fxreyman

I think you'd be wise to avoid the more modern but inept remake from 1969. Many posters here on this board are always talking about how bad Hollywood has gotten recently with all of the unwise remakes. Well here was a really bad remake from 1969. Which goes to show you that producers and the studios were just as inept in 1969 as they are today.

Easy question.......easy answer...... 1938's The Adventures of Robin Hood.

Good evening all! Thought I'd give you all a little taste of what is to come with my favorite actors list. I am still doing my research, and looking at my movie collection and gathering info, but here are twelve of my picks so far. These picks are in alpha order, not numerical as of yet. Just to wet your appetites for more....to come. Charly Madison, James Garner, The Americanization of Emily John J. Macreedy, Spencer Tracy, Bad Day at Black Rock Captain Eric Finlander, Richard Widmark, The Bedford Incident Robert Stroud, Burt Lancaster, Birdman of Alcatraz Lt. Frank Bullitt, Steve McQueen, Bullitt Senator Jay Bullington Bulworth, Warren Beatty, Bulworth Klaatu, Michael Rennie, The Day the Earth Stood Still Daniel Miller, Albert Brooks, Defending Your Life Bob Diamond, Rip Torn, Defending Your Life Captain Murrell, Robert Mitchum, The Enemy Below General Black, Dan O'Herlihy, Fail-Safe Groeteschele, Walter Matthau, Fail-Safe Message edited by Fxreyman

I'm tellin' you all this forum, the Westerns forum and the Film-Noir Forum sure do feel like the Last Outpost here on the Message Boards.......The Bad Guys have surrounded us and we're like the last ones standing. As far as my list is concerned, I WOULD stay up a while longer, but I have to get up early and go to work tomorrow, so a list from me will just have to wait. Sorry 'bout that, but thats the way its gonna be.

Can I play????? Oh wait a minute......I have to come up with a list huh????? Thats gonna take a while. Will you guys still be at the playground by the time my list is ready to show and tell??????

Good morning, oops, I mean Good afternoon Miss April! So would you say at some point on your lists of 100, that the rankings become a matter of which ones you dislike the least? I mean, does every character, say, after number 50, become a matter of almost indifference? I'm just wondering if you actually do like something about all 100. I know I could list 100 and they would all be genuine favorites. I won't do that many this time, I think, because it would take me forever to rank them according to preference. What Frankie does is almost impossible to accomplish. I give him a lot of credit, and because he and I have an affinity towards making lists, his achievement seems even more amazing. What I do with lists is much easier to do since I am not placing the films in a numerical ranking. What he does with his list making is place everything in numeric order. Favorite to least favorite, Best to whatever classification negative would be. I think you ask the right question about where in his list does the more least favorite role come into play. Or is it fact that all of his top 100 of both male and female ARE all favorites and that his rankings are indeed based on what he considers his favorite of all time. This is where I would have great difficulty deciding. I can't do that. And I may never be able to do that. You are right however that it would take forever. I would rather work on three more 101 favorite movie lists than to rank a performances list like Frank has done. Do I have like a favorite top ten of films. Yes, but like everyone else, the films that are toward the bottom of the list are and will change from time to time. Making a listing of favorite roles would be even more challenging. And that is because there are many more roles I like than those films that I like. In other words, there could be a list out there with 500 favorite films, but there could be a list of well over 1,000 performances I like even more. And the thing about that is that there are multiple performances or roles if you like that are from the same film. For instance, take the film "The Talk of the Town". There are four really good performances in that film that I really like. Cary Grant as Leopold Dilg / Joseph, Ronald Colman as Professor Michael Lightcap, Jean Arthur as Miss Nora Shelley, and finally, Edgar Buchanan as Sam Yates. So there is a film with four really good roles or characters or performances that I really love and admire. It helps that this film is in my top ten. I will be around most of the day in between doing laundry and household chores before the Oscars tonight. BTW, did you happen to see my two 101 favorite movie lists over on the Favorites forum I posted awhile back? Would like to know what your impressions or thoughts of it were. And, unlike Franks' lists my list are in chronological order. See ya. fxreyman

Sometimes?

Yes, I CAN take care of myself, thank you! But I do appreciate the humor of your post and the truthfulness of it as well. Thanks again.

Wow! Maybe you should start up a thread about all the things that were wrong about John Wayne.

At one time I would think that AMC's schedule was worth something. But the way they edit the films to fit their respective time slots, leaves me to wonder why anyone would want to watch a movie over there. Especially since they show commercials now. Not the best way to introduce people to movie watching.

Wow! Getting a little snitty here about spelling, huh???? First of all this is NOT the Cambridge University English Department. Second, I just happened to research this info and found the interesting website which I referred to. Instead of concentrating on my grammer skills or lack there of, why not just read the article and move on. And third, I was not aware that we had to follow the correct use of grammer on this message board. Heck, if we did then I would say that over half of the posts would be rejected on that basis alone.

SuzanC, Welcome to the boards! I really can not explain why this movie is NOT on during the 31 Days of Oscar. Surely it has been shown in years gone past. One major reason which was alluded to earlier was a rights issue and it could have gone beyond TCM's budget for the month. Who knows. This is one BIG reason to start your own film library. That way if a film you really like is never shown on TCM, you could then watch it at anytime. I often watch films on my computer. As I was doing yesterday when writing a piece on the Western Rambles about Fort Apache. Of course, not everyone has the time nor the money to make an outlay of that cost. Fxreyman Edited by: fxreyman on Feb 28, 2010 2:04 PM

*Who gives a bleep what some of you sophisticated snobs think...* I NEVER said I was sophisticated..... Now snob, that is another story.

*I read your lists (and other people's lists), Rey. Why? It's a great way to learn a person. If I just focused on my own lists, I would only care about myself. Now that is truly boring.* You know.....I totally agree with you on that one Frankie. In my original thought process though, that reason of yours escaped me. But you are correct. You can learn quite a bit about another poster by their choices in their lists. In compiling my list and you correctly pointed it out, that yes, I am a huge John Wayne fan. I have ten of his films on my two 101 lists. But Hank Fonda and Jimmy Stewart, Bogie, Marvin, and Bond are right behind him. Stanwyck is my favorite actress from the two lists. Its funny how Ford directed all of these actors in more than one picture. Now that is a common thread if there ever was one.

*That was a brilliant post. It's one of your very best. I'm glad you took the time to share your feelings on Fort Apache.* Wow! Am I nominated this year??? Thanks so very much for your kind words. While writing my post I had Fort Apache on my computer so I could remember some of the details. I love watching films on my computer. And another way Ford uses the opening of the film to try and develop the characters as much as he can, so that when we see them all at the end of the film, just before and after they all die, gives the viewer a chance to take stock in these characters that Ford has given much screen time to at the beginning of what you have called a not too exciting film. *I agree with that. But does Ford not do this in his other films? Why do the first two acts of Fort Apache bore me where the others do not? There must be something to it.* Well, it could be that you were expecting a slam-bang action thriller. But what you got was really a movie that tries to show you and the rest of the audience what life was sort of like during the old calvary days back in the mid to late 1800's. Ford does this a lot. In many of his films. But to me that is alright. Sometimes a little background is better than no background. Unfortunately for people like you, there is way too much background and not enough action. I mean, what were you expecting..... something like Saving Private Ryan. Now there is a film with a slam-bang beginning and a slam-bang ending. It is the middle of that movie that bogs down. *What I struggle with is the substantial screen time devoted to community dances, domestic details, and a romantic subplot. For me, this is John Ford's Pride and Prejudice. Now if you're into P&P, you're gonna eat this stuff up. If you're not, you're gonna be asking yourself, "when's something going to happen!"* Well, all I can say is that you'd better get used to that element in most of Ford's films. Even a film like My Darling Clementine has a good chunk of the beginning devoted to setting up the characters and the story. The Quiet Man, same sort of thing. It does not really get fun until late when Thornton goes after his wife at the train station and heads to her brother's house and then the fight happens. Even She Wore a Yellow Ribbon has some slow moments as does Rio Grande. Although both of these films pale in comparison to Fort Apache about all of the so-called "boring" details. *But, as I have been saying, the first two acts are vital to the film because it makes the ending all the more powerful. So we are in agreement over the value of the film, as a whole. I just find the first two acts to be a tough watch.* Well, I am glad for that. At least I won't have to have you horse-whipped for all of this nonsense! Edited by: fxreyman on Feb 27, 2010 8:46 PM

The only problem with your statement is that the only other film about the Titanic to have been nominated for any Academy Awards WAS the 1953 version. So in reality during 31 Days of Oscar, only Titanic from 1997 and Titanic from 1953 could have been shown. And TCM decided to show the 1997 version. At least for you purists out there, the film is being shown late tonight at least late on the east coast, so most of you purists will be in bed by the time Titanic strikes the iceberg.

*Now this is just MY opinion, but why go to all that effort? I never read the lists anyway, as I have my own list and like everyone else, think it is the one with the movies I prefer and of course the best one!* Why? I ask you...... Why not? List making is a fun way for me to find out which movies I value the most. Some of the movies I really, really love are on the two 101 lists I created. Many more that I love were not on the two lists. So I have plenty of spaces on the next three 101 lists to add these films. And eventually I will place all the films in numerical order, as I wrote earlier, my number one, two, three and so on placed films. But your question I think goes a lot deeper, doesn't it? List making is made up of a couple of reasons: One reason is that it is my list just as you said your list is your list. Another reason for making lists is to share my list with other posters who read here on the message board. I like to share my lists with others, especially Frank Grimes and the others here on this thread. Another reason is this: For me it is a fun way to spend my free time. Some people, like Holly spends a lot of time watching movies and then spends more time writing about films here on the message board. And that is great. She does a great job of writing about people in the news, obits, and her general thoughts and feelings about what she has seen. I spend less time writing about films on the board, and to a lesser degree, I watch fewer films also. In fact, I don't think I have watched more than five movies on TCM this whole month. I used to watch all the time. But now I only watch if I really want to. But that is another topic. My earlier question about why a certain number of the posters here had not come up with any lists was not meant to be some sort of slap against their intelligence, it was merely a question and I was just curious. If I could create a list, then my reasoning was that anyone could create a list. I totally understand if some view lists as fluid, i.e., always changing or moving about. Bottom line is this: We all do things for various reasons. I am just into making lists. And I enjoy sharing those lists with others here on the board. If any of you feel like you do not want to read my lists, then by all means please don't look at them. Doesn't bother me at all. It's a free website. But hey, everyone is different. Thanks for asking. Message edited by fxreyman

To answer one of the earlier questions posed about the look of Ronald Coleman (51 in real lfe at the making of this film) where as his character looked as if he was in his late thirties or early forties. Here is some info I dug up in doing some research from Historical Boys Clothing website: England in contrast to the other major European powers maintained only a small fully volunteer, professional army. It was well-trained and disciplined, but very small. Britain relied principally on the powerful Royal Navy for military defense. One aspect is that at the turn of the 20th century such as in the Bohr War (1899-1902), the British were still accepting quite young boys in the army to serve as musicians. This no longer appears to be the case by World War I. We know the Royal Navy still had younger teenagers, but this does not seem to have been the case for the army. No British Government had ever dared conscript men for military service ? even during the Napoleonic War crisis. Prime Minister Herbert Asquith resisted army requests. The British Expeditionary Force was, however, being chewed up in the killing fields of the Western Front and the force by the end of 1915 could no longer be maintained by volunteers. Asquith finally saw no alternative. He finally introduce a conscription measure. Parliament passed the first Military Service Act (January 1916). This was the first conscription laws ever passed in Britain. At first only single men and childless widowers aged 18 to 41 were called up. The Act applied to men 18-41 years of age. The second Military Service Act made all men regardless of marital service eligible for military service (May 1916). The War Office was given authority to extend the service of men whose enlistments had expired and re-examine men previously rejected for health reasons. The third Military Service Act gave the War Office authority to further increase conscription (April 1917). This entitled the examination of Home Service Territorials, men earlier discharged, and individuals previously rejected. The War Office also announced a new list of Protected Occupations excluded from conscription. Parliament passed the fourth Military Service Act which gave the Government permission to end occupational exemptions and the 2 month grace period for those whose exemptions had been terminated (January 1918). The last or fifth Military Service Act was a desperate measure taken by Parliament as the War in early 1918 reached a critical stage (April 1918). The age range was lowered to 17 and extended to men age 55. The law was also extended to Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. In addition, released or exchanged POWs were no longer exempted. The British conscripted more than 2.3 million men during the War.

For an actress who only appeared in about 20 films, there seems to be a lot of interest in her, and having TCM showcase her talents in an evening's tribute. Seems like much ado about nothing.

Hello Mr. Grey Goose...... This thread has become a little "exciting" and sort of "boring" at the same time. *"At the end of the rainbow...Fort Apache."* To a certain extent, I agree with you about Fort Apache. Even though it is Pappy's first film in the trilogy, in many ways it is the slowest of the three. But I think that has more to do with the three films as a whole instead of the film itself. Now, I am not sure about how Ford had decided to start a trilogy about the calvary, or even had thoughts when he first started Fort Apache about filming two additional films about the calvary. But looking back on these three films, I think that he must have had some inkling of doing three calvary films at some point. And Fort Apache was the first film he decided to do. And because of this, somewhere I am sure he wanted to show audiences what life was really like at a frontier post way out in the wilderness. And part of this was the filming of scenes around and in a fort. The daily ongoings of personnel in a fort. And guess what? This stuff can be boring to the average or in your case above average film-goer. Myself? I kind of like the whole movie actually. Do I find the entire movie exciting? No. Riveting? No. But I do like the pacing. And I love how the film builds tension from the very moment we see Thursday with O'Rourke at the rest stop. That just continues throughout the early to almost mid point of the film. Thursday can never say his name right. And then there are the scenes of Mickey returning to his parents. Not exciting I grant you but just another reason why I believe Ford is one of the great story tellers and I think is also a very keen observer of an average everyday life of everyday soldiers stuck out in the middle of nowhere. The other thing I like is how Ford focuses some of the attention on the women at the fort. The scenes with Mrs. Collingwood and Mrs. O'Rourke are genuinely played by the two great, unsung actresses, Anna Lee and Irene Rich. Luckily, Ford gives the viewer a chance to catch their breath. Instead of action from the get go, we are treated to a rare thing that occurs in today's movies..... Character development. There are many scenes in the beginning to latter middle of the film (where Cochise makes his entrance) that I find absorbing. Not exciting, but absorbing. The scenes leading up to Hassayampa where we see Thursday and Philadelphia for the first time. He just can't believe that the War Department has stuck him all the way out here. Then we get to see Mickey O'Rourke for the first time. At the rest stop. Then our introduction to the four sergeants who have come to greet him and escort him by ambulance to Fort Apache. The ritual of spanking and the four sergeants getting down to the business of having a drink, cuortesy of Col. Thursday, with Sgt. Mulcahy ordering a whiskey chaser. Oh, and may I present to you Mr. O'Brien! O'Rourke, sir!" The scene where Thursday asks the elder O'Rourke if the younger O'Rourke is related to him. O'Rourke: "Not by chance sir, but by blood, he is my son!" Thursday: "How did he get into West Point?" O'Rourke: "It happened by Presidential appointment, sir." Thursday: "Are you a former officer O'Rourke?" O'Rourke: "During the war I was a major in the 69th New York Regiment, the Irish Brigades sir. Thursday: "Still, its been my impression that presidential appointments were restricted to sons of holders of the Medal of Honor." O'Rourke: "That is my impression too sir!" I could go on and on.....maybe I will. The mutual attraction between O'Rourke and Philadelphia when they first meet at the rest stop. The part where Mrs. Collingwood speaks with Philadelphia about her mother just after Thursday arrives at the fort during General George Washington's birthday dance. The dinner party where Philadelphia sticks her head into and Sam Collingwood laughs off his potential appointment to West Point. The genuine affection you can see between father and son when Mickey arrives home. Just the one brief moment when the elder O'Rourke lifts his head up from reading the good book to see that his cherished son has finally arrived home safe and sound. "Woman of the house, your son is home!" The scenes showing Col. Thursday finding that his new home is not exactly what he was hoping or looking for. The scene where he sits in the chair and can't get out of. Then there are the scenes involving the four sergeants involved with the training of the recruits that have just arrived. Sort of reminds me of the scenes in Rio Grande, although those scenes in RG were handled with much less slapstick than this film. I loved these scenes with Sgt. Quincannon (Dick Foran), Sgt. Beaufort (Pedro Armendariz), Sgt. Mulcahy (the great Victor McLaglen), and not to be left out, Sgt. Schattuck (Jack Pennick, who served in the US Marines in China in 1912 and also saw action in WWI. Then went on to enlist in the US Navy during WWII where he served as Chief Petty Officer under Commander John Ford in the Field Photographic Unit and, according to Ford, was decorated with the Silver Star medal for action in which he was wounded at Majaz al Bab, Tunisia during World War II.) Then there are two scenes that really stick out to me. The first is where Thursday tells his officers that their own brand of western attire is not what he expects his officers to wear. He tells them to look at the recently arrived Mr. Murphy from West Point. Then the scene where he meets alone with Collingwood. So these are finely produced, very well written scenes between the main characters in what you have called the boring parts of the first 2/3's of Fort Apache. I see these scenes as very well made scenes with much heart and truism. And another way Ford uses the opening of the film to try and develop the characters as much as he can, so that when we see them all at the end of the film, just before and after they all die, gives the viewer a chance to take stock in these characters that Ford has given much screen time to at the beginning of what you have called a not too exciting film. So don't get dismayed. Sometimes you are right, and then there are times when you are wrong. I think your reaction is sort of in the middle between right and wrong. Overall, Fort Apache is a fine film. A little slow at the beginning, but a fine film nevertheless. A film that builds its tension slowly at first then rather fast towards the end. Many directors could have learned from this approach. Message edited by fxreyman

I think all of you are missing the bigger point here..... And that is no matter what anyone thinks, TCM is running this film mainly because it secured the rights to show it, and because it fits perfectly within its month-long tribute to Oscar nominated and winning films. The film won an astonishingly high number of Oscars, tying the film with Ben-Hur (1959) 11 out of 12; and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) 11 out of 11. And except for Ben-Hur, the other two films that won 11 awards did so without winning a single award for acting. So even though I remember watching the film in a theater, afterwards I thought that the film would probably be Oscar-nominated for Best picture and director and a whole slew of technical categories. Which it was. But at the time and still today, I think the film is a marvelous bit of showmanship, but lacks a coherent storyline and the characters aren't really developed. As far as the film being too modern to show on TCM, we will always have this argument. The die hards here will never accept anything filmed after 1960 on this channel. However, this is 2010, fifty years after 1960. I have to wonder that if TCM existed in 1960 along with many of these die hards and their beliefs, would they want TCM to show films made after the beginning of the talkies? And no, I will not be watching the film.

I can not really remember the first time I saw John Wayne, but I do know this: The movie that made me a bona-fide fan was his portrayal of Captain Nathan Brittles in John Ford's second film of his celevrated calvary trilogy, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon. Definitely the best actor of 1949, especially when compared to his performance in Sands of Iwo Jima and the eventual Academy Award Best Actor Winner that year, Broderick Crawford in All the Kings Men.

No doubt in my mind.... Atticus Finch

*After your list of 100 was complete, did you toss and turn at night agonizing about the films you left out?* Actually, after my second 101 list was complete I began thinking about my third, fourth and fifth 101 lists I was thinking about creating. So, knowing that three more lists are coming and because after talking about my lists with FrankGrimes, I think I will now need to place them all in numeric order. That will take a very long time. So my next three 101 lists will set chronologically in years and not numerically as far as which ones should be first, second, third and so on.

*Fxreyman, I listed about 50. When I see some others list that many, I'll try to pin down another 50, but it is time consuming. It's not like I can just rattle them off, and type them up. It takes thought, and a bit of research, then a lot of internal debating...* Val, Yes I know the feeling. But making out this list did take me about 5-1/2 weeks. The last week was excruiatingly slow. A lot of back and forth, debates inside my head, and lots of research. But I finally got her done. And I even had enough films to break it into two 101 lists. I know that many posters can't come up with 50 let alone 100. I was just wondering why the ten of the posters that posted here could not or would not come up with their own lists, thats all.