darkblue

Yes. Terrifying is the word. The scene of them in the car, she sleeping, him driving, and suddenly we notice her eyes are open is so unsettling I almost felt like I was watching a horror movie for a moment.

Each to their own, I always say.

Because I like all kinds of movies and from time to time I'll share my liking for a movie just in case someone here might appreciate the recommendation. That TCM shows movies from the 60's, 70's and 80's uncut and commercial free that are sometimes difficult to see anywhere else keeps me around. If they ever stop showing those, it could result in my departure from these forums - but not necessarily for sure. Even if I stopped watching TCM altogether I might still come around to talk about post-1960 movies anyway just to annoy some people.

From about 1958, movies started getting better than they'd ever been before - both technologically and, thanks to the Brando influence, naturalistically. Once the Supreme Court freed the makers from the shackles of censorship at the end of the 60's, movies were finally allowed to be honest - which was far more interesting than the phony Conservative-social-engineering approved productions of the previous 35 years. I watch movies from every time period and there are some even from the 30's, 40's and 50's that I still watch from time to time. While I have a special feeling for the product of the 70's - due to their joyously experimental energy for the first half of the decade (before backlash watchdog groups and special interest protest groups formed to put an end to that much of a creative party) - I love hundreds if not thousands of movies from 1958 - 2015. For some reason, the 90's stands out for me as much as the 70's. Some really engrossing stuff from those time periods. It never ends - every single year I find movies that knock my socks off, new and old.

Ah, but I do. I know what old movies tend to be like and it's usually enough for me to reject the notion of watching them. Exceptions exist, but as a rule of thumb I have precious little interest in old movies of the 30's, 40's and even 50's for the most part. People can call me a snob if they must, but I have only so many movie-watching days left and I'm not about to spend them on something that doesn't interest me.

How about "These"? This time it could be giant scabies - which for them would be scabies big as ladybugs - and people would be declaring "these scabies are driving me crazy" (which is pretty much what they always say).

.......let alone touched one. Ever.

That leaves Nipkow out. He's never left his apartment.

Very cool movie. Anthony Perkins is amazing in that.

What the hell is a feminist exuberance?

Hey, maybe they'll show 'Pocket Money' (1972) in his honor. Or maybe even 'WUSA' (1970). He was a fool to give up his role on 'MASH'. Him and Stevenson both. Very, very foolish.

I'll never understand how a movie as great as 'Sands of the Kalahari' can sink from sight the way it did. Quite possibly the best movie of the year. Any man who saw it during its '65 run certainly thought it was an outstanding movie. I'm talking pretty much all of them. 'Blindfold' was so good they teamed Rock and Claudia up again a couple years later in the vastly inferior 'A Fine Pair' to try to milk the marvelous chemistry they'd had the first time around. When 'Situation Hopeless' played our theater, I knew right away that Robert Redford was gonna be a superstar. He's great in this one - as is Connors and Guiness. An under-appreciated movie, don't ask me why. You'll probably never see 'Wild Seed' - unless TCM goes on the hunt for it. Michael Parks was being hailed as the new Brando in 1965 - and he's great in 'Bus Riley's Back in Town'. 'Wild Seed' was another fine performance for him in the angry young man style of Brando (and, I guess, Dean). After 'The Bible in the Beginning' though, it was all downhill for Parks - even with his brief lead in a TV series.

I've seen every movie mentioned so far (except one). I was 15 in 1965 and began ushering at the neighborhood theater. I think I've seen just about every American-made movie from that year. Although 'The Great Race' would not make my best list, it nonetheless holds a very special place in my nostalgic heart: it was the very first movie I ushered for. The b-feature was a western called 'Town Tamer'. I was ecstatic to have that job that first week. Memories. So many movies from '65 that I really liked then - and still do. A Thousand Clowns Sands of the Kalahari The Cincinnati Kid Cat Ballou Morituri The Naked Prey The Loved One Ship of Fools Help! The Hallelujah Trail The Pawnbroker The Hill Bus Riley's Back in Town Darling Situation Hopeless - But Not Serious The Ipcress File King Rat Repulsion The Spy Who Came in from the Cold Life at the Top Blindfold Doctor Zhivago Mickey One Wild Seed How to Murder Your Wife - yes I liked that one, thought it was very entertaining. And an oddity from Europe that had the North American title 'The 10th Victim'. Far out, man.

That's 'cause boys lie about it.

Yeah - I'm devastated.

Speedy, as soon as I read this part of your post, I clicked "like":

But a good 50 percent of the members here on the boards are snobs, right? And that is to your expectation, yes? I'm pretty sure you said that in addition to a whole bunch of other gobely-goop. To wit:

There are many, many "classics" that my friends haven't seen - almost as many as I haven't truly seen. I walked out of 'Gone with the Wind' at intermission, for example. I've seen enough bits of 'Casablanca' to know I don't need to see any more. I once tried - not that long ago, actually - to watch it from start to finish. Couldn't do it. Rick just feels completely phony to me. Nobody talks like that in real life. I've never watched 'The Sound of Music' all the way through either - yawn. Julie Andrews - meh. From what I've seen of 'It's a Wonderful Life', I've absolutely no compulsion to sit through the totality of it. My point is - I understand completely if someone hasn't seen a "classic". It's not possible for everyone to see everything and what many call "classic" I've found to be far from it for my taste.

'High Hopes', huh? Yeah, I guess jauntiness was always the first quality anyone would associate with Frank.

No, I don't think so. You do realize that it's not possible to watch absolutely everything, right? That every last one of us make choices? Who said that?

Certainly are a lot of strong opinions about people who aren't interested in watching every movie, no matter the time it's from. I'm different. Not judgmental in that respect at all. The way I see it is that there are about a quarter of a million movies to be watched, and if I live to my anticipated lifetime of 115, I might see about 1 percent of them. Given those conditions, I just don't see why I should watch movies that don't attract me -like the vast majority of "studio-era" movies (of which I've already seen more than enough after growing up in the 50's, considering how boring they were to me even then). Faith in the universe tells me that what I'm supposed to see in my lifetime, I'll see.

I think ET is a pretty silly movie. When it was hiding in the closet with the stuffies, I laughed out loud. Very funny image, that. The rest of the movie - strictly children's fare. Over-done children's fare.

The crushingly boring ET.

He was funny. I liked him a lot more than Johnny (Marlon Brando). Johnny wasn't funny. Johnny was a stiff.

IMDb's failure to include Sci-Fi as one of the categoriess for 'Flick' is definitely an error.