Film_Fatale

I know the upcoming re-issue of *Mary Poppins* in a 45th anniversary presentation has already been mentioned - as well as the fact that there's no blu-ray release announced so far. However I don't recall having seen the cover art so far, so here it is:

I didn't see any thread for this here in Westerns, so just wondering whether anybody else is excited about this Republic serial being shown on TCM over the month of January... B-)

Anybody know why the episodes are being shown out of order? (i.e. Episode 2 before Episode 1, etc.)

Don't forget *The Blue Dahlia* at 10am ET on Saturday, Jan. 10th B-) *The Blue Dahlia* (1946) A veteran fights to prove he didn't kill his cheating wife. Cast: Alan Ladd, Veronica Lake, William Bendix. Dir: George Marshall. BW-99 mins, TV-PG, CC

> {quote:title=molo14 wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=MissGoddess wrote:}{quote} > > Any bets whether FrankieGrimes will finally discuss *In a Lonely Place* on this > > thread....before 2009 is over? It's one of my favorites and I would actually > > enjoy to participate in that discussion for what it's worth. > > > > No pressure of course, Frank. > > I just dropped him one of my subtle hints in the movie rambles thread. Well, I do hope we could get a discussion going... it is a great movie. And of course, the more, the merrier!

> {quote:title=sarah1493 wrote:}{quote} > A little delayed since joining, but thanks so much for creating it! I can tell it's going to be fun ;D Well glad you could join... Just picking out a new trailer from the TCM media room every day is a lot of fun. B-)

Mae West was in *I'm No Angel* with Cary Grant

> {quote:title=OneSharpDame wrote:}{quote} > Powell and Pressburger are some of the few filmmakers that made films that were visually interesting, innovative, with compelling story arcs and character development. Plus, they are enjoyable! Often when I am watching an "important" film, it may be interesting in an intellectual or philosophical context but it isn't enjoyable. I call these films 'eat your vegetables' movies. The Archer films are definitely not 'eat your vegetables' movies. I'd say they are definitely very warm-hearted movies. At least while they worked together. Michael tried something very different on his own with 1960's *Peeping Tom*, and critics weren't ready for it. (It doesn't seem nearly as shocking today, I'm sure!).

> {quote:title=molo14 wrote:}{quote} > *PS...hope all is going well with your mom...How did the "Christmas at home" turn out? I bet you all had a wonderful time.* > > Thanks for asking, Everything is going pretty well. It's a long process. Christmas was great. It was very emotional for her (and for us). She was so happy to be home. I thought about Christmas in ways I hadn't thought about it in years. It was a very special time this year. Molo, it's great to hear things are going pretty well, and that you had a good time over Christmas and New Year's. I wish you all the best of luck and a speedy recovery for your mom.

> {quote:title=rohanaka wrote:}{quote} > would have been better off watching DONOVAN'S REEF > > It was a lot of laughs. I don't know why I don't watch it more often. Everytime I do I get a big kick out of it, but it might be a year or better between viewings...I need "a lot of laughs" more often than THAT...and it is among my favorite Duke comedies to be sure...I will have to make this a more regularly viewed fave than just one every year or so... (but not EVERYDAY)....that Liberty Valance aspect of old LM would start to creep back in sooner or later. :-) > I watched it for the first time myself, not too long ago. It is surprisingly enjoyable, and it's especially touching knowing it was the last Wayne-Ford collaboration. I think there was just a lot of griping in general going on yesterday (and for who knows how much longer) and maybe folks will just "snap out of it" now. And if they don't...who knows....maybe if they keep on griping then THEIR post count will start to look embarassing for REAL....and then even more people will have something to REALLY gripe about... Post on little lady....and anyone else can just get over themselves. Griping? Really? I had no idea.

> {quote:title=MissGoddess wrote:}{quote} > > I'm a gabby girl myself: > > > > > > Proof being "Gabby" can be a good thing! From one gabby girl to another... nice photo! B-) Great *Blossoms in the Dust* screencaps, too!

I LOVE classic movie bloopers!!! Here are some from Warner Bros. I found on YouTube. There is some cursing but it's pretty mild compared to what you'd hear today (it features Bogie, Eddie G., Jimmy Cagney, Bette Davis and Kay Francis outtakes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJuRVn2EIMM Awesome bloopers! I don't think I'd seen those before, either! B-)

> {quote:title=eanm wrote:}{quote} > *and I can't believe we're the only ones on this thread* There's 3 of us now!! B-)

> {quote:title=rohanaka wrote:}{quote} > Hope you can tune into the Randy Scott westerns airing today. > > Well..I didn't get them watched, but I did tape the first 3....so hopefully will get a chance to see them soon. I recorded the first 3, also. RO seemed pretty excited about these westerns, which was nice to watch! B-) > > But at least I did finally get to the '36 3 Godfathers that I taped last week...I only missed the first part...so I got most of it...It was pretty much as I remembered in terms of the ending and such, but I paid a lot more attention to the "Doc" character this time...very poignant. And also Walter Brennan....though I was disappointed in "when" he cashed out...he just gave out a little too soon it seemed to me...but maybe I am judging him too harshly. All in all I liked it, but not in the same way as the Duke/Ford version. I watched the '36 version on Christmas Day but haven't had a chance to revisit the Ford one like I wanted to... yet. I'll get around to it, eventually. B-)

> {quote:title=GiddyUp wrote:}{quote} > One of Scott's best Westerns -- of those that aren't directed by Budd Boetticher -- is "Coroner Creek," almost a Western NOIR with a great villain in George Macready. Scott plays a cowhand out for revenge as he searches for the unknown killer of his fiancee. It's a well-done Western, and Scott, normally the righteous hero, does a very good job as a man with a moral dilemma. > > I *LOVE* the Boetticher Westerns, and "The Tall T" and "Ride Lonesome" are two of my favorites. If you love the Western, be sure to watch these two because the stories are good and the cinematography is tremendous. Plus, you get the added incentive of LETTERBOX ... I did get to record both *Tall T* and *Ride Lonesome*! B-) *Coroner Creek* sounds interesting and I hope I can check it out sometime.... though it doesn't seem to be available on DVD.

Playing tonight as part of the primetime "Put on your Roller Skates" lineup: *It's Always Fair Weather* (1955) World War II buddies get mixed up with gangsters and an egotistical TV star when they hold a 10-year reunion. Cast: Cyd Charisse , Dan Dailey , Gene Kelly , Michael Kidd Dir: Stanley Donen , Gene Kelly C-102 mins, TV-G Trailer on tcm.com: http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/index/?o_cid=mediaroomlink&cid=32092

And speaking of *Star Wars* back in '77, molo, you got me to thinking about another special effects movie that really seemed pretty special back in the day - the original *Superman*. I recently spent a whole day watching all 4 of the Christopher Reeve movies in the series. Let's just say I wanted to see what they looked like in a HDTV set. The first *Superman* is still far and away the best, imho. I would even rate it higher than anything that has come out since then, including the ridiculously overrated *Dark Knight* and it seemed like such a cool movie back in '78. At least this one has been meticulously transferred to blu-ray and looks stunning in that format. I wasn't crazy about the sequels back then, and I'm still not. At least these days you can get Richard Donner's cut of *Superman II*, which is a big improvement over the Richard Lester version. Sorry, but Lester pretty much killed that franchise almost as badly as Joel Schumacher did with the earlier *Batman*. The problems become especially bad by the 3rd movie in the series, which tries so hard to substitute adventure with comedy, and doesn't particularly succeed with either. It also has to deal with the lack of a better villain - I can only assume that Robert Vaughn was brought in as a replacement for Gene Hackman. Richard Pryor could be very funny in some movies, but I don't think he was particularly funny in that one. At least you had Annette O'Toole as Lana Lang, she seemed to hit the right notes for the part, even if they didn't do much for her. Reeve's farewell performance as the Man of Steel is a bittersweet thing, because obviously it was a movie with such noble intentions, and even bringing Gene Hackman back wasn't quite enough to keep the franchise alive at the time. When watched today, it truly seems like a relic of its time, mostly due to the Cold War plot. But still, Christopher Reeve was the embodiment of everything that was great about comic book heroes, brought lavishly to the big screen with all the eye candy that producers knew how to throw at viewers. He is very much missed... :x

> {quote:title=eflyynfan1 wrote:}{quote} > which genius at tmc let her get away? she is smart and engaging,oh yeh,she posses,stunning beauty! She was on _TMC_, too? Wow, she keeps busy!

By the way, I loved the Audrey Hepburn photos... keep 'em coming, if you have more! B-)

> {quote:title=rohanaka wrote:}{quote} > About 5 minutes after I started watching this film I suddenly realized...."Hey...I've already SEEN this! I just did not know what it was called!! (or that it was a Ford) OH!! How embarassing!! Ok...there....it's out. I feel better. Now ....back to whatever... :-) I don't think that's anything to be embarrassed about, especially if you watched it a long time ago. Not wanting to change the subject, but tonight is Randolph Scott night on TCM, and I went ahead and started a separate thread for tonight's lineup, hoping some folks might be up for a discussion: http://forums.tcm.com/jive/tcm/thread.jspa?threadID=138791&tstart=0 If nobody posts in the other thread, I'll just ramble here and hope others will, too! B-)

Oh, those promos can sure be annoying sometimes. Here's another RS photo I found B-)

> {quote:title=molo14 wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=Film_Fatale wrote:}{quote} > > Those special effects are so very persuasive - and even moving - even when you know deep down that they were using miniatures and stop-motion animation. That is why the first *King Kong* will always be the best one ever filmed! B-) > > When I saw *Star Wars* back in 1977 I was just a kid but I still remember walking out of the theater with my friends feeling kind of awestruck. It was the greatest film we ever saw! We couldn't stop talking about it. (If anyone remembers, Fox put adds in all the comic books just saying "Star Wars is coming" for like months in advance. So we were all just waiting for it.) > > Anyway my point is that kids (and a lot of adults) must have had that same feeling back in 1933 only magnified by 10. There had been nothing else like it. It still holds up after all these years. Oh, I totally know what you're saying, molo. I did see the first *Star Wars* back in '77 as well, and remember the giddy feeling you came out with, as a small kid, because there had never been anything like it in the movies. I'm sure that movies like *King Kong* and *The Wizard of Oz* and *The Thief of Bagdad* had that same kind of effect for kids some 70 years ago.

We can all use a little chocolate... from time to time...

Sweet! B-)