darkblue

Yep. There's always gonna be old people yakin' about how things aren't as good as they used to be. It's probably the only thing that truly never changes.

There are many excellent movies made - this year and every year. The reason that people don't think so is that many of these excellent movies are not marketed the same as the relative few that the industry tries to make "blockbusters" of. Others have said it here, maybe a little differently, but those who seek usually find.

A shame they couldn't come up with something they haven't shown many times before.

Mike Nichols was a brilliant director. Hard to think of a better example of a leading light in the new age of movies (post 1963). He's been on my list of favorite directors since I first composed it. When I saw 'Angels in America', all I could do was marvel at his craftsmanship.

There was a guy in grade 9 who looked a LOT like that. We began calling him "Alfred", much to his displeasure. Another particularly good Mad Mag takeoff was on the terrific western 'Hombre' (1967) which starred a great cast including Paul Newman, Barbara Rush, Fredric March, Richard Boone, Diane Cilento, Martin Balsam, Margaret Blye and Cameron Mitchell! Quite a downbeat story it was and Mad's title for it was 'Sombre'. It was a very funny parody.

The Mad Magazine version of this movie was titled 'Midnight Wowboy'.

Most of your posts don't go much beyond one line, so I guess we know which camp you're in.

Not gonna happen. Bundling is here to stay. Do you actually believe that cable and satellite companies are gonna program your specific receiver your specific way - doing that for every individual customer - and not charge for that? And that's not even getting into the prices that the most popular content sources will begin to charge.

I didn't say that at all. People who want everything will continue to subscribe to a bundled package and get the bundled price. It's people who insist on getting only the ones they want who will pay a whole lot more for those at an "each" price point. The savings (if there are any) will be very small.

I just wanted to use the letter 'u'. Superfluously - and in upper case.

Not me. I'm not the jealous type. Well.....don't go away mad.

What's the dif? You'll pay just as much for just the 10 - if not more, and won't have any opportunity to see the other 190 IF anything should ever be on one of them that you heard might be worth checking out. Al la carte isn't gonna save anybody anything. Individual pay stations will just get more expensive if bundling goes.

But, it's so U!

Inappropriate is Oscar's nickname.

Gene Shalit's the best! I remember his entertainment tonight review of 'Slap Shot' (1977). He said, "any parent that would take their child to this movie should be slapped - or shot!" Seriously, though - they're all a-holes at some time or other. I NEVER read their reviews or listen to what they say until AFTER I've seen the movie.

French pronunciation is wacko.

Yep. That Amerika and Comrade crack, in relation to cable company channel bundling, struck me as pretty "out there" too. After all, communist nations have historically had so few state-approved channels allowed to the citizenry that any notion of "bundling" has pretty much been moot. I guess some people are still seeing commies everywhere - just like in the golden age.

Invalidate? Is that the same thing as disagreeing? Again, you appear to be using words of provocation to describe a simple difference of opinion. Is it that you have a need for others to feel the same about "today's movies" as you do?

I disagree that today's movies (I don't generally waste time paying mind to garbage) are inferior to those of the studio era. Is that the same thing as dismissing notions? I find your phraseology to be unclear, yet somehow provocative.

I don't get it. Wouldn't it be capitalism (ie/ most profitable for the business) that you're commenting upon, rather than communism. Seems like a reference to fascism would be more appropriate.

I get the "wrong" - but I'm not sure I get the "dismissive". Isn't that just a word for him thinking you're wrong? And if so, aren't you both "dismissive"? And if you both are, what's you're point in using the word?

It probably is a better book than I gave it credit for back then. I was a pretty avid reader then, and I can't tell you how many movies came off as less to me than to others precisely because I'd read the books prior to seeing the film adaptations. In this case, it seems the opposite effect was manifested - having seen the movie first. Having read the novel just once, much has recessed into the sub-conscious where it's no longer accessible to recall - whereas the film version has been revisited over and over, and been considered much more often. I do remember the last line of the book. It was something like (Joe is on the bus with the now dead Rico), "and for the first time, Joe felt very afraid". That ending has stuck with me - in fact, I say it whenever I'm watching the movie and the last visual is on screen.

Absolutely. I was knocked out by his performance - convinced that it was, hands down, the best of 1969. I considered that robbing him of his Oscar and handing it to - of all people - John Wayne, was criminal. I don't think it was criminal anymore, mind you - just phony nonsense. But I actually took the Oscars seriously when I was a youth of 19.

I know I would've enjoyed watching the movie a heck of a lot more if Marilyn was in it.

I would (and I do). I've only read Herlihy's novel one time - back around 1971 - and once was enough. I've watched the movie about 15 times now. I don't recommend the novel to anyone, but I'd recommend the movie to everyone. John Schlesinger and Waldo Salt took a so-so book and created a masterpiece of cinema from it. I've filled in the back story my way, which is the way I believe the movie wants me to (with the book helping to inform me when needed). If I'm "wrong" about anything, I don't care. Each viewing has just reinforced my interpretation, in my eyes. I feel that the Mexico experience for Joe was very smartly eliminated from the screenplay. It would have changed the way we feel about Joe's story - how could the audience possibly feel the same sweet dumbness, naivety, and hopefulness in Joe's character if they have to accept all that seedy information in his past. That's where the script is superior to the novel. True, it's a different movie than it should've been perhaps, but it's better for it. Joe's rape is much better explained as I've placed it in the context of Annie and the boys, and I believe the screenplay was constructed exactly so we WOULD take it that way. As for Joe's mother, even Wiki is unsure, stating that she may or may not have been a prostitute and the women she would leave Joe with also may or may not have been prostitutes. I believe she was, but the movie does not go into detail about this background, so I'm really just carrying over from what I took to be the truth from the book.