darkblue

A couple of weirdo's criticizing does not a controversy make.

MASH was supposed to be set in Vietnam. But the producers needed the help of the U.S. military in the production and the military would not give it unless the script was changed to be about the Korean war.

But Palmerin apparently doesn't understand what "controversial" even means in this discussion. He (she?) thinks it has something to do with how much one person likes the movie compared to another. Naturally, the topic is about the social implications that were concerning to certain bodies of people at the time of the movie's release. Words heard, scenes shown, ideas expressed - thought by some to not be suitable for a movie. I know by what you've exampled above that you understand what "controversial" means. But, Palmerin? I think there's a pretense going on there.

Strange how you just never seem to get it. Such thickness almost seems deliberate.

No, I don't believe so.

Yeah. She was cute.

Well, that settles my hash. Tricky Dick would never tell a lie.

You've never seen porn before? It doesn't burn THAT bad. Any movie that has Malcolm McDowell, Peter O'Toole, John Gielgud and Helen Mirren in it should be chanced.

Actual historical figures are employed brilliantly in this well-made gangster saga. It took me a couple of episodes to really get into it, but once I did I couldn't stop watching. Great series. Buscemi, as always, is amazing.

Who's that?

That's a little too weird. I'll take a chance on movies that may be bad; I draw the line at bad food.

This fish is dry - pass the tortor sauce.

Maybe Vietnam movies - essentially, movies about a wrong war that the U.S. lost, may not be what TCM considers Memorial Day-friendly?

I just watched 'Carnal Knowledge' (1971) again. I so enjoy the movies of Mike Nichols. There is so much truth represented in the character portrayed by Jack Nicholson. Not nice truth, but truth that many (if not most) men are acquainted with (though they wisely keep it locked inside as best they can). I'm not sure if Ann-Margret has ever done better acting than in this - I remember being very surprised back in '71. The shallow acting she'd displayed the previous decade was no preparation for it. Mike Nichols should probably get the credit for bringing it out - and she'd be better from this time onward.

Really? When someone tells me an extreme opinion like that, it always stokes my interest.

City of Angels (1998) was pretty good too. And I thought he was a great villain in 'Kiss of Death' (1995) with David Caruso. And there was Guarding Tess, Raising Arizona, David Lynch's 'Wild at Heart'....... And I loved his over-the-top performance in 'Vampire's Kiss' (1988) - one of his first excursions into the bizarre. He even managed to stand out with a very small part in Coppola's 'Rumble Fish' (1983). Guess what I'm saying is that I like Cage. Have for a long time. Apparently his money-manager "lost" everything, so I'll forgive him for taking on some questionable material these past 10 years.

And Disney wanted him for a live-action version of 'The Tortoise and the Hare' but he couldn't move slow enough.

Buscemi is terrific. I love it when I see his name in the cast. One of my "under-rated" favorites for him is 'Ghost World' (2001). Another REALLY good one is 'Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead' (1995). That guy has "made" a lot of movies for me. Boardwalk Empire coming to an end this past year was heartbreaking. I was addicted.

Not to mention a pe nis. Man, were they huge.

'The Great Escape' for Bronson? He seemed like a pretty major player in that very popular movie.

That's it!

Depends. How much money does he have?

In my last two posts I've used the words torture and torment. What's that got to do with Tor? Seriously though, I can't wait for the next poll.

'Cause it worked so well?

Some people think Tony Curtis was sexy too. Well, women anyway.