darkblue

jmking made a suggestion that I'd like to second, with 'Vanishing Point' (1971). skimpole suggested the wonderfully offbeat (for its time) 'Murder by Contract' (1958) and I'd second that also. PhygLeGuy suggested 'Son of Dracula' (1974). I've always wanted to see that. Ringo Starr, ay.

And Rupert Pupkin is the King of Comedy.

I believe movies with riots in them didn't become very fashionable until the 60's.

I hated the 3rd one. Other than seeing Carrie in her slave-girl getup, there was nothing in that one that didn't suck.

Ahhh....ok....I think I understand..... Hmm. I don't think I have a personal relationship with the movie. I liked the camerawork the first time I saw it (and the second time just as much) - it struck me as innovative for a 1940 movie. But I guess that's not what the thread is supposed to be about. Sorry - I can't think of anything else to say.

But, your original post was about how good you find the movie to be - how much it impressed you - what a great first effort for Welles - and so on, like that. So now I have to ask - if all that is pointless in a thread titled CITIZEN KANE!, what should the posts be about?

The word **** is off the censor list but do not use it, or any other form of it to describe another forum goer. - TCMModerator1 A good message for all, that - but in this case it should be specially pointed at you, considering it was you who characterized misswonderly's thoughtful writing as being "bitched". You're a real sweetheart when it comes to "self-editing"..

Didn't say you have to do it. But if it was done, then we'd know whether your statement was accurate or not.

Whatever. It'll still be a strong indicator of which level the fame of either is at overall, and which direction that level is heading. Maybe do a companion poll of those aged 35 to 40 just to see if people are more apt to learn about past singers/actors as they mature. Every 5 years for the next 100 years. Then we'd know.

The way to find out if the OP's Statement has or will have validity is to poll a large sampling of people who are between 25 and 30 years of age. Ask "Are you familiar with the name 'Frank Sinatra'?". Then ask "Are you familiar with the name 'Bing Crosby'?" After this poll has been taken once, you'll get an idea of which name is the more recognizable in the present sense. Do this every 5 years or so and you'll begin to notice whether either or both names are experiencing a decline in recognition or holding steady.

I think it's a case of those who get squealy about the 5 letter version not really knowing about the existence of a lengthier word. Not saying such are uneducated or anything. No. I'm quite sure the Texas School Boards are doing a bang-up job of educating the citizenry.

No, but we can use the full term, spermatozoa, if we wish.

Umm.........that's not a euphemism for your ***** count, is it?

You really think they're needed?

Storming, huh? I would've thought it was more of a gentle swishing back and forth - like those slow-motion perpetual-motion wave thingies.

I think it was Police Academy 6. Definitely the kind of classic MovieMadness is referring to with this thread!

I would like it if TCM was more stringent about getting the version that has had nothing cut from it. If they can't get it, either don't show it - or - publish it on the schedule with an asterisk to indicate that it is a version that has had content removed. At least we know then to avoid it if we wish, rather than feeling disappointed by surprise.

Good thing. Teens never would've bought Sinatra's version like they did Brenda's.

I find lots of content repulsive in movies. But I say go ahead and run 'em. History isn't pretty, and neither is the future.

Far, far, far more boozers.

Stephen Colbert once highlighted how Fox News personalities would say things in Hippie-Speak to do that, adding lots of "man" s into the act. Turns out you can project invalidation of anything at all that way.

Well - could they back then? Would they have been permitted to be?

An improvement over ....... ? Some comments are just too exaggerated to be analyzed . One has to wonder what the intention behind them really is.

I couldn't have put it any better than that. Great comment.

If someone is permitted to say Jane is a traitor, I don't see any reason why I can't say they're stupid. Jane is a hero and a beautiful person. Anyone who calls her a traitor is an uneducated cretin.