darkblue
-
Posts
22,191 -
Joined
-
Days Won
38
Posts posted by darkblue
-
-
Yeah, but you might change your mind now and then like I did. I am the former kid that still can't do without the 30's through the 50's. THere is something very special about many of them. Of course there are ones I don't like, but for the most part I like Film Noirs and Forbidden Hollywood. But I do respect your opinion and I occasionally get enticed away by a newer title. So I am usually a movie snob, but have exceptions to the rule.
One important thing that many older films have is an exceptional portrayal of romance. Example: The Rains Came, '37 with Tyrone Power and Myrna Loy. You would have to watch the film to see what I mean. It was remade in the 50's, but the tremendous emotional impact was not quite the same. Now a lot of newer films have romance also, but are often done in a different manner. I like the way it is shown in some earlier films.
I can't say that the 50's can do no wrong (though I was born in that decade), but there are many fine films from that time and also the 30's and 40's.
I am going to watch the Sherlock film tonight with my youngest, a 24 year old daughter. Also, I like a lot of the British film portrayals from more recent times. So I guess it is a mix, but I get pulled by Nostalgia at times.
Each to their own, I always say.
-
This would make one (or more) wonder as to the reason you're on these boards to begin with
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.
-
5
-
-
What era of films do you prefer? Just the 60's or 70's, or even newer stuff? Just curious. I was recently compiling my 25 all-time favorite films, and the vast majority are from the 60's thru the 80's, with only one from the 40's, and none earlier.
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.
-
3
-
-
However, the point here is that even THOUGH the man doesn't like them or the fact that I do is NOT the point here. The point, or what I believe to at least be the more salient point here is once again the thought that Tom expressed earlier...the idea that while darkblue and I might hold differing opinions as to the "quality" of some specifically named films, AT LEAST we have both watched them and didn't dismiss the idea of watching them immediately out of hand due to them being "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.
-
Say, not a bad idea, ham!
However, what say THIS time instead of the giant ants invading The City of Angels, it'd be The Big Apple?!
Aaah, but then the title would have to be changed from "Those!" to "Does!", huh.
(...that would be "Does", as in "dem 'n does", of course...especially if the giant ants invaded the borough of Brooklyn)
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).
-
2
-
-
He hasn't talked to an actual woman.......
.......let alone touched one. Ever.
-
I'm not sure, but I think it costs 75 and is illegal in the lower 48.
That leaves Nipkow out. He's never left his apartment.
-
WUSA is one of the only Newman flicks I haven't seen, so I'd love for them to show it.
Very cool movie. Anthony Perkins is amazing in that.
-
yeah, maybe if the two of them had stayed on they coulda helped curb some of loretta swit's feminist exuberances with her character.
What the hell is a feminist exuberance?
-
1
-
-
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.
-
2
-
-
Darkblue, I liked THE 10th VICTIM, too. MICKEY ONE is another good, largely forgotten one.
I'll have to check out the few you mention I haven't seen: WILD SEED, SANDS OF THE KALAHARI, and BLINDFOLD.
I haven't seen SITUATION HOPELESS...either. I read an Alec Guinness biography recently, and Alec hated the film, but he hated most everything he was in.
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
4
-
-
It's also refreshing to see that it's the girls making bets to see who can lose their virginity and not boys.
That's 'cause boys lie about it.
-
1
-
-
I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. You seem sensitive about this. I apologize if I what I'm trying to say offends you in some way. Is it the word "snob"?
Yeah - I'm devastated.
-
1
-
-
Speedy, as soon as I read this part of your post, I clicked "like":
The best thing we can do here is learn from each other.
-
1
-
-
Darkblue, buddy, if you just read further on down in my same post you'll see I said "you still make judgement calls". And if the first part doesn't sound like someone you know, maybe you're the someone.
Like I said, I'm not trying to start a fight, just to get some people to lighten up. That stick only goes up so far before it pokes out of the top of your head.
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:
I'd say a good 50% of the board users are snobs, which is about the expected number. When a forum is dedicated to a single topic, it tends to attract people who are in a hurry to proclaim their superiority in that given subject; it's human nature. Most of you are probably the person in your personal life that has the most film knowledge, the person friends and family ask film-related questions. They also tend to ossify in their views, which leads to knee-jerk dismissal of things outside of their personal taste. Sound like anyone you know? This kind of attitude is what Sepiatone was getting at, the kind that can turn off the "layman" from wanting to explore older or foreign films. "Hey, only jerks watch that kinda garbage!" Being a film geek doesn't mean you HAVE to watch anything or everything. You still make judgement calls. It just means you understand that all genres and all eras have good films, and not to automatically dismiss something, which is what snobs do. Another difference between snobs and geeks is that snobs think their taste is the proper taste. Geeks realize their taste is their taste.
-
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.
-
3
-
-
Yeah, if memory serves, I think he once said it was "High Hopes".
(...and was somethin' about his fascination with ants, rams, the movement of rubber tree plants and seeing dams destroyed)
'High Hopes', huh?
Yeah, I guess jauntiness was always the first quality anyone would associate with Frank.
-
They also tend to ossify in their views, which leads to knee-jerk dismissal of things outside of their personal taste. Sound like anyone you know?
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?
"Hey, only jerks watch that kinda garbage!"
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.
-
It's a matter of time; GL and SS cannot be overlooked forever. If TCM plays the crushingly boring GANDHI, 'tis only fair that it also play ET.
The crushingly boring ET.
-
Like LEE MARVIN'S Chino inTHE WILD ONE. The intent was probably that nobody was supposed to like him, but MY like of him has nothing to do with my like of Lee Marvin as an actor. Just thought Chino was cool is all.
He was funny. I liked him a lot more than Johnny (Marlon Brando). Johnny wasn't funny. Johnny was a stiff.
-
1
-
-
Okay. I added listings for unscheduled Horror films.
IMDb's failure to include Sci-Fi as one of the categoriess for 'Flick' is definitely an error.
-
1
-
I Just Watched...
in General Discussions
Posted
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.