darkblue
-
Posts
22,191 -
Joined
-
Days Won
38
Posts posted by darkblue
-
-
It is to me that James Mason and Trevor Howard are of a kind in that they are excellent at being a mirror to reflect and clarify how reality is distorted.
Just watched him in Sam Peckinpah's 'Cross of Iron' (1977) the other night.
Your appraisal of that quality to Mason is astute.
-
Recorded it for my DVD collection.
I read the book in '67 after my gf handed it to me and said "read it". Liked it. I was 17.
6 of us (3 couples) went all the way downtown to see it during its run (with theatres in every neighborhood back then, going to one of the downtown palaces was a "special outing").
1967. Maybe the most wonderful year ever for movies.
-
1
-
-
Could it be because there is no age verification at this site and TCM management felt use of said software would appease parents of minors? Yes, TCM shows movies with so called profanity, but I believe only during 'late' hours. One can access this site at anytime.
-
1
-
-
I always thought the dolls were the three babes.
Of course you did.
You're so young.
-
1
-
-
I'm sorry, I seem to have understood part of what you wrote. Please obfuscate it more.
Can't make it any clearer - unless it's names you're looking for.
Get more sleep, maybe.
-
As this appears to be the last standing current thread that has some interest in questioning the TCM message board moderators I would like to ask a question:
Why was the Eddie Mueller, Noir thread locked?
Not that I ever contributed anything to that thread, but I was puzzled when reading the last lot of posts why the moderator would say "this discussion as run its course."?
Were comments deleted from that thread?
They were indeed.
Somebody has issues of jealousy about another member - apparently a couple of people agreed with that member rather than the jealous one - and it was the impetus for jealous-one's posting of desultory and unjustifiable descriptions of the member with whom more people seemed to be in agreement.
So, rather than policing the thread any longer, moderator shut it down.
Not that bad a call, actually.
-
If enough voters agree with the way Carson thinks and feels, he could be the next President.
I find it refreshing when a candidate speaks the truth about what he thinks - even if it's something that I personally think is not justified by my own experience or processes of logic.
It's lying about themselves that bothers me much more than their honesty about themselves.
-
I bet they do too. They fantasize because the reality scares them. If they really wanted it to happen, then it wouldn't be rape.
Hmmm. Apparently we're not permitted to acknowledge the phenomenon of **** fantasies in this forum.
I know that many women have, or have had, such fantasies. I would think that rugged types like Sean Connery (James Bond!) would be prime material for such.
As for 'Marnie', I have no opinion about whatever was in that movie because I don't remember any of it.
-
Well, if you've seen Marnie, you'll know it was a horrible experience for her. There was no post-coital scene with Marnie smiling to herself and stretching sensuously in bed. She was traumatized.
Wasn't she already "traumatized"?
Truth, I haven't watched it since I was 15 years old. I was so bored back then that my mind kept wandering away. I've not gotten around to wanting to re-watch it yet.
One of these days.
-
Not sure I'd wanna shell out good money for that, MissW.
(...nope, probably wouldn't get my stamp of approval, anyway)
Maybe you could stamp your foot then....?
-
You know, somewhere there's a soft porn movie to be made featuring thespians, philatelists, and mollusks.
What would a lesbian do with a mollusk?
Oh....you said thespian.
Nevermind.
-
There's others, but I forgot the names.
Concentration?
Password?
Who Do You Trust??
-
Warren fans, take note. There's yet another TCM offering of Oates' work on Friday morning 6 am.
'Crooks and Coronets' (1969). I've never seen this one - better get the recorder warmed up.
-
I believe the true underlying frustration we're experiencing here is perhaps better explained by the thought that we feel "chafed" by the "Lowest Common Denominator" mentality, as the moderators are cognizant of the fact that there will always be a few people who will find offense with certain words which haven't been, let us say, "sanitized for your protection", and with the issue of these people's respective age being a non-factor...young, old and all ages in-between.
Except that for quite a long time after the upgrade the moderation was really quite moderate - permitting us to use many words and expressions and even co-operating at removing words from the filter at our request. The word for a female dog was allowed that way by direct moderator action to make it so (now reversed), and work-arounds, such as placing a ! for an i were tolerated for a long time. And a word like s*** (just like that - appropriate asterisks) was not removed. We were almost permitted to speak like adults around here.
All that changed about 6 or 8 weeks ago. It's being denied - and "political" topics are being dangled out there as the reason for the perception of change (rather than admitting what the true reason is).
Someone, for some reason, said something to someone about the moderating of these forums. They are being far more heavily policed now than they were before.
-
According to recent theory on this thread, you will have a brand new experience of this movie. The 20-year rule, or is it the one-day rule? And it will be even better.
Sure, make my recommendation of 'Strange Days' a "theory". Make up some "rule" about 2nd viewings while you're at it, why don'tcha?
Not always easy to tell where you're coming from, oh french one.
-
Interesting how we get different takes on the same movie. The above example is a movie that was seen 20 years apart. The movie is the same but we change. It nearly makes one ask, have I really seen such-and-such movie, blithely affirming so despite many years since. Not that this would apply to all movies, some would seem to "stay the same." But with others, who might not stay the same, we might have to refrain from saying, "Yes, I've seen that one." It might turn out to be something else after a new reading. Just when we think we've got it nailed, we have to go back and see it again to ensure we really know the film. We can never catch up. (and then to think that there all those that have not been seen at all.)
Well, I could see a movie differently a single day apart watching it. A lot depends on how I'm feeling, what's on my mind, my momentary emotional state, level of restlessness or contentment, whether I'm tired or well-rested - who knows how many factors can influence how we receive a movie at one time or another?
That's why I watch almost everything I do at least twice. The second time is often the more appreciative viewing.
-
'Strange Days' (1995)
The one time I saw this before - on pay tv back in the 90's - it seemed a little excessive to me. Over the top. Fun but not quite believable.
This time it didn't feel that way at all. This is a stimulating movie from maverick director Kathryn Bigelow that has gotten better over the 20 years since it was released. Turns out, this smartly-premised, socially-conscious film was pretty darn prophetic (and still is). Sci-Fi action-drama with an exquisite performance by Ralph Fiennes - best I've ever seen him.
Not to everyone's taste perhaps - but it's got my recommendation, that's for sure.
-
1
-
-
Oh, now I'm going to go nuts trying to figure out the tune you're humming.
I just assumed it was "Curious Mind".
-
I understood the answers. I believe that I understand the basis for them. It is not my place to criticize them and my opinions carry no weight with those who make decisions regarding such matters.
Oh, I understood them as well. That was not gonna be my question to you (did you understand the answers?)
-
Many questions are posed in our threads, and the threads are not locked after the questions are answered. There isn't anything in the Code (as far as I can see) that says you can't question or criticize a moderator.
I should think one would bend over backwards not to lock a thread in which one is criticized, particularly since the thread was quite civil.
In the past, perhaps. Michael may have allowed some discussion of that nature. Not like that any more.
-
I expected it because it seemed logical. Her original post was two questions. Moderator answered those questions.
Just curious, did you think those answers.......
Uh, nevermind. I keep forgetting about the thin ice.
-
The Incident (1967) A forgotten gritty NYC ensemble Crime Noir,, do a search for it on YoutubeDirected by Larry Peerce, written by Nicholas E. Baehr (based on his teleplay Ride with Terror, which had been previously adapted as a 1963 television film). Cinematography by Gerald Hirschfeld (Guilty Bystander, C-Men)Joe Ferrante (Tony Musante) and Artie Connors (Martin Sheen) two alienated and obsessed with causing trouble they give a hard time to a pool hall owner for closing early interrupting their game, then briefly harassing a passing couple on the street, then finally mugging an old man for his eight dollars and beating him into unconsciousness, they board the last car of a New York City Subway train and psychologically terrorize the passengers who cannot move to another car.Rest of the cast includes Classic Noir vets Thelma Ritter (Pickup On South Street, Call Northside 777, Rear Window), Jan Sterling (Caged, Mystery Street, Union Station, Ace In The Hole, Appointment With Danger) and Gary Merril (Where The Sidewalk Ends, A Blueprint For Murder) and also Ed McMahon, Diana Van der Vlis, Donna Mills, Victor Arnold, Jack Gilford, Robert Bannard, Brock Peters, Ruby Dee and Beau Bridges.Great chiaroscuro cinematography of late 60s NYC and the NYC Subway system.
Excellent movie - inspired by the phenomenon of "bystander apathy" incidents in New York back in the 60's.
TCM showed it many years ago. I'd give almost anything for them to show it again.
Before Robert De Niro, there was Tony Musante. He was a fine actor who should've become more famous.
-
Yeah, young people that have been sent to reform school.
Reform school? Boy, are you ever showing your age.
-
(...well, besides the name "Strother" being a pretty odd one, anyway)
Kinda surprised we're allowed to use it - I'd think the filter would've decided it was as bad a word as ****
That's "couth" with the "un" in front, in case you were wondering.
VALLEY OF THE DOLLS-So Who Watched??
in General Discussions
Posted
It is most definitely not a sequel in any way, shape or form.
It was just titled that to cash in on the popularity of 'Valley of the Dolls', which was a blockbuster hit. And it worked! Russ Meyer, who made a lot of money making low-budget, often soft-porny, and always thoroughly silly movies that featured large-breasted women made a fortune with 'Beyond'. But it wasn't just because of the title, though that did account for most of the initial audience. Word of mouth about what a delightfully outrageous movie it was got around and brought in many "alternative movie" fans.
And it wasn't rated X. It was rated R. It's not porn, it's just a wild, sleazy romp in which a guy's head gets cut off (spoiler!).