darkblue

Not to mention that it's a horror movie with a zero body count. That sometimes works, but not often.

I'm blushing. I just wanted to explain the flashbacks a little and got carried away.

The script for the movie was not the same as the novel. Some aspects were eliminated, changed or downplayed. The movie is superior to the novel. Wow, that's not something I say very often.

There are some flashback sequences in the movie that allude to the past for Joe Buck, though these images may not convey easily to the audience (except for those who've read the novel). Joe was an illegitimate child born to a prostitute, frequently left in the care of other prostitutes through his early life. When he's getting older (age 9) he is dumped on his grandmother, Sally Buck, for the duration of his childhood. They become very close - probably a little too close. As a teenager, Joe lost his virginity to a town tramp named Annie. Annie would service many boys at the same time - half a dozen easily. This is when Joe first becomes convinced of his gift of "lovemaking" as Annie, for the first time, responds truly to him - and only him - of all the boys she's with. When the other boys realize that she favors Joe they angrily rape both of them - both Annie and Joe. One boy in particular is so enraged that he tells Annie's father everything about her and she is placed in an institution. The memories of this will continue to haunt the sweet-natured but not-too-bright Joe throughout his life. Joe joins the army and, while in it, Sally Buck dies. Joe becomes enormously distraught at the news of her death - so much so that the army releases him, not understanding why the death of a mere grandmother could knock a man off his feet that way. Joe is condemned to a life of low toil jobs - a situation he hates (as most of us would) and gets the idea that his lovemaking gift is the way to a better life. New York of the 60's was increasingly becoming a sewer of danger and depravity - in addition to housing the wealthiest and most privileged, a true schizoid city. The clean up was still more than a decade away and many of the movies of the late 60's through the entire 70's are testament to the city's scuzziest era. Both Rizzo and Buck are what's known as marginal people - people who are unconnected, unwanted, outsiders living on the fringes. Can we even begin to imagine the loneliness of lives like that? This is what brings this odd couple together and what feeds their growing affection for one another - they are a balm for each other's loneliness. Loneliness is very much a theme in this movie.

But, speedracer5 - you do know that assigning fault and blame to somebody for absolutely everything that makes one even the slightest bit unhappy is the American way, right?

Well, okay then. I guess the bad grammar will have to do.

I want you to go to your window. I want you to stick your head out and shout as loud as you can, "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this anymore!!"

Well, Dargo - you'd have to direct me to one of these many threads where you were the last poster - getting the last word in. I can't recall seeing any like that.

I can't recall any thread getting shut down in which you were the cause - so I can't imagine where he's gotten that notion. Just another of his un-thought-out impulse posts, I expect.

And I gotta admit, as repetitious and un-original as the many b!tching threads are, they do get a great deal of response. People never seem to get tired of fighting the fight - both sides.

And that's not even getting to Bob Balaban's small part in the movie.

I think it's thread ideas that are in decline - judging by what passes for "original thought" from some of the OP's in these forums.

Says the one who started it.

If only.

That's nothing. He also thinks Mexican wrestler/vampire movies should be shown on TCM. Talk about dirt! No wonder he thinks "hollywood" is in decline.

Maybe some people (like myself) are just a lot more choosy about the movies they seek out than you are. I look for movies of quality - I don't just stop at the ones with the most advertising behind them. I find modern movies to be far more compelling than those comfortable (and unchallenging) old shoes from the family-entertainment era of my grandparents.

Old women who wear earrings are lesbians?

I've never had any problem finding plenty of great movies to watch - no matter what year it is or has been. Truth be known, far more truly excellent movies were made in the quarter-century from 1990 to 2014 than were ever made in the quarter-century between 1935 and 1959.

Reminds me of a laugh I had while watching the tv 'Odd Couple'. Oscar (Jack Klugman) completely redecorates the apartment after an argument. A depressed Felix (Tony Randall) comments that "Ratso Rizzo had a cuter place".

A "bounder" is a kind of rogue - flighty, charming, womanizing, sociable - who can't be tied down, exchanging his sociable company for perks from associates (who've often been made to feel like they're friends) such as borrowings never repaid, temporary board, romantic dalliances and so forth.

Hmm. For some reason, the proverb "misery loves company" comes to mind.

I always had the feeling that women kinda liked a "wolf". Not the same at all as a lech, or a cad, or a heel, or a creep. All red-blooded young men are, by default, wolves (in the sense of pursuing intimate activity with - usually - females). Lon Chaney Jr. (as Larry Talbot): Tonight the moon will rise and I'll become a wolf!" Lou Costello: Yeah, you and twenty million other guys."

What kind of fascist considers a smile to be illegal? A hypertense fascist.

Give the hippie a badge and I'll do that. Probably get a more satisfying result.

peep - peep - peep - peep - peep - peep -peep - peep .................!!