fxreyman

1973's very entertaining The Train Robbers with: John Wayne as Lane Ann-Margret as Mrs. Lowe Rod Taylor as Grady Ben Johnson as Jesse Christopher George as Calhoun Bobby Vinton as Ben Young Jerry Gatlin as Sam Turner and Ricardo Montalban as The Pinkerton man The last scene in the Train Robbers: Just after Lane and his group have decided to give the reward money to Mrs. Lowe, they walk back to the stables. As they past the last train car the following exchange occurs: The Pinkerton man: (Standing on the platform of the last passenger car) That was very touching boys.....giving up that reward money. Lane: (Turning around to face the Pinkerton man) Who are you? The Pinkerton man: (He shows Lane and his men his badge) Work for Wells Fargo. Lane: Pinkerton man? The Pinkerton man: That's right. Been tracking Matt Lowe for five years. Lane: He's dead! (Lane turns to walk away) The Pinkerton man: I know! I was there the night he was shot, in that shall I say house of ill repute. So was the woman. She worked there. Grady: Mrs. Lowe? The Pinkerton man: Her name is Lilly..... with two "L's." Matt Lowe was never married. Better luck next time! Jesse: Lilly. (Showing exasperation) Grady: With two "L's." (Showing bewilderment) Jesse: One of 'um must stand for "liar." Jesse: Lane? (Lane has gotten on his horse and takes off after the train) Grady: Where you goin'? Lane: Where the hell do you suppose? To rob a train! Jesse: Rob a train? (Jesse looks at Grady) Grady: It's something to do! And now the rest of the men get on their horses and take off after Lane who is clearly galloping at high speed to catch up with the recently departed train. Edited by: fxreyman on Jul 17, 2010 1:20 PM

Welcome to the message boards! You should check the following website out: http://www.moviecard.com/

This is an interesting concept of a thread. As I was reading this thread (I did not read the entire thread however) I kept thinking about a recent film that had in my opinion the wrong paired lead actors in it. Now I am not saying that this was a great film, actually it was quite mediocre, the book was a very fast and interesting read. I am writing about The Bridges of Madison County. As I was reading that book, I started to envision two actors playing the lead roles. Because the female in the book was Italian, I was thinking of Angelica Huston. The male lead, well there was really only one person who I thought would be really good in that role: Robert Redford. But, alas, the producers felt otherwise. I just never bought into the Clint Eastwood/Meryl Streep casting. Just felt that Eastwood while still a good actor, just wasn't up to that role. Streep put in another marvelous acting performance, but I still think that the two actors I mentioned would have been a better fit for those characters.

Maybe you should brush up on the Code of Conduct yourself. What you have written here today can only be mentioned as a clear violation of the Code of Conduct. The following are examples of the types of content or use that are prohibited under the Code: *Any content or use that is offensive to the online community, such as sexually explicit content, or content that promotes obscenity, pedophilia, racism, bigotry, religious intolerance, hatred or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual, regardless of whether such use or content takes place within the Site, or takes place outside the Site but relates to the Site in any manner;* *Any content or use that harasses or advocates harassment of another person* And just in case you do what C. Bogle claims that many of the so-called old timers do here on the boards (deleting their posts) I am including for the world to see before you change your mind and delete these posts is to place here exactly what you wrote earlier today to Rohanaka and MissGoddess: Number one *From and written by primosprimos* *Re: Get Up, Stand Up* *Posted: Jul 16, 2010 9:29 AM in response to: rohanaka* *And so are the others who post in this thread that desire to see a change in the code of conduct.* *Translation: those in my clique which is the clique of Miss Godess who want to see the Rules used by the Nazis in 1939 Germany instituted here.* *Thank you moderator, I love you lots -- Rohanaka and Miss Godess.* *primosprimos* Number two *From and written by primosprimos* *Re: Get Up, Stand Up* *Posted: Jul 16, 2010 9:27 AM in response to: rohanaka* *rohanaka, was an ancestor of yours a Brown Shirt?* *P.S. Your sucking up to the moderators and Miss Godess is also pathetic. Get a life, dearie.* *primosprimos* Number three *From and written by primosprimos* *Re: Message Board Code of Conduct* *Posted: Jul 16, 2010 9:25 AM in response to: MissGoddess* *Well, actually, Miss Godess, you're one big clique, but why split hairs?* *By all means, moderator, kowtow even further to Miss Godess and her minions and make this a "Miss Godess and her minions" board.* *Never mind that there are others who are put off by her arrogant, sad little kowtowing to the moderators posts and her Nazi-like attempts at censorship, but hey, moderator, you know best.* *If you wish to roll over and play dead for the likes of Miss Godess and her minions, have at it. There were other boards that died from the likes of Narcissistic posters like Miss Godess -- and her minions -- so please narrow the scope of this board with the exclusion of those who don't agree with The Great One.* *I feel sorry for you, Miss Godess, you must have a sad little life, to get such pleasure from censoring the truth and lording it over the other sad little people who agree with you. I bet you're a bible thumper, too, right, and go to church on Sundays?* *You are pathetic.* *P.S. Sucking up to moderators makes the skin crawl of all those who don't suck up to you. Get a life, dearie.* Back to me: You should be ashamed of yourself for writing what you wrote today. Miss Goddess has never said anything to anyone without careful consideration of the facts and has always been above the board. But you sir have sunk to a new low and I think an *apology* is in order not only to MissGoddess but to everyone else who writes and reads this message board. Your post from earlier today was in very bad taste. I am NOT going to report you to the administrators. Rather I will let your words speak for themselves. As I have mentioned before it is worth stating again: When people here read comments made by other members and they don't agree with the comments, some members choose a different tactic: Attack the member whose writings they don't agree with. Edited by fxreyman, July 16, 2010 Edited by: fxreyman on Jul 16, 2010 11:09 PM

Wow, must be some sort of an affliction going around here today. This is like the second thread that has gone from sublime to the outrageous all in one day.

Jean Arthur, playing Van Heflin's wife and Brandon De Wilde's mother, in Shane (1953) Constance Bennett in Madame X (1966) Humphrey Bogart in his last film The Harder They Fall (1956). James Cagney, twenty years after his magnificent performance in Billy Wilder's One, Two, Three (1961), gave his final performance as police commissioner Rheinlander Waldo in Ragtime (1981), which also served as Pat O'Brien's last film. Peter Finch's incredible "mad as hell" performance in Network (1976) Henry Fonda finally won his Best Actor Oscar (on only his second nomination!) just months before his death for his last film On Golden Pond (1981) with Katharine Hepburn, who won her record breaking fourth Best Actress Oscar on what was her third-from-last on-screen role. Clark Gable in The Misfits (1961), which was also Marilyn Monroe's last film. Burt Lancaster, though he continued to accept TV roles for years afterwards, in Field of Dreams (1989). Carole Lombard in To Be or Not to Be (1942) Tyrone Power in Witness for the Prosecution (1957) Randolph Scott in Ride the High Country (1962). Lee Tracy in film version of Gore Vidal's compelling political campaign drama The Best Man (1964). Spencer Tracy in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967). John Wayne in The Shootist (1976)

How sad that this thread has come to this. But as we all have said before, when you start talking about some issue that some people here do not like, or do not agree with, bad behavior starts and unfortunately peoples feelings and rights get trampled upon.

*There is exaggeration indeed.* Yes, I can see where you might think this. Of course seeing how you have only been operating here since December of 2009, then you really have no idea what the rest of us have had to put up with. *Many people's issues with the code of conduct and alleged trolling have more to do with their personal feelings of posters (that stemmed from heated debates in specific threads, or one taking offense to the others extreme opinion).* Now where do you get this from? Do you have some keen understanding of the people here who have been attacked, harassed, or otherwise judged by those who like to do that? Or is it possible that you have another reason for saying this? I mean have you been in contact via PM to find out why these other long-time members feel this way? *There is way too much emphasis going on these days of everything NON-film related and it looks childish.* NON-film related? I think you are over stating the problem. The film discussion is ongoing at all times. Except for a few instances of late, i.e. the Enlighten Me thread, the board has been relatively quiet as far as so-called childish behavior. I would also say that the so-called childish behavior is not childish, its a reaction to what many here see as an on-going problem: a threat to their freedom to post without being subjected to constant harassment. In fact I would submit that the only time that the so-called childish behavior comes out is when a thread is hijacked by someone who has a different agenda than what the original poster stated. Sort of like what has happened to this thread. *There are quite a few threads that feel like gang territory the moment you click the link - it is cliquish, not open to new contribution, and reads more like emails amongst friends than a general discussion - I think this takes away from the welcoming attitude of the board.* I have to disagree with you here. There are many threads here that seem to have conversations going on between different people all the time. And guess what? Thats what this message board is for. It is here to allow people to talk with one another. Ideas and opinions are shared and there is a lot of bantering going on. This is true with almost every thread here. Now are there cliques? Sure, just like everywhere else. But if think that everywhere you go here that is the case then you are dead wrong. There are hundreds of threads ongoing that have many different levels of conversation going on. Sure there are threads that have so-called cliques. But who cares? If you want to write and post something, it is not like you can't join in on the conversation. If you act like a responsible person and stay away from so-called trolling behavior, then I would think that you would be welcomed. However, if you are a person who has decided to use unsavory forms of communication, then guess what? You will be ignored. That is true in every way of life. *When people post in a topic with inside jokes, snide innuendo etc about the original poster or someone who contributed, that is also a problem, and it is a level of trolling - I have seen this on a few occasions.* Well, all I can say is welcome to the club. *This board has a high school feel to it at times. I know some admit they use it as a sort of escapism, which is fine, but if you are escaping only to go back to high school and high school antics, I don't think it is fair to those of us who like good old fashioned discussions about classic films and can handle ourselves, agree to disagree, and move on like adults.* Well, every message board has its detractors. Some people like to have fun when they post. And yes to a degree for some people it is a way to escape. Isn't that why we watch movies? *The pleading to moderators, editing and erasing of posts because a few don't like it, or people silently boycotting threads because of who they think is a resurrected banned member (and have no solid IP address proof) is ridiculous and it is not fair to those of us who come here for the films, not the drama and board politics.* Well now you have hit the crux of the problem. Because whether you like it or not there are those of us here who remember certain posters who were allowed to come back and start posting again without nary a word of concern from the moderators. I have made this point before: When you have an individual who thinks that once they are banned, then they can come back and write new postings under a totally different user name, then we have a problem with that. When you have a certain poster who agreed with another long-time member to come back and post under a new name, using ONLY one user name and stop all of her really bad behavior as it concerned trolling/harassment, and then goes on to create additional user names, then that is a problem. How do we know who is whom? Well its simple really. When a new poster arrives here and writes a certain way, or after a while starts dropping certain facts about their lives and other known thoughts that they have published before, then it becomes quite obvious to other long time posters who this person really is. As far as editing posts go lets be clear about this. Not many so-called old-timers here erase their posts. In fact, I'd have to say that none of the so-called old timers EVER erase their postings. Edit? Yes we edit postings. Not usually to erase something but instead to clarify or edit a sentence or two. I will sometimes go in after I have posted and reread my posting only to discover I posted before I clearly had the chance to do a spell check. Most of the people who delete their posts are posters who do exactly what you have accused the rest of us of doing. Is there drama and politics here? Yes, unfortunately. All one has to do is go back to the Prop 8 thread from the fall of 2008 and the Heinz 57 thread from the Spring of 2009 to see how ugly a thread can get out of control. And unfortunately from our perspective (Old-timers), things were allowed to occur that was out of our control. I nor anyone else can help it if conversations get political. The moderators have done a pretty good job of deleting postings where they believe politics or other non-essential or non-film related conversations happen. The key to any conversation is to keep it civil. That is something that many people here fail to understand or appreciate. And finally, how do you know that people are pleading with the moderators? As some have already posted today they think MissGoddess is one of the pathetic members on the boards. Well, I think they are WAY off with that assessment. She only started this thread to open a dialogue with the moderators and let other people have their say on what they believe could be done with a change in the Code of Conduct. Just some random thoughts from and edited by fxreyman, July 16, 2010 the 41st anniversary of the launching of Apollo 11.

I think what Rohanaka is saying has nothing to do with the number of posts, rather it is the continued allowance of posters who have been allowed to come back under different user names and continue to post like they were posting before they were banned. There are quite a few posters here on this message board who continue to post even though they were once banned by the administrators. This is the practice that we would like to see ended. Once banned, always banned. If you are one individual who would like to post here, you can post as many messages as you would like. As long as you maintain just one user name. These are the two main changes we would like to see adapted in the Code of Conduct. If the code is not revised to reflect these changes, then posters here will not be able to know who they are communicating with. At least partially because in many people's eyes, there is a small group of individuals who like to come here and write as more than one user name. My suggestion is to read Rohanaka's entire posts and she can describe in much greater detail exactly what I am attempting to say here. Message edited by fxreyman

I would have to say that my selection would have to be 1983's import from Scotland, "Local Hero". The film stared Peter Riegert, Denis Lawson, Peter Capaldi and Burt Lancaster. It was directed by Bill Forsyth. The film takes place in both Houston, Texas and a fictional village on Scotland's northwest coast called Ferness. The story concerns the plight of Houston-based Knox Oil Company executive "Mac" MacIntyre (Riegert) who comes to Scotland prepared to purchase an entire town because his company wants to build an oil refinery there. Mac is your typical "hot-shot" executive who when he arrives at the Scottish village is totally unprepared for the assortment of townspeople he encounters. One of my all-time favorites.

Out of hundreds of what..... trolls?

And now today the news that the Swiss authorities have decided to let Roman Polanski go free. They must be in cahoots with all of the Hollywood players who have stuck up for that guy.

Well Neil, Welcome o the boards. So sorry to hear about your health issues. I hope it all works out for you. You will find a diverse collection of members here who love ALL kinds of movies and television shows. We all like to write and discuss about them in great detail. So you like westerns huh? Well we have just the place for you under the Westerns Forum under the Genres Forum where many many members post about their favorite westerns. So take a gander and start talking to everyone! And again, let me be the first to welcome you. Fxreyman

Yes I know about Song of the South. You should check out this web site: http://www.songofthesouth.net Check out the sites FAQ page. Pretty interesting stuff about why the movie has not yet been released on DVD.

You have come up with a sensible solution the the current state of affairs here on the message board. You should be commended as should everyone else who has come up with good solutions to an otherwise unattended situation. Your other posts are of high quality and in my mind you have never spoken ill toward anyone here. I like reading your posts and I hope you will continue to do so here. Fxreyman

The movie you asked about IS available on DVD. Check out the following website: www.classictimevideo.com

Did you happen to search under the Genre Forums under Classic Film Reviews? You might be able to find your answer there. A simple PM to filmlover might solve your question. Might be better than starting another thread here under General Discussions, when many threads already exist under Classic Film Reviews on the Genre Forums filmLover is the author of a few threads there concerning the latest film releases on DVD. There is a thread called Upcoming Releases by filmlover Special Sales of Classic Titles on DVD & Blu-ray by filmlover And many other threads concerning classic movies and tv shows available on DVD. You may want to check there or ask filmlover himself. He is a very helpful person.

I have no idea. It would seem that there are leftover effects from the "Enlighten Me" thread from yesterday.

So it continues......

Totally agree with you. The whole problem goes back to basic education. If you look at the average high school graduate, they are not going to be able to tell you what significant event occurred in 1776. Nor are they going to be able to tell you who we separated from to gain our independence. ** See below** This is allowed to happen because too many political appointees or school board members have decided that teaching "social studies" or teaching classes about learning the differences of other cultures is far more important than teaching basic American history. That is why so many young people today have no clue nor really cared what happened 100 years ago, or 50 years ago or even 20 years ago. Now I am not saying that the whole teenage population feels this way, I am just saying that the teaching situation in this country has been so removed from what we learned (in my case 30 years ago) that something radical has to be done. I am not saying that we should not teach our children diversity, what I am advocating is that we teach them the trials and tribulations of what happen to our country over the past 403 years. Something is missing when young men and women can't even tell you why and when we separated form England in 1776. It is truly becoming a lost art, the teaching of American history in our schools. If we are going to require that foreigners learn the Constitution to become citizens, then we should also require the teaching of American history in our schools. The overriding issue today is to simply teach our children that we as a nation do not exist anymore. I have a niece who just graduated from high school in May. She is planning on going to college this fall. I decided to play a game with her earlier this June where I asked her some general questions about history. She did not know anything about the American revolution, did not know why we fought the Civil War. Did not know who the first American to set foot on the moon, (she did not even know that we had ever been to the moon). But, if you ask her to name the current batch of popular singers she had no problem. More interested in texting her friends while I was asking these questions. How sad. A lot of this has to do with parents participation in the school boards across the land. If parents knew what was happening I would bet that they would be up in arms about what is being taught today in our public schools. And as far as the media is concerned, you might as well just forget about objectivity. Just look back to the 2008 presidential election. And the first year of Obama's presidency. I have never in my life seen a media swoon over someone and place their interests in crowning a new president a mesiah as much as the combined strengths of CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, CBS, NBC, and ABC. He could do no wrong. Where was the objectivity there? This would have never been allowed to happen if we still had just three national networks to view. At least we have someone on the networks who does seem to know about the "greatest generation", Tom Brokaw, but even he is willing to accept only one view of life here in the USA. And that is quite unfortunately a very liberal take on politics and life in general. And now we might as well forget everything we ever learned about politics 101. Because everything has been thrown out the window. By both sides. And we could go back to movies. Look at the recent AFI lists. I mean they were a joke. 39 movies from 1970 onward, were on their most recent list of 100 greatest American films. Even the IMDB top 100 list has 66 films made after 1970 on it. Why was that? Mainly because the influence of younger participants and the fact that they have never been exposed to older more classic films. Nor I might add do they care. Could be that they weren't listening either during their American history classes in high school. Message edited by fxreyman, home sick today, July 6th, 2010 Marist Poll 7/2: Don?t Know Much About History? Filed under Celebrations, Celebrations Polls, Featured, Living There?s good news for American education. About three-quarters of residents ? 74% ? know the U.S. declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776. The bad news for the academic system ? 26% do not. This 26% includes one-fifth who are unsure and 6% who thought the U.S. separated from another nation. That begs the question, ?From where do the latter think the U.S. achieved its independence?? Among the countries mentioned are France, China, Japan, Mexico, and Spain. Edited by: fxreyman on Jul 6, 2010 11:07 AM

one year..... one movie..... especially for this date....... 1972's 1776.

I agree with what Kyle has written. TCM shows this film once per year, and even though the fourth of July may not be the best time, it might very well pose a question: If not now, when? This is one of those seminal American films that everyone lists in their top ten of all time. There is nothing wrong with placing this film on the holiday weekend. And to show it twice I have no problem with that. If you are concerned that showing it twice is taking away from the schedule another film, then consider this: Doesn't TCM repeat the Essentials selection on Sunday evening for all those who missed the original showing on Saturday evening? I mean most of the channels that show movies does this. Do you know that Fox Movie channel shows the same basic 20 - 25 westerns every month, even though Fox produced more than 160 westerns? AMC repeats films almost every day, as does TNT and TBS. I think the bigger issue here is this: I think TCM should be applauded. Instead of running a certain movie into the ground with repeated viewings over several days or weeks or even months, TCM decides to show Wizard twice a year on the same weekend. That to me makes it a special event. Something to look forward to. Unlike AMC, Fox movie channel and the others.

You're still here? Geeze, I thought maybe you had decided to retire to the old grumpy men's home on Long Island. Well anyway, congrats on making it to the 9,000 foot level. Out here you only have to climb another 5,000 feet or so to get over the mountains.

Whenever we at work are confronted with an issue or a job that is so much bigger than we originally thought I always invoke the following: "We're" gonna need a bigger boat. And whenever I find myself making a stupid mistake I find myself using the word "Frac" (from Battlestar Galactica) instead of you know what.

I think that the one common thread that is not really looked at very often is the keen sense that Hitchcock has used through out many of his films. Attention to detail. You see this component in almost every one of his films. Take for instance the mcguffin he used in Notorious. The uranium in the bottles downstairs in the cellar. Did many film goers at the time of this movie's release even know about uranium? Sure many, many people knew about the atomic bombs used to end WWII. But did they know what uranium looked like? I don't think so. And yet, in this film it is made to become a substance that is very much in the dark, very much an unknown thing. So when Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman are in the cellar looking around for the stuff and they find it, the stuff looks very black, and granular. I am not sure what uranium looks like but if I had been in attendance during the initial run of this film, I would have believed that uranium was a dark substance. In the same movie much has been said about the keys to the cellar. The long and great tracking shot Hitchcock used from the top of the stairs all the way down and across the room to Ingrid's hand that held the keys was a great attention to detail shot. Not many people would have filmed it that way. Then there is the fine attention to detail in Rear Window. Where we get be voyeurs looking into everyone else's apartments through Jimmy Stewart's eyes. North By Northwest and the mcguffin with the film. I could go on and one, but I think it is the attention to detail that has kept me thinking that Hitchcock's films were really all about attention to detail.