fxreyman

That's okay Fred. Its not too late for you. I would highly recommend the following films: Henry V 1989 Dead Again 1991 Howards End 1992 Much Ado About Nothing 1993 The Remains of the Day 1993 Carrington 1995 Sense and Sensibility 1995, acting and writing Primary Colors 1998 Love Actually 2003 Nanny McPhee 2005, acting and writing Last Chance Harvey 2008

All of this is really just a lot of Much Ado About Nothing. I guess one actor can not criticize another actor at all. is this what I am hearing? Audrey Hepburn will always hold a special place in my heart as well as millions of other fans worldwide. I think what Thompson was saying was basically what she did not like about Hepburn's performance in MFL. Thompson IS an acting and screenwriting force now and for years to come. Thompson will probably also be nominated for additional Oscars before her career is over. Hepburn appeared in 28 films. Thompson has appeared in 32 films as of now, with another 4 on the way. Thompson has also appeared in over 15 television programs including the British mini series Fortunes of War. Hepburn was nominated for an Oscar 5 times, winning once for Best Actress in Roman Holiday. She received a posthumous Oscar in 1993 for her humanitarian work. She also won and American Emmy in 1993. Thompson has been nominated 5 times also. She won a Best Actress award for Howards End, then won a Best Screenplay Oscar for Sense and Sensibility. She is the only actor in the history of the Oscars to have won a Best Actress award and a Best Screenplay award. She too has won an American Emmy. And if you look at the quality of Hepburn's films, I can honestly say IMHO that she appeared in about 10 really good films during her career: Roman Holiday 1953 Sabrina 1954 Funny Face 1957 The Nun's Story 1960 Breakfast at Tiffany's 1961 The Children's Hour 1961 Charade 1963 Two for the Road 1967 Wait Until Dark 1967 Robin and Marion 1976 Thompson on the other hand IMHO has appeared in about 16 really good films so far into her career: Henry V 1989 Dead Again 1991 Howards End 1992 Much Ado About Nothing 1993 The Remains of the Day 1993 In the Name of the Father 1993 Carrington 1995 Sense and Sensibility 1995 The Winter Guest 1997 Primary Colors 1998 Love Actually 2003 Nanny McPhee 2005 Stranger Than Fiction 2006 Brideshead Revisited 2008 Last Chance Harvey 2008 An Education 2009 So before anyone starts calling Thompson out as being some hack or some minor actress, one might want to look at her track record so far.

Pappy should have put away his director's chair after Donovan's Reef in 1963.

Pappy should have put away his director's chair after Donovan's Reef in 1963.

1. Foreign Correspondent 2. Notorious 3. North By Northwest 4. Vertigo 5. Rear Window

436 dvds 134 vhs ? of this total, 33 were taped off of tv. 6 made for tv/cable movies and over 50 tv series and mini-series.

No, I was thinking more of MissG and a certain PM you sent me a long time ago asking me not to divulge any important information regarding your home movies stash, or I should say how many movies of a certain director and star you have in your collection. Ha, ha, ha......

Sorry I did understand your point. While I like the point of what AFI does with their lists I think their lists are way too narrow. They include a lot of movies that are not classics at all (and not even worthwhile new films). I mean come on Titanic? The Sixth Sense? (well at least Titantic won an Oscar what is Sixth Sense doing on there?). If anything with a few exceptions (like adding Sunrise) the AFI's revised list got worse. The fact that it is only American movies is also extremely limiting. Why shouldn't the average American not be exposed to foreign classics too? So I like what AFI does I just think they could expose people to more worthwhile movies. Also the TSPDT list takes into account the Sight & Sound Poll in its ranking. It takes a look at many different polls and collaborates the results from those polls. It's not perfect but I think it is by far the best list out there. This is how they come up with the results: *"Now, lets' talk statistics. The January 2010 list of the 1,000 Greatest Films of all-time has primarily been compiled by using 2,041 individual critics' and filmmakers' personal lists/ballots of their favourite/best films. That's 216 more ballots than our December 2008 list. A very warm thank you to everyone that has contributed lists and/or lent their support towards the current version. In particular, thanks to Angel Gonzalez Garcia, Aaron Dumont and Rob Sheehy for their steady supply of lists throughout 2009.* *In summary, here is the exact breakdown of individual ballots used, or if you like, from where we have begged, borrowed and stolen:"* *Sight & Sound's 1952-2002 polls (524 ballots)* *Senses of Cinema's 2000-2007 Top Tens (147 ballots)* *Time Out's 1995 poll (107 ballots)* *Nickel Odeon's 1994-1998 polls (100 ballots)* *Steadycam's 1995 & 2007 polls (80 ballots)* *El Mundo's 1995 poll (72 ballots)* *Your Movie Database's (YMDB) Critics Corner (71 ballots)* *Rotten Tomatoes' lists from 2003-2009 (70 ballots) New* *Facets? polls (69 ballots)* *One-Line Review's 2009 poll (66 ballots) New* *Positif?s 1991 poll (63 ballots)* *The Cinematheque's Top 10 Project (62 ballots)* *PBS's Independent Lens lists (59 ballots)* *Cinematheque Belgique's 1952 poll (52 ballots)* *Libre Journal du Cin?ma's 2009 poll (50 ballots) New* *John Kobal Presents the Top 100 Movies (44 ballots)* *PopCornQ's 1997 poll (39 ballots)* *The Village Voice's 1999 poll (37 ballots)* *Epoca Online?s 2000 poll (28 ballots)* *Kinema Junpo lists from 1999-2002 (25 ballots) New* *BBC's Calling the Shots series (25 ballots)* *Plus 251 more ballots from a variety of other sources.* Listen, I am NOT advocating that what AFI does is perfect science. Anytime you take people's opinions and try and distill them into a list of "best", or "greatest", or whatever you want to call it, you are not going to get perfect science. And the reason for this is simple: It is all subjective. All I was trying to do is say that of all the television programs of the past 50 years, I can not think of one program that stood out as much as AFI's for their sheer audacity to take list making to a level that had not been done before. I am not saying that their lists are perfect, nor am I advocating that they should not exclude foreign films. It was their list and they wanted to showcase American films. And guess what? That was their right to do so. If Sight and Sound or any of the other sources listed above wanted to go on the air and make a presentation of their top films of all time, they should do that. They don't in many ways because they aren't trying to advocate the preservation of films like the AFI does. In many ways the AFI specials have raised awareness of film neglect and have refocused many people's attentions to older films that are in decay and can still be saved. And many many people do not look at the above sources to find out in what order these lists have been made. Many of the people I know could care less that "Casablanca" or "The Searchers" or "The Third Man" are three of the greatest movies ever made. They are more concerned with having a good time and being entertained rather than looking at all of a film's intricate meanings like most of us who write on this message board. I could introduce you to at least twenty people at my office who think "Avatar" is the best movie they have ever seen. Yet when I bring up a movie with the title "They Were Expendable" and I tell them briefly what it is about, they look at me and say..... Why would I want to look at a film #1 in black and white, and #2. a film made more than fifty years ago. They simply do not care and they also do not care if there are those of us who think "Titanic" should not be included on a top 100 list. I too do not think AFI's list is all encompassing. But someone over there seems to think so. And even if they get a couple of thousand people to go out and rent or purchase an older film, then they have succeeded in informing the general public about the value of classic films. And the average American should be exposed to foreign film. I totally agree. Edited by: fxreyman on Aug 8, 2010 2:24 PM

Exactly.

I guess you too missed the point I was trying to make. Instead of focusing your attention to whether or not you like AFI or not, just try to read my comments about how without a list of films from AFI the "regular" folks out there who do not know the difference between what TNT cable channel calls a classic and what critics like Roseblaum or the site you describe do call a classic. I am not advocating that what AFI is listing is the ultimate list. It is their opinion. Just like everyone else has an opinion. What I am trying to say is that if we were to leave the average American to decide what they would consider to be a real classic film, many would be swayed by what is shown on AMC, TNT and other channels. While I do believe the AFI lists are more or less trivial in nature they do present a focused effort in getting average Americans to tune in to see some films that are considered classic films as oposed to just listening to TNT and AMC.

Hey Frank, *1. John Wayne - 65 (64)* Aren't you giving away your trade secrets to someone we both love and respect here on the boards?

*I think ideally that would be the case but the AFI really just supports the kind of canonical classics that everyone already knows. You know, the kinds of films that get parodied on TV all the time because everyone will know what's being parodied. Of course, there are exceptions, but mostly it's a dry well. It's a populist list that confirms what the audience is expecting rather than trying to get the word out about how rich and deep America's film heritage is.* I agree with you. All I was attempting to say is that the AFI lists that have been broadcast over "free" television is at least going out to many people who would not have seen some of these so called "canonical classics" to begin with. The lists could have also provided a reason for the otherwise "non" classic movie fan to watch classic movies on TCM or at the very least go out and rent a classic movie over something more recent. *And as I am a silent film fan: Any list that includes The Jazz Singer while leaving out Sunrise, The Crowd, and countless other genuine masterpieces isn't doing its job by the standard you've given it. (note: That's the original AFI list, I know they added Sunrise to the 10th anniversary special.)* I am not giving the AFI a so-called "standard". As I wrote in my previous paragraph, all I am saying is that without AFI presenting their selections on broadcast television not cable television, they are attempting to bring more people to classic films that would otherwise not even pay any attention to classic films. I also agree that the majority of the films they have selected over the past decade I would not have selected. And the people I am talking about are the people who do not watch TCM. *For anyone interested, here's Jonathan Rosenbaum's list in reaction to the original "AFI 100 Years 100 Movies" special. I think this accomplishes the aim of exposing the depths of American film to a wider audience better than the AFI list: http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/list-o-mania/Content?oid=896619* Yes I would agree to this. However the vast majority of film goers are not going to look for references like this one to try and find out what would qualifies as classic film. A wider audience? Most filmgoers do not understand what constitutes a classic over a more recent film. And I would go a step further. All of those repeats of the "supposed classics" on TNT network is what I am talking about. Many, many people think that what TNT cable network and AMC shows ARE the classics. Many people would not know or not care to look at a list like Rosenbaum to begin with. But at least with the airing of the AFI lists on television, they are getting exposed to something that is at least pointing them in the general direction of classic film. And once they get to the aisle that has the classic films in it, they are going to see films that they would never have rented in the first place. I think that is what the AFI lists are trying to accomplish to some degree. The Rosenbaum lists are an excellent way for the more serious classic film fan to make a critical understanding of what constitutes a classic film over the garbage that is shown on TNT and AMC. Edited by: fxreyman on Aug 8, 2010 8:56 AM Edited by: fxreyman on Aug 8, 2010 8:58 AM Edited by: fxreyman on Aug 8, 2010 8:59 AM Edited by: fxreyman on Aug 8, 2010 9:01 AM

And, once you bring the AFI into the discussion, your point becomes meaningless to me. I hate them and their lists, which have no more value or importance, than ours. I feel they do films a disservice by having those ridiculous, meaningless lists. Wow, that is a pretty strong statement. I take it you don't care too much for AFI. The only reason I mentioned the organization is because whether you agree or not, they are most responsible for getting the word out about classic films, that is to a mainstream audience in the past ten years. I am not going to mention the importance of Turner Classic Movies, because for the average American, most do not get TCM on their cable. And if they did, I would think most do not watch TCM. So as far as I am concerned, the only organization that has brought attention to long ago classics in a more comprehensive way to the masses has been AFI and their so-called *meaningless* lists which are broadcast over regular broadcast television. I find their lists a good way of comparing older movies o newer ones. I do not always agree with their lists, but the lists provide a good jumping off point for conversation. And as I have learned on this message board, not everyone is into making lists. And that is okay.

One of the few times I have agreed with you Lynn...... Just kidding!!!! You are totally correct. The exact year is not that important, every year is important. As long as they continue to make films, that really, in the final analysis is the only thing that really matters. But the OP posed a good thought however. IMHO there have been several great individual years in American cinema that have gone unmatched as far as the overall quality of films released. 1939: Gone With the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, The Roaring Twenties, Dark Victory, Destry Rides Again, Beau Geste, Ninotchka, The Women, Stagecoach, The Rules of the Game, Of Mice and Men, Gunga Din, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Babes in Arms, and Goodbye, Mr. Chips. But then again the first few years of the 1940's also provided AFI with 11 of their top 100 films: The list from those first three years of the 1940s is almost as incredible as that from 1939: 1940: Fantasia, The Philadelphia Story, Rebecca, The Great Dictator, The Grapes of Wrath, His Girl Friday, Pinocchio, The Shop Around the Corner, Pride and Prejudice, Foreign Correspondent, The Thief of Bagdad, The Sea Hawk, The Bank Dick, My Little Chickadee, Northwest Passage, The Letter, and Kitty Foyle. 1941: Citizen Kane, The Maltese Falcon, Dumbo, Suspicion, How Green Was My Valley, Sergeant York, Sullivan's Travels, Meet John Doe, High Sierra, The Lady Eve, Here Comes Mr. Jordan, The Wolf Man, Hellzapoppin, Ball of Fire, Penny Serenade, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, The Devil and Daniel Webster, Tobacco Road, The Little Foxes, and The Man Who Came to Dinner. 1942: Casablanca, Bambi, To Be or Not to Be, The Magnificent Ambersons, Now, Voyager, Holiday Inn, The Pride of the Yankees, Mrs. Miniver, Saboteur, Yankee Doodle Dandy, Woman of the Year, This Gun for Hire, The Glass Key, Kings Row, The Talk of the Town, Across the Pacific, Road to Morocco, and Tales of Manhattan. Then there was 1946: The Best Years of Our Lives, It's A Wonderful Life, The Big Sleep, Notorious, The Postman Always Rings Twice, Beauty and the Beast, Great Expectations, Gilda, Odd Man Out, My Darling Clementine, The Killers, Brief Encounter, Tomorrow is Forever, The Spiral Staircase, Nocturne, The Time of Their Lives, The Stranger, Humoresque, The Razor's Edge, The Strange Love of Martha Ivers, The Yearling, Duel in the Sun, Song of the South And then there was another great output of films in the early 1960's: Filmmakers once again gave us an array of great films, including 9 of the AFI 100, only two less than 1939-1942. Consider these wondeful films: 1959: North by Northwest, Ben-Hur, Some Like It Hot, Rio Bravo, Sleeping Beauty, The 400 Blows, Breathless, Anatomy of a Murder, The Mouse That Roared, Pillow Talk, On the Beach, Operation Petticoat, Black Orpheus, Imitation of Life, Hiroshima Mon Amour, The Diary of Anne Frank, Suddenly, Last Summer, The Horse Soldiers, A Summer Place, Compulsion, Porgy and Bess, The World, the Flesh and the Devil, and The Thirty-Nine Steps. 1960: The Apartment, Butterfield 8, Elmer Gantry, Exodus, Inherit the Wind, Psycho, Spartacus, The Sundowners, The Time Machine, Wild River, The Magnificent Seven, La Dolce Vita, The Little Shop of Horrors, The Alamo, Ocean's Eleven, Pollyanna, Swiss Family Robinson, Tunes of Glory, Sink the Bismarck, Let's Make Love, North to Alaska, and From the Terrace. 1961: West Side Story, The Hustler, Breakfast at Tiffany's, One Hundred and One Dalmatians, The Guns of Navarone, Yojimbo, Jules and Jim, Judgment at Nuremberg, Splendor in the Grass, Last Year at Marienbad, El Cid, The Children's Hour, Flower Drum Song, and A Raisin in the Sun. 1962: To Kill a Mockingbird, Lawrence of Arabia, The Manchurian Candidate, Cape Fear, Days of Wine and Roses, Dr. No, Lolita, The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner, Long Day's Journey Into Night, The Longest Day, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The Miracle Worker, The Music Man, Mutiny on the Bounty, Sweet Bird of Youth, The Birdman of Alcatraz, Billy Budd, David and Lisa, and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, and Hatari! I am NOT saying that we should use the AFI as a barometer of list making, but AFI is practically one of the few organizations that has in recent years given some thought as to what films were great (in their opinion of course), but more importantly has shown younger audiences what the fuss was all about with older films. And I think they deserve kudos for bringing these films back into the mainstream especially for younger audiences to learn and appreciate.

The War Wagon with John Wayne and Kirk Douglas Score by Dimitri Tiomkin, song sung by Ed Ames. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kxgQRkKVtQ

The Wind and the Lion, composed by the great Jerry Goldsmith: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31iNXfgWwWk

For many months I had thought that I had replied to this question..... As it turns out I did not. Great idea about favorite dozen oaters though I can't do just 12. Hows 'bout 25? Stagecoach 1939 The Ox-Bow Incident 1943 My Darling Clementine 1946 Fort Apache 1948 Red River 1948 She Wore a Yellow Ribbon 1949 Winchester '73 1950 Wagon Master 1950 Shane 1953 The Man From Laramie 1955 The Fastest Gun Alive 1956 The Searchers 1956 Seven Men From Now 1956 3:10 to Yuma 1957 The Magnificent Seven 1960 The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance 1962 Ride the High Country 1962 The Professionals 1966 El Dorado 1967 Will Penny 1968 Support Your Local Sheriff! 1969 Bite the Bullet 1975 The Outlaw Josey Wales 1976 Dances With Wolves 1990 Open Range 2003

A problem like this occurred at our house recently. But because I have high def, a call into the local cable company fixed the issue I was having. While on the phone with the cable provider, I followed their lead and within minutes they were able to fix the problem. Mainly because they can "see" what my problem is, through their cable/tech system, they were able to diagnose and fix the problem in a matter of minutes.

Well, it has been a while since I last posted here on the boards. But I'd have to say that the dust up after the last comments were made on this thread has me thinking again. I totally agree with you Peter on your well thought out comments. What in addition to those new rules should also be some information about each member. On each of our profile pages we have the chance or I should say the opportunity to tell people a little bit about ourselves. What I find deceptive is that some people choose to tell lies here. They put in a lot of bogus information about themselves, because they really do not want anyone to really see who they are or what they do. This is a shame and in many cases a sham. What I'd like to see happen is that ALL the information on these profiles be made to be a requirement. If you want to write about your interests in movies, then a little info about yourself should be included. I think that is fair. Many of the people who write on these message boards are fakers, or as some have indicated before using a word these people do not like is TROLLS. If they were required to write down some personal info about themselves, then I think many other people who write comments here would feel a little better knowing who these people are, what part of the world they are from, and what their interests are. Also because of the way many other message boards work, I think a more thorough registration process should be included. There should be a delay before you are accepted. The delay would be for the administrators to check up on you. Many, many other sites are like this. Two of these other sites are movie/TCM related sites The Silver Screen Oasis, and tcmfans.ning.com ( the site run by a former / possibly current multiple username member of this board ). Both of these sites require additional info from a person who wishes to write there. Same could be done here. Message edited by Fxreyman, July 31, 2010 (my goodness, summer is almost over!)

What bothers me most about your comments on this thread is the way you phrase your wording. It is almost as if you want to get a warning from the administrators, because you obviously have contempt for everyone else on this thread. Be that as it may, why not just follow the words of the administrators and try and maintain a civil discourse? The way you make it sound it would seem that the basic argument that we all have been trying to make is considered to be just one big "hissy fit". How I wonder must you feel that the nasty behavior perpetrated upon MissGoddess was removed finally this afternoon? Especially after your supporting comment was deleted as well as many others including my defense of MissGoddess. Instead of trying to label what most of us have been saying to be exaggerated from the start of this thread, why not start your own thread (as someone has stated) where you can debunk any of your theories about the rest of us) and where I believe many of your fellow posters who agree with you can all share their openly hostile viewpoints with you.

So I take it that it is the new policy of the TCM Web Administrators to back up everything that is said by those who cast their negative comments rather than delete or scold them and then you accuse the rest of us, long-time users of this board and I might remind you users who have always used just one user name through the years of going off topic when it is those other posters who come in and inflame the thread. This is going from the unbelievable to the frightening absurd.

That is exactly what I tried to write in two of the posts of mine that were deleted this afternoon Frank. Unfortunately for me and the rest of the online community, the moderators must feel that when you try and stick up for friends, you might as well not even try. But if you want to accuse honest members like MissGoddess of Nazi tactics, then that is alright. The comments made to Rohanaka were also impolite and mean spirited. Those who wrote what they did should not be allowed to come back and post here. Ever. I can't believe for a moment that the moderators of this message board are as blind to injustice as they appear to be. But apparently they are being influenced by someone else here. Someone else who apparently has the moderators over a barrel. I wonder who that person could be?

*I have said that some of the posters on this thread have made exaggerated* *claims with very little evidence to back them up, but I can't remember saying* *that they have deleted some of their posts. Perhaps you misunderstood something* *I posted, but I can't recall making that statement. If I did, then that was my mistake.* Well, first of all I am not going to sit here and say you definitively said the above statement because guess what? The statement you made about deleting posts has itself been deleted. Now if I am wrong about what I thought you had written, then let me be the first to apologize to you for writing what I wrote about you in the previous paragraph. *I think this has, with a few exceptions, been a civil conversation on all sides. While* *I don't agree with some of primos' language, I do admire his or her spirit. Now, here's* *a choice example of Miss Groundless' careful consideration for facts and above board* *style. Notice how expressing one's point of view in a civil manner is suddenly turned* *into "disrupt and antagonize." Somehow, I doubt anyone will be demanding an apology* *from her:* I cannot, of course, presume to speak for specious individuals who come here simply to disrupt and antagonize. It always amused me highly when diseased TROLLS speak out against what will limit their sport, for it only serves to illuminate the accuracy of all the claims. They who have been banned over and over again can just keep chattering like the empty +magpies they are. They only insult the moderators and make me laugh. No one really gives a hang since these fearful naysayers NEVER contribute anything of interest or value here. Well let me just say this about what you have written about what MissGoddess wrote, okay? You are comparing the nasty response from Primos to what MissGoddess wrote right? Unfortunately for you there is one very big difference between what Primos wrote and what MissGoddess wrote and that is this: Primos was sending a message directly to MissGoddess, accusing her of nazi-style tactics. What you have written about what MissGoddess wrote is totally different and is opposite of what Primos wrote. For one thing and lets be clear about this: MissGoddess was writing about a GROUP of individuals who "come here simply to disrupt and antagonize". There is no mention of any one particular poster in her writing at all. She was writing about a group of posters who are here for one purpose and one purpose only. And that is to disrupt. What I find sad and discomforting is this statement from you: While I don't agree with some of primos' language, I do admire his or her spirit. So you admire someone who calls someone else out on this board by equating what they wrote to "Nazi-like attempts at censorship". This is sad and very hurtful to many people here. And I'd hate to think that someone as intelligent as you would agree with this kind of garbage being spewed out. Message edited by fxreyman

Wendy, As I get older my favorite films actually change as I would think everyone's tastes would change over time. With Ford's cavalry trilogy the same is true. At one time and for many years I have always thought that She Wore a Yellow Ribbon was the best of the three. But with each viewing of Fort Apache, I am more inclined as ever to think that in many ways FA is equal to or surpasses SWAYR. That is not to say that I do not enjoy SWAYR, I am just saying I guess that I appreciate FA more today than I used to. I love all three films, and in many ways I think they are all equal in substance and story telling. However I really believe that Rio Grande is the darker of the three. And in many ways the most complex. Mainly because of the Wayne/O'Hara relationship. Still though I'd have o say that whenever any of these films are on, I usually stop what I am doing and start watching them. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Wendy, As I get older my favorite films actually change as I would think everyone's tastes would change over time. With Ford's cavalry trilogy the same is true. At one time and for many years I have always thought that She Wore a Yellow Ribbon was the best of the three. But with each viewing of Fort Apache, I am more inclined as ever to think that in many ways FA is equal to or surpasses SWAYR. That is not to say that I do not enjoy SWAYR, I am just saying I guess that I appreciate FA more today than I used to. I love all three films, and in many ways I think they are all equal in substance and story telling. However I really believe that Rio Grande is the darker of the three. And in many ways the most complex. Mainly because of the Wayne/O'Hara relationship. Still though I'd have o say that whenever any of these films are on, I usually stop what I am doing and start watching them. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!