and "religion" are not intrinsically opposed to one another.
> Evolution (not "evaluation") is still a theory -- so are the Theory of Relativity and Shockwave Theory (utterly essential for everything from building nuclear weapons to the design of supersonic aircraft and rifle bullets), to name only two others (and I don't hear any bleating from the Religious fringe over those two theories' validity).
And you likely won't, because the subject of those theories (the nature of time and matter) does not in itself conflict with belief in Intelligent Design. These theories deal only with the nature of that design, not its origin.
> The basic principle of a theory is always expressed as a theory, even after it's been proved beyond all doubt (if for no other reason than because it's the theory that's the ultimate expression of the eternal curiosity of the human mind). It's part of the Creationists' underhandedness and dishonesty that they conflate the word "theory" with that of "hypothesis," which really is the term applied to an unproven conjecture, figuring that the average guy (which, apparently, includes you) doesn't understand the difference.
What you say about "theory" may be true, but the difference between "theory" and "hypothesis" is often obscure, even where it shouldn't be. At least one online dictionary defines "hypothesis" as "a theory needing investigation." Consequently, I don't think there is any need to ascribe any dark, ulterior motives (or ignorance) to anyone who uses the terms interchangeably.
> experiments in molecular biology...have backed up everything in the science of evolution...
I'm afraid this is not entirely the case. One example is DNA. DNA contains the genetic code of every living thing, but evolution is not really capable of explaining how it came to be or its design. It is a complex substance, yet evolution would demand its presence in the earliest, simplest forms of life. Evolution cannot explain this, nor can it satisfactorily explain how life originated from non-living material. The whole issue of spontaneous generation may be the single largest stumbling block for evolutionary thought. The experiments of Pasteur in the late 19th century proved conclusively that life cannot come from non-life.
> ...evolutionary science relies on having to find whatever fossils happen to remain in the ground (as a point of comparison, World War II ended only sixty-three years ago; of all the U.S. servicemen who fought and died in the conflict, about 70,000 remain unaccounted for. Some of those servicemen's remains will probably never be located, even though many searches have been conducted over the decades, because every square foot of ground on which WWII's hostilities took place can't be dug up looking for them. Yet Creationinsts argue that the absence of evidence that would close gaps in the fossil record -- fossils hundreds of millions of years old that have been subject to flood, erosion and every natural force the Earth can exert on an object -- is "proof" that Evolution is myth. It's actually a wonder that fossils are found in the abundance they are).
This argument (and your analogy with the unaccounted-for remains of American servicemen in WWII) would carry more weight if there were NO fossil record of ancient life, but the fact still remains that even the earliest fossil records, while containing many complex life forms, contain no indication of forms from which they could have evolved. In every stratum in which fossils have been found, NONE exhibit any signs of being transitional in nature. On this basis, therefore, it is valid to question this theory.
Furthermore, the theory of natural selection itself mitigates against the existence of these transitional forms, because during the ages the transitions would have been occurring, the organ in question (say, a fin transforming into an arm) would have been "useless," thereby causing the life form to fail to meet the main criteria of natural selection: "survival of the fittest."
> Creationsists' arguments are exceptionally childish, as is your abbreviated form of them here.
And what about calling names?
> The truth is that you just don't want to believe that there's anything in this universe beyond your understanding,
I can't speak for others, of course, but I can tell you, as someone who has studied theology and who even has a Master's Degree in the subject, as well as having been a Christian for nearly 50 years, that there are many things about God and His ways that I do not understand.
> or the understanding of the simple folk who cobbled together the Book of Genesis.
Actually, ILRM is quite correct here. The notion that the book of Genesis was cobbled together, popularized by German rationalism and Julius Wellhausen in particular during the 1880s, has begun to fall on hard times. There is very good reason for believing that the Pentateuch was in fact written by Moses.
> You're actually terrified of the complex universe in which you live, and retreat into the comforting fiction of Scripture to ease that terror.
>
> It's fortunate that civilizations are built by those who aren't.
I can't really improve on ILRM's comments on these points, except to add that much of what is good and noble about Western civilization comes from Judaism and Christianity, particularly our laws and the value of human life, although I do seem to recall that you felt otherwise.
In any case, Cine, I invite your response, whether here or via PM.
-
Bump (for Bronxgirl!)
-
"A little or superficial knowledge of philosophy (scientific enterprise) may incline the mind of man to atheism, but a farther proceeding therein doth bring the mind back again to religion..."
Francis Bacon
-
Hi frontunner. Welcome to the boards.
I also remember Dr. Shock.
The movie you're looking for is THE VAMPIRE, 1957, starring John Beal as the doctor, Coleen Gray as the nurse, and Kenneth Tobey as the sheriff. And actually, the film has gone by the alternate title of MARK OF THE VAMPIRE, too.
It's been shown on TCM from time to time and is currently available on DVD as a double feature with THE RETURN OF DRACULA from MGM as part of their Midnite Movies series.
-
> {quote:title=MissGoddess wrote:}{quote}
>
> What happened to this director (Roy William Neill)? Never heard of him before.
Hi, Miss G:
Neill was a good, workmanlike director who really came into his own in the early to mid-1940s at Universal. He directed one of the best in their horror series: FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLF MAN, 1943, but his real fame lies in his helming of the studio's Sherlock Holmes films with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce.
Sadly, THE BLACK ANGEL was his last film. Shortly after completing it, Neill went to England to visit some relatives and, while there, died of a heart attack. He was only 59.
-
The film was also released as part of the "Hammer Horror Series" collection from 2005. This set consists of 8 Hammer pictures released in this country by Universal. You can find a copy on Amazon (and undoubtedly elsewhere) for about $15.
-
> {quote:title=CineSage_jr wrote:}{quote}
> A remake of 36 HOURS, anyone?
It's been done. Check this out:
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0096977/
>(starring George Clooney) due to similarities (with Rod Taylor) both physical and in screen persona.
I agree. I think Clooney would be good in that part.
-
> {quote:title=Bronxgirl48 wrote:}{quote}
> I prefer STRAIGHT-JACKET to this.
>
> I like Michael Gough's obnoxiousness center-stage in the laughably horrible KONGA.
He's also pretty despicable in the '62 PHANTOM OF THE OPERA.
-
It's SUSAN SLEPT HERE, 1954, starring Dick Powell and Debbie Reynolds.
BAD MOVIES COMING UP ON TCM
in Hot Topics
Posted
Hi, Bronxie! I see you and your mom had an interesting Thanksgiving.
And, regarding your list, I like it. But leave us not forget the Mexican SANTA CLAUS from 1959!