fxreyman
-
Posts
3,497 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by fxreyman
-
-
That's because Hanks absolutely KNOWS he's a second rate actor. I actually think Robt Downey could play it, he is a powerhouse of an actor. But with Schpiel-berg directing? Doubt it.
I don't think that is the reason at all.
I think the main reason why Hanks did not want to act in a remake of this wonderfully done classic is the fact that they were remaking the classic in the first place. Hanks is a student of history, and he knows when it is best to leave well enough alone.
Plus, I think I seem to remember an interview many years ago just at the time Hanks' own star power was on the rise. He said at the time something to the affect at how he marveled at the way the older studio system actors acted, presented themselves in public and in general had nothing but very nice things to say about James Stewart.
A second rate actor?
I don't think so.
You may believe that nothing made today can compete with the golden age of the movies and that is a common complaint and on the whole I would agree with you.
But I think that most of the films Hanks has starred in have been excellent pieces of cinema. Has he been in some clunkers, yes. But all in all IMHO Hanks is one of our better actors working today.
In addition he is one of the better producers working today. Just look at the mini series he has been able to bring to HBO in collaboration with others:
From the Earth to the Moon
Band of Brothers
John Adams
and next spring, The Pacific.
At least this is one fellow who is not resting on his laurels. He is at least trying to bring "real" history to the screen, albeit the small screen. In other words, he is not just another actor going from one film project to the next just to earn another big fat check.
Message edited by Fxreyman
-
Sorry about that.
I totally forgot to send you a reply.
Yes I bought the HDMI cables at Best Buy. I bought the TV at a local place here in Colorado Springs called Tech For Less.
They are sort of like a techie kind of warehouse that specializes in opened boxes and or refurbished units. They sell everything this way including dvd players, computers, phones, you name it electronically.
Well anyway they had the TV I wanted, the 1080p 40" Sony Bravia for only $694.00. They said that it was an opened box unit which meant that it was probably looked at at the store from where it was kept, or it could have been used as a display model. Almost all of their tv's come from Costco or Sams Clubs.
A friend of mine at work bought the same set at this store earlier in the year. he recommended the store to me. It made a lot of sense not having to spend almost $300 to $400 more at Best Buy or other retail stores.
I bought a Panasonic HD Blu-Ray player from Best Buy for $199 based on many reviews I had read.
I have the TV up and running, and of course, because I do not have satellite (I have Comcast digital cable) I only receive about 60 HD channels. No TCM HD yet.
The picture is great on these channels, not so great on the normal channels.
But that is okay, eventually more and more of the regular channels will become available. I can wait.
I have watched my new Star Trek Blu-Ray on the new set, and it is eye poppingly gorgeous.
So as far as buying more Blu-Ray discs, I will wait until I feel the need requires me to purchase more. Since this player upconverts, I am in no rush. Plus, the cost of a Blu-Ray disc is usually a lot more than I want to spend.
I know, I know. There are all of theses sales right now. Well, they are just going to have to do without me for awhile.
Rey
-
Well maybe you think they run a bad company, but I have to say I have not had many problems with them over at least 15 years.
Hopefully Comcast, if they can get their hands on far-left leaning MSNBC they could then get rid of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow.
Two of the worst commentators on the air today.
IMHO these two are the main reasons why MSNBC has taken a tumble in the ratings and on-air quality in the last couple of years.
-
Not really.
-
Not in any specific order. but a good cross section of American film-making about America.
1. The Grapes of Wrath
2. The Last Picture Show
3. American Graffiti
4. The Wizard of Oz
5. It's a Wonderful Life
6. To Kill a Mockingbird
7. Gone With the Wind
8. Singin' in the Rain
9. The Talk of the Town
10. The Best Years of Our Lives
-
Well, been so busy posted and reading stuff I never got the chance to congratulate you on 6,000 posts!
Knowing what a fan you are of one of the greatest gentlemen to ever grace the silver screen, I have included a piece from his Oscar-winning performance from The Last Picture Show.
It was a great performance but it would have been even better had he won for a true western.
Enjo and congrats again!
Rey
-
Renee,
I am sorry too, to hear about your father. Hope all is well with him now. My wife Annie had a total knee replacement surgery in May. The recovery takes time. Be patient, everything will work out.
As far as the small print is concerned, Lynn is right. It only seems to be happening type at the very top of the pages.
I have Firefox, but I don't think it is a big deal. Of course if I were older or if I had really bad eyesight I might have a different take on this.
Try and have a safe and Happy Thanksgiving.
Fxreyman (Rey Nowlin)
-
Nice place to visit. You've done real good MissGoddess!
I think I will come here often, especially "on holiday".
-
I agree with you. 1960 would be a very good year to seperate the "Classic Era" from the "Contemporary or Modern Era" of film-making.
Here is an article from Wikipedia about the
*Decline of the studio system*
The studio system and the Golden Age of Hollywood succumbed to two forces in the late 1940s:
- a federal antitrust action that separated the production of films from their exhibition; and
- the advent of television.
In 1938, Walt Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was released during a run of lackluster films from the major studios, and quickly became the highest-grossing film released to that point. Embarrassingly for the studios, it was an independently-produced animated film that did not feature any studio-employed stars.
This stoked already widespread frustration at the practice of block-booking, in which studios would only sell an entire year's schedule of films at a time to theaters and use the lock-in to cover for releases of mediocre quality. Assistant Attorney General Thurman Arnold?a noted "trust buster" of the Roosevelt administration ? took this opportunity to initiate proceedings against the eight largest Hollywood studios in July 1938 for violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The federal suit resulted in five of the eight studios (the "Big Five": Warner Bros., MGM, Fox, RKO and Paramount) reaching a compromise with Arnold in October 1940 and signing a consent decree agreeing to, within three years:
- Eliminate the block-booking of short film subjects, in an arrangement known as "one shot", or "full force" block-booking.
- Eliminate the block-booking of any more than five features in their theaters.
- No longer engage in blind buying (or the buying of films by theater districts without seeing films beforehand) and instead have trade-showing, in which all 31 theater districts in US would see films every two weeks before showing movies in theaters.
- Set up an administration board in each theater district to enforce these requirements.
The "Little Three" (Universal Studios, United Artists, and Columbia Pictures), who did not own any theaters, refused to participate in the consent decree. A number of independent film producers were also unhappy with the compromise and formed a union known as the Society of Independent Motion Picture Producers and sued Paramount for the monopoly they still had over the Detroit Theaters ? as Paramount was also gaining dominance through actors like Bob Hope, Paulette Goddard, Veronica Lake, Betty Hutton, crooner Bing Crosby, Alan Ladd, and longtime actor for studio Gary Cooper too- by 1942.
The Big Five studios didn't meet the requirements of the Consent of Decree during WWII, without major consequence, but after the war ended they joined Paramount as defendants in the Hollywood anti-trust case, as did the Little Three studios also.
The Supreme Court eventually ruled that the major studios ownership of theaters and film distribution was a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. As a result, the studios began to release actors and technical staff from their contracts with the studios. This changed the paradigm of film making by the major Hollywood studios, as each could have an entirely different cast and creative team.
This resulted in the gradual loss of the characteristics which made MGM, Paramount, Universal, Columbia, RKO, and Fox films immediately identifiable. But certain movie people, such as Cecil B. DeMille, either remained contract artists till the end of their careers or used the same creative teams on their films, so that a DeMille film still looked like one whether it was made in 1932 or 1956. Also, the number of movies being produced annually dropped as the average budget soared, marking a major change in strategy for the industry.
Studios now aimed to produce entertainment that could not be offered by television: spectacular, larger-than-life productions. Studios also began to sell portions of their theatrical film libraries to other companies to sell to television. By 1949, all major film studios had given up ownership of their theaters.
Television was also instrumental in the decline of Hollywood's Golden Age as it broke the movie industry's hegemony in American entertainment. Despite this, the film industry was also able to gain some leverage for future films as longtime government censorship faded in the 1950s. After the Paramount anti-trust case ended, Hollywood movie studios no longer owned theaters, and thus made it so foreign films could be released in American theaters without censorship. This was complemented with the 1952 Miracle Decision in the Joseph Burstyn Inc. v Wilson case, in which the Supreme Court of the United States reversed its earlier position, from 1915's Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio case, and stated that motion pictures were a form of art and were entitled to the protection of the First amendment; US laws could no longer censor films.
By 1968, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) had replaced the Hays Code-which was now greatly violated after the government threat of censorship that justified the origin of the code had ended- with the film rating system.
I mean one could say that because of the elimination of the Hays Code in 1968, 1968 could be viewed as the first true year for "modern film-making.
But I still think many of the so-called modern, non-studio contract films really began in earnest in 1960. A certain realism started to exist in many films in 1960. Sure, there were many films still being produced the "old-fashioned" way, but many other films started to have a certain futuristic look to them. It was not 1939 or even 1949 anymore.
As far as being called a "classic" the following are some examples from
the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright ? 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
adjective
- of the first or highest quality, class, or rank.
- basic; fundamental.
- of enduring interest, quality, or style: a classic design.
- definitive.
?noun
- an author or a literary work of the first rank, esp. one of demonstrably enduring quality.
- an artist or artistic production considered a standard.
- something noteworthy of its kind and worth remembering
So IMHO, a film made in the early to late 1960's can be called a classic, as well as a film made during the early to late 2000's.
For example, 1996's Fargo with Frances McDormand IMHO is a classic. The film was made with a firm nod I believe to many of the noir films of the late 40's to mid 50's. It also has a certain level of humor in it as well.
Message edited by Fxreyman
-
No more trolls (you know who you are).
Peace on Earth
more movies and less talk
-
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water.......
-
This topic is a topic that provokes many puzzling thoughts from people like myself who believe that the Academy Awards is really just a place that politics have always existed in.
Here was a chance for the Academy to bestow an honor to many other more deserving candidates than at least to three out of these four.
Corman really deserves his award. The others, IMHO do not.
And in many years past, the Academy has had the opportunity to bestow an Honorary Oscar on several actors and or directors or other film related people, but instead chose the less trying or shall I say the more politically correct person to give this award to.
Take this year for example.
Bacall????
Are you kidding me????
Why her?
It must be because she was married to Bogart. I mean if you look at her resume, there are really only a handful of excellent performances that she gave over her long career. Did she have a long career? Yes, I do not argue with that. But really this goes to the heart of the matter.
It used to be that Honorary Oscars were given to people who had extraordinary careers.
And in some cases, people were given posthumous Oscars for their contributions.
Several years ago, the Academy had the chance to award Richard Widmark and Glenn Ford and the great Joseph Cotten. But did they?
No, they decided to give additional awards to Sidney Poitier and Robert Redford.
Lets look at several other actresses still living today who IMHO could have received an Honorary Oscar instead of Bacall.
Jacqueline Bisset
Doris Day
Catherine Deneuve
Angela Lansbury
Maureen O'Hara
Gena Rowlands
Jean Simmons
Liv Ullmann
There's at least four actors still living that could have been awarded an Oscar as well:
Tony Curtis
Albert Finney
James Garner
James Earl Jones
I just keep thinking about Ford, Widmark and Cotten. Three greats that were still living and that all had wonderful, full careers that could have been given Oscars but instead Redford and Poitier (who had both won Oscars before) were given Honorary Oscars instead. Probably the political correct thing to do, but again IMHO one of the worst choices of all time. Much like this year.
Message edited by Fxreyman
Edited by: fxreyman on Nov 24, 2009 4:15 PM
Excuse me, I just checked. Cotten past away in 1994, so I am mistaken about him living the past few years like the other two greats. But still, he could have been given an HO as well.
-
Don't want to disagree with you but..........
The 2000s is the decade that started on January 1, 2000 and will end on December 31, 2009. It is the current decade.
January 1, 2010 will start the second decade of the 21st century.
-
Hi toughgirl:
Not to be mean or disrespectful, but TCM has rules and one of those rules is that you can not advertise selling stuff here on the message boards.
From their code of conduct:
© You may not engage in advertising to, or solicitation of, other members through the Site or the Site to buy or sell any unauthorized products or services. Although Licensors cannot monitor the conduct of its members off the Site, in order to protect our members from unwarranted advertising or solicitation, Licensors reserve the right to restrict the number of messages which a member may send to other members in any 24-hour period to a number which Licensors deem appropriate in its sole discretion.
Sorry about this.
Message edited by FXReyman
P.S.
If you were given permission by TCM to sell these items here on the message boards, then I stand corrected and apologize if I was in the wrong here.
-
Goes to show you what can happen when you invite someone like Alec Baldwin to perform the co-hosting duties with RO.
I am sure Mr. Baldwin had something to do wit these selections, considering they are not really mainstream type of Essentials in the classic sense.
-
OH, I AM SETTLED DOWN.
Just can't bare to see posters continually take pot shots at previous administrations wrong doings. Or I should say supposed wrongdoings. I am telling you though that this message board feels more and more like a Bash Bush Message Board.
I am not surprised. Being in the minority around here politically speaking.
-
Jake did not do anything wrong. I think he was just trying in his own way to honor all of those who have served and who have gone before him.
There are poster's like you who need or want to take every opportunity they have to bash the former administration for the past eight years. Enough is enough.
As far as you are concerned......It would seem as though you might want to go back and study our nation's history once again or for that matter take a refresher course.
Several times in our history our nation went to war totally unprepared. Especially World War II.
In that conflict we were caught with our pants down at Pearl Harbor, and it took us about one year until we were on the offensive, especially in the Pacific theater.
And the main reason for all of that unpreparedness was the simple fact that our government at the time did not equip our armed forces well enough and did not institute the draft until it was almost too late. All of this was happening even though Europe had been at war since 1939.
Oh, and Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931. So there were plenty of warning signs, however our government chose to ignore these truths.
When the December 7th attack occurred many asked why this could have happened? What could have prevented the attack? There have been many conspiracy theories but the fact remains, we were attacked and we were finally dragged into a world wide conflict.
Message edited by Fxreyman
-
Well, as I said earlier in this thread.....I was not going to buy a DVD-R machine. I have not, but what I have done is purchase my first LCD-TV.
And by going to a local place called "Tech For Less" I was able to save about $400 on this purchase alone.
It is a Sony HD 40" tv with 1080p 120Hz refresh rate.
I then went to Best Buy and purchased a Panasonic Blu-Ray Disc player.
I also purchased the newly restored version of North By Northwest on Blu-Ray.
So far, so good. The tv is amazing. So is the blu ray player.
The movies on TCM come in pretty good as far as quality goes. So I was happy to see that happen. All other non-HD channels are less clear than the HD channels, but eventually almost every channel will be HD.
I can wait.
Talk with you all later.
-
_*And take all the shots you want at Democratic Congressmen - but at least acknowledge they were the minority party until January of 2007 and had virtually no power in the Congress for the first five years of the war_.*
Oh, I do acknowledge that. In fact I agree with you about the other side being in power for six of those years and pretty much not doing a darn thing to help the country out. And don't forget, that for the majority of the twentieth century the Democratic party had control of both houses of Congress. Maybe that is where the Republicans lost it, so to say. They saw how power corrupts and all they had to do was look at how Congress was run by the Democrats for all of those years.
That is the main reason why they lost control the past three elections.
But as it so often happens in Washington, everyone is out to protect themselves. They are constantly in a re-election mode. Especially in the House, every two years.
My personal belief is that their should be term limits for these fools. But that is another story.
Fxreyman
-
You shouldn't feel embarrassed, MissGoddess.
The only other poster on here to have done what you have done is some washed up, has been, masquerading as some goody two shoes who has amassed something over 9,000 posts in his / her current user name and well over 30,000 posts as two other main users of this board.
You have the eloquence and the intelligence and the playfulness of someone who has posted over 20,000 times but who does not take herself too seriously.
So, I wouldn't beat yourself up over something as minor as 20,000 posts.
But maybe a gentle slap of the you know what might be in order. HA HA HA.
Congrats,
Fxreyman
-
Kyle ("Get A Mop") In Hollywood wrote:
But please put the blame for this economy and the resulting situations on the administration that caused it and not the one that working hard to clean up the mess. _*The bank bailouts were undertaken by the past administration.*_ The take-over of the automobile manufacturers was undertaken by the past administration. The propping up of the world's largest insurer was undertaken by the past administration.
This may all be true.
However our current president wanted all of this new government bailouts to happen, and he continues to want the federal government to "help" out as much as it can. He even voted yea on the TARP plan that was signed into law by President Bush, last October.
But please don't sit here and lecture the rest of us on what you and others think were lies and or deceptions in the past administration. If you are going to sit there and blame Bush, you should also blame Congress for allowing this to happen. Just ask Rep. Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd where they were and what they were doing these past eight years.
Politics is like religion. It really should never be spoken about here on these web pages or for that matter amongst friends.
Fxreyman (Don't tread on me)
-
Excellent thread, although I seem to remember a thread similar to this one a year or more ago.
My biggest "I have never gotten the appeal of" person is:
Marilyn Monroe
I just can not understand how she ranks so far up the top actresses of all time lists. She was pretty, and she must have been quite intelligent, but those two attributes alone do not make a fine actress.
-
Oh, geeze, this could be quite the task......
I would have to say that listing the greatest actor of the 20th century one could list actors in several different genre's. That way you could cover quite a few actors. Of course one could also mention that the list should also just cover the "classic" period of film, say from the silents to the end of the studio era. We have covered this subject a lot in other threads.
So, what I am going to do is list the top twenty five of each category of male and female actors, and see where the list takes shape.
Male 25:
Humphrey Bogart
James Cagney
Lee J. Cobb
Ronald Coleman
Gary Cooper
Robert DeNiro
Kirk Douglas
Robert Duvall
Henry Fonda
Clark Gable
Alec Guinness
Cary Grant
Anthony Hopkins
Burt Lancaster
Fredric March
James Mason
Robert Mitchum
Jack Nicholson
Laurence Olivier
Gregory Peck
Sidney Poitier
George C. Scott
James Stewart
Spencer Tracy
John Wayne
Female 25:
Jean Arthur
Ingrid Bergman
Claudette Colbert
Joan Crawford
Bette Davis
Olivia De Havilland
Jane Fonda
Jodie Foster
Greta Garbo
Ava Gardner
Judy Garland
Audrey Hepburn
Katharine Hepburn
Deborah Kerr
Frances McDormand
Patricia Neal
Maureen O'Hara
Donna Reed
Debbie Reynolds
Norma Shearer
Barbara Stanwyck
Meryl Streep
Emma Thompson
Joanne Woodward
Loretta Young
Well, that in a nutshell is a fairly interesting list. Not many actors from the modern era, but I am guessing that is the way it ought to be.
Edited by Fxreyman
-
Oh, whats wrong with seeing multiple viewings of one of Hitchcock's greatest films?????
That is how I see many facets of a film, by seeing it over and over!
The National Board of Review vs The Oscars
in General Discussions
Posted
*The surprise here is that Precious did not make the Top Ten list, but Star Trek (2009) did.*
*Com on NBOR ....Star Trek (2009) was a "REBOOT" ..."REMAKE" or whatever you may want to call it...but I still can't figure out or even understand why this is considered the "Best Film of 2009"!*
So from your line of reasoning a film that is considered either a remake or a "reboot" should not be considered for top ten of any given year?
You should look back in history to other "so-called" remakes that were selected for top tens from NBOR. And I am assuming you would include sequels in that line of reasoning as well?
1974: The Three Musketeers
1986: The Color of Money
1987: The Untouchables
1989: Henry V
1990: Hamlet
1993: Shadowlands
1998: The Thin Red Line
2002: The Quiet American
2008: The Dark Knight
There are other examples of remakes and or sequels that were selected as top tens by the NBOR. I just chose to go back 35 years or so.
I mean, there are quite a few remakes on their lists. No reason why Star Trek could not be on the list this year. One of the best movies to come out of Hollywood in many years, IMHO.
There is nothing wrong with selecting Star Trek as one of the top ten movies of the year. If you look at the Rotten Tomatoes site the film did garner more than a 95% positive rating and many reviewers gave it an "A" or higher grade. Precious has received a 91% positive rating, so I would agree with their selection if their selection is based at all on what many critics have written about the various movies being selected.
All-in-all, I have no problem with top ten lists including sequels, remakes or any other type of movie. This was a strong year for movies in general with many very fine releases being shown. Having a classic tv show remade into one of the better films in a franchise and then being selected by a prestigious national selecting committee I think is wonderful.
Seeing how many of the Star Trek films have been maligned over the years only makes me feel better that a film that is considered by many to be one of the very best of the franchise, have the chance to be selected as a top ten film, makes me vary proud to be counted as one of it's fans.
Message edited by Fxreyman