Stephan55

Hi John. So nice to speak with you again. I know that you are a huge boxing enthusiast, and thought that you were an ongoing fan of Cassius Clay (aka Muhammad Ali) as well. I think that I may have shared with you that I once dabbled a bit in boxing myself, on the west coast, and though I enjoy a "good" fight, I never really considered myself a true fan of the "sport" as most others that I knew. I'm certainly not as familiar with Muhammad Ali as you apparently are. And I've not read either of those two books you mentioned, but will add them to my ever growing "must read" wish list. I was aware that Ali was locked-in rather firmly with the Elijah Muhammad sect and as such disenfranchised himself from his former mentor and friend Malcolm when he was "excommunicated." But I don't believe that in his later years he continued to maintain such a mindless belief system, did he? Knowing little at the time it was happening, I too joined the anti-Ali crowd in the sixties. A lot of us knew no better then and, along with Ali, few of us then, and even now, have much understanding about what the Vietnam War was really all about. What I do know about McNamara's "Project 100,000" was that it was a way to get more bodies into the war. Yeah, I am aware that the Johnson hype promulgated it as part of his "War on Poverty," but it also loosened up all of the other "standards" (height, weight, English proficiency, etc.) as well as IQ. BTW, my personal experience with the military has been that it doesn't take a genius to be able to follow simple orders and carry and shoot a rifle. In fact to be too "smart" can sometimes become a detriment, as some fellow soldiers got into trouble with a few superiors because as they put it, they refused to check in their brains while wearing the uniform. Regarding Ali's 78 intelligence quotient. I know many persons with very high IQ's that seem to lack what we used to call "common sense." I am also aware that in the south some quite ridiculous "IQ" tests were devised to exclude persons from access to many things, including voting. I know that the army has made exceptions in many cases, allowing persons to serve even when they failed the ASVAB. I am personally familiar with several indigenous "recruits" from rural Alaska that were given "special latitude" with "letters of exception" placed in their 201 file, and allowed to continue training even though they were unable to read or relate to terms that were commonly used by persons raised in an urban environment in the lower '48. These "Eskimo Scouts" had terrific arctic survival skills, but down in the states, they were essentially classified as "morons." Someone who never learned to properly read or who doesn't read or speak English, may easily fail a lot of rudimentary "tests." But it doesn't necessarily follow that they are "stupid" by any other means. I'm aware that persons from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds tend to likewise score poorer on such "intelligence" and "aptitude" tests. I think it was Gandhi that said "poverty is the cruelest form of violence." I met and spoke with Muhammad Ali in Inglewood California, before he was severely stricken by the symptoms of repeated traumatic brain injury. In our brief conversation I detected nothing that made me think that he was of lower intelligence than myself, quite the contrary. I know that doesn't really mean anything assessment wise. But I have seen and listened to him speak on numerous occasions, and he was very quick and spontaneous. I never viewed him as an automaton and find it difficult to believe that the Nation of Islam controlled every profound word he ever uttered. If he was like a "child in a man's body", then that descriptor can likely be applied to a lot of us, including myself at different times. The most significantly "stupid" thing that I think Ali did was to continue to fight and get his brains battered well beyond his prime. But that appears to be a common problem with a lot of contact sport professionals. Not saying that him stopping would have halted or reversed the degenerative processes already at work, but they certainly exacerbated them. Ali was not a perfect person by any means. But the point I tried to make in my earlier post about him was that I believed that his actions illustrated that he was a sincere and courageous human being. More so than most that I have known. And I base that on the belief that he truly understood the consequences of those specific actions before he acted upon them. And he said what he said and did what he did based on his personal convictions of what was right and wrong at the time. Until I see, hear, read and believe something entirely to contrary, my feelings about the man will no doubt remain constant. That said, I like to think of myself as open minded in most regards. I don't generally arrive at specific conclusions without a great deal of thought about them. I am not opposed to learning something new about anything, but once I have formed an opinion it does sometime take quite a bit of self-convincing to change my mind.

I haven't seen HN for a number of years, and really enjoyed watching it again tonight. But had to wait until TKAMB was over before I could check in here and see what's up at the old rodeo. BTW, TKAMB is one of those incredibly great movies that I must rewatch whenever it's on, if I am able. Like the guest host said tonight, it has something for practically every audience at any age. I loved it when I first saw it as a kid, and am still loving (and learning from it) today!. Back to HN... I think that it is an almost perfect western. And of course so much more for anyone who wishes to delve deeper. Someone mentioned about the town... Busy bodies, yep. Most small towns (I mean really small by today's "standard", like 100-200 persons) still are. (the judge, Otto Kruger, even referred to it as a"little village" in the movie). My grandparents lived in a rural agricultural community. Most all were farmers first. The population on the Hwy sign read "105" when I was a kid, and the last time I visited (when they were both still alive) the sign still had that same number. Though I think the population was actually much less then, and perhaps nobody bothered to change that sign. But yep, everybody knew every bodies business. Both the men and women gossiped about much the same things, only in a segregated fashion (women to women and men to men). A few persons actually lived in the town proper, but more than than half lived farther out on their farms. But the town was the center of the community. Had at least two churches (one Baptist and one Nazarene). Two service stations on opposite sides of the main highway, with a small general store at one. There was a combo hamburger joint and pool hall. Actually not much of a "hall" as it only had one pool table (sort of like that one in THE LAST PICTURE SHOW.) There was a post office, and an automotive shop. There was a town square surrounding a well treed park-like center, along with a gazebo. When I visited as a kid during the summer there would always be a little carnival with a ferris wheel and a couple of rides, and of course concession stands, that made a circuit among the small towns in that area. My mom told me that when she was a girl that they used to use the side of the largest building at one end of the square that was painted white, and project movies on it during those humid summer nights. Families would lay around on blankets in the square and watch old B movies and western serials, cartoons, newsreels and what not. The pool hall sold popcorn and soda, and someone had a cotton candy machine, and of course everybody brought goodies from home. This was during the late 30's and I think about that when watching some of the stuff on TCM. But yeah, really small communities as depicted in HN were still very much like that even then. For sure, the action in HN took place on a Sunday (unless the local church that Will solicited was a Seventh Day Adventists gathering). Will just got married and yep, the bar was open for business. Perhaps not all that "unbelievably" unusual, considering the time and locale. This was in the late 1800's (see'n as how they all seemed to be armed with Colt SA cartridge pistols) and still awhile before the temperance movement hit full swing. And (as it was mentioned) a mere five years earlier the town was wide open, it appears that they hadn't yet reached the stage where a saloon and a church couldn't both be open on the same day, at the same time (before noon on a Sunday). Of course the saloons weren't likely open 24 hrs, as when Will let one of the town drunks out of jail (played by Jack Elam) and told him to go home, he asked if the saloon was open yet. Oh and back to the Frank Miller "gang." There was only Franks wild brother Ben (Sheb Wooley), who would likely side with his brother in whatever vengeance scheme he had in mind (as some families are prone to do) so long as some wild times were to be had afterward. Jim Pierce (Robert Wilke) who appeared to be the most level headed of the bunch, and loyal to Frank, likely because of much shared past experience (who knows, maybe like several of the James boys they had served together during the "War"). And of course Jack Colby (Lee Van Cleef) who also was an old member of the previous gang, though perhaps just along for the excitement that gunning down Will Kane would provide, as well as any later festivities once the town was again lawless. And as far as when Kane "faced these guys before," not only did he have a slew of "deputized" townsmen with him at that time, but he was also accompanied by several experienced lawmen on his side, giving me the impression that the Miller gang was well outnumbered and outgunned. In gangs and war, numbers and experience often make the biggest difference. And it was made quite evident that some attitudes had significantly shifted since then, and Will Kane was deserving of some sort of "come uppance." The hotel clerk, and some of those in the saloon voiced that a nice safe "law abiding" town was not to everyone's liking. Several there evidently missed the excitement (and money to be had) from the "bad ole days" and looked forward to them again with Franks return to Hadleyville. And Will's little Quaker wife. Yep, she did mention that both her father and brother had been gunned down while trying to do "the right thing," and her reaction to seeing that happen was why she chose to join (but not really become) a non-violent Quaker. I see her as a woman coping with personal demons about losing her family to violence. But when push came to shove, and shots were fired, she could not idly let Will die like her brother and father, if she could help prevent it. And so she took up the sword because the love for her man outweighed any new found religious convictions that she was trying to make her own. I say again, an almost perfect western. (Of course that is only "my" personal opinion)

Fortunately, when it comes to the "boards" that is generally the case. Not so quick on too many other issues though.

MORE MOVIES ARE BELATEDLY POPPING-UP ON-DEMAND!!! I won't waste my time by continually Updating a "running list" as they appear. However to anyone reading this that may be concerned with the way things are currently happening (and NOT happening) with TCM, I suggest keep checking back on the ON-DEMAND playlist. Since everything is so off-kilter, one can never be certain that a certain movie that aired days ago, might not suddenly appear, allowing anywhere from a few days to a few hours of viewing opportunity. Welcome to the "NEW" old world of TCM ON-DEMAND! Hope you like it????

I Agree wholeheartedy with you about MA, Tom. As I recall, Cassius Clay changed his name in early 1964, shortly after the Sonny Liston fight in Miami (February 25). This was before the Gulf of Tonkin incident(s) in August 1964 (one fact, one fabrication). Before the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, before the Marines landed (in March 1965), and well before Johnson committed U.S. army ground troops on an ever enlarging scale. Johnson was campaigning to be elected president in his own right in 1964, and wanted to present himself as a "dovish" "anti-war" president to gain votes from that constituency. During Johnson's add campaign Barry Goldwater was labeled a "War hawk," and I still vividly remember that commercial with the little girl picking a flower while an ominous voice counted down to a nuclear explosion. I also clearly remember Johnson's 1964 speech promising not to escalate our involvement in the war in Vietnam... "We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves...." Malcolm X had been Cassius Clay's mentor since 1962, and I am sure you remember how bad things were for people of color in the early 60's, esp. regarding civil rights. As previously posted, Clay had registered for the draft when he turned 18, but failed the military literacy test and so he was classified 1-Y (ineligible for draft and fit for service only in times of national emergency). So when Clay made his public announcement (after winning the Liston fight) of his religious conversion to Islam and proclaimed a name change to "separate" himself from his "slave name," I believe that he was being very sincere, and was not thinking about being drafted and serving in Vietnam at that time. And just that announcement was quite costly at the time, especially for someone trying to make a "living" as a boxer. The religious conversion and name change alone caused Clay to be banned from fighting in several conservative states and the WBA stripped him of his title. It wasn't until 1966, after the army had lowered it's "standards," that Muhammad Ali (aka Cassius Clay) was reclassified as 1-A (eligible for the draft). At that time there was a growing awareness and movement by many people in the U.S. against the war for a variety of reasons, including "religious" ones. That was when Ali made his publicly famous (infamous) declarations of unwillingness to serve in the armed forces. In April 1967, Muhammad Ali (Cassius Clay) appeared before the induction board, but as an act of defiance refused to step forward when his (former) name was called (a felony punishable by five years in prison along with a steep fine). He was arrested. His Championship title was stripped from him and Ali was denied a license to box in every U.S. state. In June 1967, Ali was convicted. The conviction was appealed and upheld, and further appealed, eventually to be reviewed and unanimously overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in June 1971. During the appeals process Ali paid a bond and did not actually serve time in prison, but from April 1967 until the Jerry Quarry fight, October 26, 1970 (a professional lifetime for most young boxer's) he was unable to make a living as a boxer in the United States. Ali knew the consequences of his actions. In addition to ruining his lucrative professional career it could easily have meant a five year prison sentence and a lifetime labeled as a convicted felon. He was also made aware that because of his celebrity the military would be willing to work with him and if he chose to serve he would likely never see a combat zone except perhaps to perform exhibition fights. But he was a man of his convictions, and rather than deny them he chose to accept the consequences of his actions, as potentially damaging as they were and could be. He chose the very real possibility of jail rather than fighting in an unjust war which went against his convictions. He became an avid civil rights advocate, an anti war activist, and an articulate public speaker, and served as an inspiration for many regardless of their color or creed. Not counting the fictional "fantasy Super Fight" between Muhammad Ali and Rocky Marciano (with alternate endings) broadcast on January 20, 1970. Ali was almost 29 when he was finally allowed to return to the ring to fight Jerry Quarry ("The Great White Hope") in Oct. 1970. Already an "old man" by most athletic standards, and especially so for a boxers career, Ali (to his great physical detriment) defied all odds and continued to box until he was almost 40 years old. His last professional bout was with Trevor Berbick in Dec. 1981. True, religious fervor has been a cause of conflict and war as long as there have been religions. And "Christians," be they Catholics, Protestants, or other "Christian" sects, have committed heinous atrocities against each other "in the name of god," as have Sunni and S h i i t e Muslims, Hindus, Hebrews and Jews. History from ancient pagan times to the present is littered with numerous examples of religious persecution and warfare, including a host of well documented crusades, inquisitions, and jihads. Believers of both the Bible and the Quran claim tenets of peace, love, and tolerance, yet their scriptures are exampled with acts of war, violence, and hate. People selectively justify their actions from both. Yes, Muhammad Ali was the "Heavyweight Champion of the World and wealthy" (though few fighters die that way). And he was perhaps the "most famous black man in America," or at least in similar league with the notoriety of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, at that time. True, he didn't actually serve a day in jail, but that doesn't discount that he chose to be arrested with the very real probability of going to prison, and sacrificing his title, his career, his wealth, his celebrity, and his physical freedom, rather than join in what he believed to be an unjust war. I do consider that an act of bravery and courage. Whereas several that I knew at that time chose to avoid the draft, military service or going to war, in a variety ignoble ways, and a few even joined the military to avoid certain jail time, only a handful chose to do so through open singular protest. Civil disobedience. Refusing to cooperate with what is perceived as injustice or an "unjust" system, and willing to "face the music" for one's actions (or inaction) without running away. But then I have long been an admirer of Thoreau, Gandhi, King, and Trumbo, so I am perhaps inclined to respect and admire those whom I perceive of similar ilk. However I openly admit that I abhor hypocritical individuals who avoid personal sacrifice, and yet encourage others to do so. And I detest "chicken hawks" that promote war for others while they themselves refuse to serve in it or sacrifice for it. And yes, once Muhammad Ali was reinstated, he did continue to fight in the ring, even after he was defeated. And yes, he was well paid, and also paid dearly for those actions as well. With his body and brain. We are now beginning to understand and acknowledge what damage high level singular and low level repeated physical trauma can do to the brain. Traumatic brain injury, whether from accidents, contact sports, or concussion explosives, can lead to a host of symptoms, including those associated with Parkinson's disease. So yes, boxing can be, in some ways, as violent to the body as certain types of warfare. Times change, and sometimes people and their attitudes do likewise. Persons whom were vilified at one time, may be "sanctified" in another. And those once thought "beyond reproach," may later be reflected upon with a more vile attitude. At the time Muhammad Ali stood up against the draft, and voiced his opposition to the war, many vilified him. Since that time, many have changed their minds, and see him as a man in many ways ahead of his time, perhaps still ahead of his time. I was of mixed attitude at that time, but since have come to both greatly respect and admire him as a man worthy of such appreciation.

Come on, you've got to admit that is a funny little clip, now don't yah?

"FINALLY" Likewise D. DDL is almost a one man show of human dispicability, and yet he is so mesmerizing in his performance that one cannot keep their eyes off him. Also loved that highly quotable scene. He and Streep are certainly among (if not) the best modern character actors today!

I borrowed it along with several others nominated this year from my local library... Great thing "our" Public Libraries. One of the Best (and more tangible) investments of our hard earned tax dollars... I just watched a movie that shook me in a way that I have seldom been shook. And, in keeping with the theme of this thread introduces what I believe to be the latest great "Mad Scientist/Doctor" candidates to the screen! I am referring to neurosurgeon Dean Armitage and his psychiatrist hypnotherapist wife Missy Armitage in last years horror thriller GET OUT (nominated for Oscar/s this year). I will not spoil this movie for anyone who has not yet seen it... But I must at least say this.... This film took me back to some of those same creepy scary moments I felt when watching Play Misty for Me (1971) and Fatal Attraction (1987) for the first time... And those two had a dramatic impact on the "casualness" aspect of my social life for quite a while afterward. Of course as "mad" doctors and scientists are prone, most do not see themselves as "mad" at all, but rather as "world shaking innovators" far ahead of their times. No doubt Dean and Missy feel that they are providing a valuable and much needed service for the wealthy elite with a particular mindset. I found this movie suspenseful and thrilling. Like a good mystery it had me guessing at who, when, how, and what's coming next. And I will add this about the DVD, it offered a chance to see the alternate ("originally planned") ending. Much more can and should be said about this not-so-subtle contemplative film, but I leave that for others to mention after they've actually seen it!

Thank you for sharing that Tom. I needed to hear that about Coop. I never read Meyers' book. If Carl Foreman, who I do recognize as more of a "real life" hero, said those words about Cooper, then he was a far bigger man in real life than I had since been giving him credit. Gary Cooper was one of my heroes growing up. I adored the man and in my childish way believed that he and his screen image were one. So when I later (after Vietnam) actually began to understand more about the whole commie witch hunt era that I grew up under, I began to draw a line in the sand between which were the "real" heroes and which ones were fake. It was a rude awakening for me. Wayne, and many others who I grew up idolizing fell by the wayside. I had placed these men on a pedestal and the reality that they were NOT the men that I had built them up to be, models of "true" manhood that I'd attempted to follow and emulate, hurt me personally. I never knew my own father, and these men had been my father figures. It was akin to the emotional turmoil I went through in my childish naivete when I first realized that "adults" did not always speak truth, and I had been lied to many, many times... Losing them, one by one, was like losing a part of myself. I have since softened and become less judgemental toward them and me. But I have also become much more cynical. I stopped long ago placing anyone on a pedestal, least they fall and disappoint me. None of us are perfect. We all are flawed. There are no "true" heroes. There are only situations and circumstance in which we can either rise to or shy from. Often without thinking either way. Some of us "react" heroically in the moment, without fully contemplating the consequences of our actions. That can result from years of prior training and practice. We don't think, we just respond as trained or conditioned to. And "heroes" in one moment can behave as "cowards" in another. Same person, similar circumstance, different time. I wonder if behaving "heroically" by not contemplating the consequences of the moment and thereby lacking a sense of fear is "true" heroism. Fear in such moments can heighten ones senses. We become more acute, more aware of our immediate surroundings... and life becomes more exhilarating when we lay it all on the line. There is an adrenalin rush that can even become addictive to some of us... I think the "true" heroes (if they exist or ever have) are those who fully understood the mortal results of their actions beforehand. Feared losing their mortality, but did what they did anyway. And knowingly, willingly, "sacrificed" themselves for something other than self... Something that they believed was worth the price of their further existence, whatever it might have been. I count those who have stood and stand up against perceived injustice to come as close as any to being "real" heroes. Sorry for being so reflective about all this... but perhaps I have unfairly misjudged Cooper. And if I have, I am grateful to you for restoring him to me.

Whoa, slow down my friend. I thought perhaps you knew me better than that. Sorry if I was wrong. Of course I was deliberately taking you out of context. I simply used (bolded) your words to elevate something that I was feeling and thinking as I read them, yes totally unrelated to your point in this discusion. I just drifted for a moment and began thinking about Vets... My mind does that sometimes. I know that it doesn't appear obvious (since I quoted you in that post) that the "meat" of it was directed toward Slaytonf's OP. I see now how inappropriate and easily misconstrued doing that can be. To be absolutely clear, I agree with everything you said In Context with the Movie About the Frank Miller gang! Hope I soothed your feathers a tad. I really didn't intend to ruffle them at all. My sincere apologies.

Yes! Thank you for posting about it.

Carl Foreman co-produced and wrote the adapted screenplay. He refused to name names, was blacklisted and fled the country. He knew what he was writing about and how it could be interpreted as a metaphor for the current times. Stanley Kramer (the producer) was no dummy. He and Foreman had a long working relationship on other controversial films before this. He and Foreman virally disagreed about the film and Foreman's continued relationship with it at the time. Kramer knew what Foreman was really writing about. And Fred Zinnemann (the director), an Austrian Jew who was shrewd enough to leave Germany for the states before the Reich made it impossible for persons such as himself to do so. Was no slouch either. Zinnemann was a very intelligent man, and a survivor. He knew what to say and to whom. But there is no way in hell that he didn't see what was coming and that High Noon spoke different things to different people. And Gary Cooper (the star and hero), was in a career slump and far from the top of the list when he was offered the role in High Noon. I saw that "Aw shucks" video of Cooper as he tried to charm the committee as a "friendly witness." That movie put Coop back on top, but for me, when I was finally old enough to better understand, it bottomed him out as one of my former childhood heroes and "father" figures growing up. Cooper was like one of those townspeople in the movie, turning his back when the "bad" guys came to town. All these guys are dead now, and getting to the actual truth can be difficult. But better knowing the backstory and later history about each of these guys as well as the calamity of that period, allows a pretty good idea into their likely mindset of that time.

Yes, please watch it again. There are a few lines as I recall that fill-in for the lack of time devoted to each of these characters in such a short film. Centered primarily on one man and sorta asking the audience at the same time... What would you do if you were Will Kane... stay and fight, or run away? You are correct about tradition, length (or lack of length) of time and allegiance to a belief. But what I got from Amy's characterization was that Quakerism was an escape from the reality of violence for her. She was running away from something that she hated and feared, not running to something that she truly believed in, not really. As when push came to shove, she made a decision to act against her pledged faith. You mentioned that Helen Ramírez' character was flawed because she hooked up with Harvey Pell on the seeming rebound from Kane. But Helen was a hot blooded and lustful woman. She tells Harvey that he is a "good looking kid" and that he should "grow up." To me it was plain that Harvey was just a boy toy for her. A natural physical outlet with no real love there, certainly not like she harbored for Kane. We are left wondering what sort of tension in that small town could have induced Kane to abandon his relationship with Helen for such a "milk toast" as Amy. But this was the not so distant west. Helen was a Mexican in a white town. That alone can say a lot. Will was a flawed man (as all men are). Perhaps he saw Amy as a more "respectable" woman... who knows, after all it was Grace Kelly and she was quite beautiful to look at, perhaps his love for her was shallower than we might like to think. Anyway, there is a back story to Kane, Helen and Amy that we are left to speculate upon. But that is not the meat of the picture. As far as Frank Miller shouting vengeance in the courtroom, being sentenced, serving his time and then released... What is so far fetched about that. I've seen that myself in real life. As far as a lawman appealing to amateurs for help. These were tried under fire former deputies. It was the old west, it was a small town. One full time Marshall & Deputy Marshal was generally enough for most times. When you needed more men you called on the toughest men in town and deputized them. That was the way it was. And even if Will wanted to have more "professional" men with him, it was very clear at the onset and throughout the picture... there simply wasn't enough time. So one man against four tough gunmen, hell yes there was fear there. Look at the odds against him. You don't think it's a good allegory for what was going on at the time with HUAC? Thats fine. We can agree to disagree about anything. This film was a superficial western for those who saw no deeper. For others it asked numerous questions about ourselves and our society. Based on the premise of your thread it is apparent that you have not obtained any inner resolution about many of them. As for myself, I was challenged. Would I have the guts, honour, or foolishness to stay and fight alone? Or would I run, to be hunted and possibly gunned down alone or with my wife out on the prairie. Will said they would be alone out there, here there were at least people. That at the time he still believed would be willing to help him. But they do not. One by one they turn away. Abandoned (forsaken) by his "friends," the town he served, and even his wife... Will Kane was a man alone. Too late to run, and not likely to win this fight. But at the end it is simply a matter of survival. And when he amazingly comes out on top. The shallowness of those around him and his faith in his fellow man is shaken, perhaps forever. There could be a sequel to this, as well as a prequel to flesh it out for us. To help us find the answer to those loose ends. But there is neither. We are left wondering, each to ourselves, how the messages of this movie applies to us and our own personal circumstance. To those blacklisted it told their story. To every lawman, every person of faith, it asked a personal question. To every politician, every soldier, every person asked to lay it on the line for someone or something else, it asked a question... Many of those asked, that even realized that a question was posed to them, never found the answer that they sought. Yes, please watch it again... carefully. Then we can continue this conversation further if you want.

That's a nice Carl.... ??? Whoops, sorry... wrong thread. For a moment I thought that this was a memoriam thread to Carl Grimes.

Speaking of Italian vampire flicks, how about including a little levity with the very first Italian vampire movie... Uncle Was a Vampire (1959) which also has in the cast your most beloved Christopher Lee (in the titular role). It was the first vampire "sex" comedy I ever saw, and I only saw it once when I was in the 7th or 8th grade, but it has stuck with me ever since. I have tried to get a copy of it but only poor quality VHS seems to exist (or a dvd transfer of the same). Still, I think it is something TCM should air with an explanatory (quality) intro. BTW, also see that it is now on YouTube for anyone willling to "grin and bare it." And another plus is it's English dubbed, so you won't have to read any subtitles... So why not make it a four header (or if you want to keep it a triple, drop one from your original list and add this one instead...) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Was_a_Vampire Uncle Was a Vampire (1959) 1.36.46 hr

Anyone who has ever been in a combat situation for this (or probably any other) country can tell you first hand about that sort-of "friendship" or rather something that goes beyond friendship. Or about being placed in such a precarious situation by "someone" where you had to lay it on the line for each other, even if you weren't "friends" in the first place... Not a western, but real life... Yes, Will Kane faced these guys before and put at least one of them in prison. But he wasn't alone then, he had an equally tough gang of lawmen with him to do that job. He tries to round up the same bunch of guys again, but too many aren't willing to play a second time. Certainly not for the sake of Will Kane, and not when wishful thinking rationalizes that if he were gone then the "trouble" will depart with him. He vacillates, considers riding off, but then changes his mind. Kane is a man of honor. He has never been a coward before, and he doesn't like the sour taste it leaves in his mouth. He anticipates that he won't survive, he writes a last will and testament. His Quaker wife wasn't always a Quaker. She became one as a reaction to violence that occurred in her family (to her father or brother I think). So when she finally makes a choice to "stand by her man" it isn't like she's going against a faith that she was raised up with. And this film at that time was more than just a western. It was an allegory for what was occurring with the HUAC. Cooper likely didn't see it as such, as he was just playing a part in a film. But Zinnemann, Kramer and Foreman certainly knew what the movie was really about. To the OP and others Try to suspend your disbelief and stop trying to challenge "loose ends" in a picture that almost runs real time in that short 85 minutes. As a western it is a good'n, and if you choose to get more out of it than that, terrific!

Ahhh lucid dreamssszzzzzzz.... Posted February 15 Dream in "Color" or "Colour", Of course, doesn't everybody? Sometimes my "night-time" dreams are a little dark and grey, but my "day-time" dreams can be as colorful as whatever place I am. Esp. colorful and "florific" if I'm in some verdant country place during the spring or fall. In fact I discovered that I possess all of my senses in my dreams. I not only see whatever I'm dreaming about, but I hear all the associated sounds, can touch and tactilely feel things, and can even smell and taste things. Sometimes when I'm dreaming I know that it is a dream while it is happening. Sometimes I dream in third person as a mere observer to whatever is occurring. Other times the dream can be so "real" or fancifully real, that I am swept away and literally become part of it. Sometimes I dream about frightful or horrible things, sometimes from actual past experiences, other times some sort of imaginative confabulation. Sometimes I have a dream that is so sweet and wonderful that I would like to just remain in that dream state and never wake up. The mind is such an incredible organ. I can't tell you how it does it, but it can make a pillow (for example) smell, feel and taste just like a.... well, whatever it is I'm dreaming about. Isn't it the same for you? Oh, I just had a thought... I wonder what someone who's been blind since birth "sees" in their dreams? Did anyone ask Helen Keller about such things? (in her case both sight and hearing lost as an infant)

Yes, I too really liked the HBO John Adams (2008) mini-series with Paul Giamatti, even better than I did the even longer 1976 PBS John Adams series with George Grizzard. I frankly sometimes wish that I'd never seen any of TWD at all. It is much like TGOT in that one is well advised to not get "close" to any character as that is a sure sign of their imminent demise. I am liking the BB prequel BCS very much. I look forward to the tie-ins with the original (as well as the anticipatory call backs of the original cast members). Like yourself, I thought that Jonathan Rhys Meyers was miscast in the role of Henry VIII, but I stuck with it to the end. Yes, I much enjoy watching Ragnar and sons, and even the somewhat farfetched efforts made to link them to all those various historical events and personages. But when Ragnar finally bit it, the never aging, ever vital Lagertha, began looking more and more ridiculous to me. And trying to stretch uncle Rollo and the boys to fully encompass the conquest of Britain up to Alfred the Great, as well as Viking Normandy, and beyond, sometimes requires a suspense of what I do think know about such things. But for continuity sake in a show that (when it first aired) A&E likely had no idea would become so popular and long lasting, is none-the-less quite entertaining. Lonesome Dove... like yourself I can't help but re-watch it whenever it is on. Rather liked the sequels as well. Best was the first one with Jon Voight. The second with James Garner was also quite good. Even liked the prequel Dead Mans Walk. As for those other shows you mentioned, I've heard about some of them, but fortunately (I think for me) I've not yet seen any of them.

I wish that we could give multiple different REACTION Emoticons when responding to multiple quotes, without the need for an actual reply post. If that were possible I would have given the video a "HaHa," the mid-portion a "Like," and the "Don't Worry..." part a "SAD" REACTION.

BRAVEHEART (1995) is now available ON-DEMAND!!! Braveheart (1995) which aired ("premiered" on TCM) last Saturday night (3/3/2018) just arrived on the ON-DEMAND list this evening (3/7/2018), available until 3/11/2018 (maybe 4 "full" days of view time??). Along with Piccadilly (1929), a silent with Anna May Wong, which aired last Sunday night (3/4/2018) available ON-DEMAND until 3/12/2018 (maybe 4 "full" days of view time???) Not sure what long term conclusions can be drawn from all this yet (still a little too soon to tell). I suppose that I ("we") should be happy that TCM is allowing us any ON-DEMAND time at all with any of these features. But it is NOT the seven days of view time that they promote, nor is it within the three hour time frame that they "advertise." If TCM is going to change this long standing policy then I suggest that they change their FAQs to state: "we (TCM) will show as much or as little, and as few or many of what we want, when we want, for as long or as short as we want, with or without any pattern or consistency and without any "prior," "during" or "after" notice to our viewers what-so-ever." http://www.tcm.com/watchtcm/help/#info FAQs: Movie Availability in WATCH TCM What movies are available? TCM licenses movies from major studios and other rights holders to air on the network as well for Watch TCM. However, some titles will not be available for Watch TCM. We are continually working to grow the amount of titles, so check back often. How long are they available? Movies are available on Watch TCM 7 days after they air on the TCM network on TV. How can I find if my favorite star or movie is available in Watch TCM? In most cases, movies are available within 3 hours after they air on the network, and then they are available for 7 days.

The common experience with both TV service and ISP providers is to "blame the other guy" anyway. And when it comes to TCM, we are unable to get any kind of response from them regarding anything. But yes, if you check these boards you will find other concerns similar to yours regarding TCM and HD. Considering that aside from very recent movie broadcasts (which generally occur during 31 Days of Oscar month) and a very few of the recent HD digital conversions on a few of the "classics," all of the movies that TCM broadcasts are native SD. So there likely wouldn't be any noticeable difference anyway when viewing them from an HD channel, and especially not unless one is also viewing them on a HD TV set or monitor. In addition to that, there does appear to be some kind of equipment issue that has been mentioned before here when an HD channel attempts to "upscale" a SD product to HD, evidently sometimes causing problems that have been described here. I don't know if there is any legitimate merit to that, since I neither watch TCM from an HD channel, nor is my larger screen monitor capable of true HD viewing (still only 720p). So I am unable to compare or contrast the two at my end. But thanks for the extra info as that helps out a lot when asking others to cross check a potential problem with you.

MORE ON-DEMAND "ISSUES" Late last night (Tuesday 3/6/2018) I observed that four movies suddenly popped-up as "Available ON-DEMAND" that weren't there earlier in the evening. On The Waterfront (1954) aired last Tuesday Evening (2/27/2018) and suddenly and mysteriously appeared ON-DEMAND with a "generous" one day viewing window "availability" due to expire today (3/7/2018) likely sometime this evening. Also noticed The Guns Of Navarone (1961) which aired last Friday afternoon (3/2/2018) "now" available ON-DEMAND until 3/9/2018 (allowing 3 "full" viewing days?). Kramer Vs Kramer (1979) which aired Friday evening (3/2/2018) is also "now"available ON-DEMAND until 3/10/2018 (allowing 4 "full" viewing days??). And Captain Blood (1935) which aired early Saturday morning (3/3/2018) also appeared as "now"available ON-DEMAND until 3/10/2018 (allowing 4 "full" viewing days???). Since I did NOT watch the "live" broadcasts of any of the above, I can NOT attest as to whether or not the ALSO AVAILABLE ON WATCH TCM notice was presented at the end of each of these feature movies, so I cannot say whether this is some belated attempt by someone at TCM to help "rectify" a previous neglect, and thereby mollify some potentially irate TCM viewers??? I can say that this type of "Late" and "very Late" belated ON-DEMAND listing has occurred like this before... during the latter months of last year (2017). That particular episode followed a huge block of movies that were listed as "available" ON-DEMAND but weren't available at all for a period lasting almost two weeks, then (following a large irate viewer outcry) "we" received limited availability access, as TCM staffers frantically tried to "correct" the problem over a period of several days... The following month TCM decided to NOT list any movies as available for ON-DEMAND, until they actually were. Which is as it should be, except in this case they totally ignored the long established 2-3 hour "live" broadcast to "ON-DEMAND" listing protocol by several days.... And (as stated in another post), since last month (with few exceptions) TCM has continued to "delay" the actual streaming access by about a day, after they have listed a feature as "available" ON-DEMAND. So, in response to the above, I decided to check a little more into what has or hasn't been going on this month with TCM. Since I first began regularly using the TCM ON-DEMAND streaming service in early 2015, I can say that though NOT every "live" broadcast has been available for later "ON-DEMAND" viewing, that the average has consistently been about 8-9 out of 10 (80-85%). A few exceptions either way, sometimes 100% sometimes 70%, but at average it has been 8-8.5/10 of the feature movies following their "live" broadcast. This is has held pretty true to form throughout the 31 Days of Oscar last month as well. The last week of which I have listed below. Last week of 31 Days of Oscar month: 3/3/2018: 6 out of 8 feature movies (however, 1 of those with only 4 Full days of viewing) 3/2/2018: 11 out of 11 feature movies (however, 2 of those with only 3-4 Full days of viewing) 3/1/2018: 11 out of 11 feature movies 2/28/2018: 9 out of 11 feature movies 2/27/2018: 9 out of 10 feature movies (however, 1 of those with only one Full day of viewing) 2/26/2018: 11 out of 12 feature movies 2/25/2018: 8 out of 10 feature movies 73 main feature (movie) broadcasts in those last seven days, with 65 made available for ON-DEMAND viewing. Even NOT counting the 4 movies just recently made available with limited viewing, that would still be 61 out of 73 movies broadcast or approx. 84 percent! HOWEVER, so Far in March (since the end of 31 Days of Oscar) ON-DEMAND has made available 3/6/2018: ONLY 3 out of 14 feature movies 3/5/2018: ONLY 3 out of 12 feature movies 3/4/2018: ONLY 5 out of 13 feature movies 39 feature broadcasts in these last three days, with only 11 made available for ON-DEMAND viewing. That is a dismal 28 percent, and a far cry from the general 80-85% average!!! So I question, WHAT IS GOING ON WITH TCM??? Are they just too "hungover" following the Oscar celebration last Sunday and unable to perform to their "normal" lackluster standard ??? Or, do they think "we" are too intoxicated with Wine to notice these things??? Or is this break from what we have been used to seeing going to be the "NEW" standard with TCM??? I have a few thoughts about this and I really hope that I am proven wrong... but if this trend continues then I very sadly may NOT be. I'll presently hold those thoughts, and adapt a "wait and see" profile for a while. But, it needs to be said that this type of consistent TCM ON-DEMAND "downsizing" (barring past "neglectful" staff "errors") is a bit unprecedented (even here!!!)

Watched same as above on regular TV with COX cable provider and experienced no problems with TCM "Live" broadcasts that night. More than likely your problems lie somewhere between your TV and your TV cable provider. Haven't watched everything to cross compare with you guys, but regarding regular TV with "live" broadcasts (using COX TV and cable provider) I have experienced very few problems and nothing of any consistent relevance in the last year plus. There have been a few outages, power and signal wise. And a couple of times when audio/video was out-of-sync, also those damn periodic "Warning System Check" interruptions (all provider issues). But otherwise, nothing related directly with TCM. But I only receive Standard Definition and NOT HD with TCM, so that may be a significant difference as I've heard others trying to watch TCM on an HD channel having similar problems. I know that most of what TCM broadcasts has never been available in HD format (with a few recent 2-4 K digital conversion specialty exceptions), so that may be part of the problem with an HD channel, but not exactly sure about that???? If you have a Standard Definition TCM channel available, I suggest trying that and see if the problems persist there or not? In either event I would imagine that your issues more directly relate to your TCM TV "DirectTV" provider as opposed to problems originating directly from TCM. However regarding the TCM Streaming Services, and especially their WATCH TCM ON-DEMAND, there have been and are numerous, regularly reoccurring problems originating with TCM, the vast majority appearing to be the result of human "error" or "negligence" by TCM staff....

That reminds me of when I was a Boy Scout and we went on this canoe trip. The canoe carrying most of our "supplies" overturned in the river and most of our food stuff was lost. However the Scout Leader was able to recover the large case of spam that quickly sank to the bottom and got lodged between some rocks. For the next week we ate, spam, spam, and more spam. Most of us got sick of the stuff after that. Used to be "cheap" meat in those days, but whenever I notice it on the grocery ailes these days it appears to be way "over priced." Thankfully I ate enough spam back then to have no great craving for it now.... And with these boards, I get way too much of the stuff as is

Yep, he got himself bit at the end of the last "mid-season" and spent almost an entire episode eulogizing before he passed. In all fairness though, the kid grew up on the series and has been present since day one. I used to not mind watching a TV series back in the days of Centennial and Shogun, et al., but those ran their course in a few days or weeks, not years and years. Used to have an HBO subscription and really enjoyed watching ROME. That one concluded in two seasons, and I honestly wished that it would have carried on longer. Someone turned me on to Showtimes The Tudors, and I got sucked into four long seasons of that epic, which finally ended with Henry (and not Elizabeth). I have generally tried to stay away from such things, but every now and then I catch an episode of something that whets my appetite for more... AMC was on a roll with Madmen, Breaking Bad, (and now its prequel sequel Better Call Saul), and as much as I abhor all the commercials, I found myself watching those shows with anticipatory relish. The idea of a series about zombies didn't exactly appeal to me, but then I made the mistake of watching an episode and got hooked on the post apocalyptic aspect of the whole thing, with the far fetched idea of strictly human undead "zombies" an ever present additional horrific aspect of the many dangers in such a world. Then I sort-of got into the mindset that this was also an homage to the late great George Romero, which made watching a little more palatable in my mind. But damn, now they've got this and Fear TWD, and have a promised crossover character episode coming up next month. And these things just keep going on, and on, like forever in real time. I feel like an addict drawn to another fix each time I watch the damn things. Oh, and I noticed a couple of seasons of History Channels Vikings at my library a while back and, being a history buff, checked them out. Now I'm sucked into "never ending" Viking lore on that channel as well. Someone finally talked me into watching the first four seasons of Game of Thrones a couple of years ago... I no longer get HBO, so I have been anxiously awaiting each new "seasons" set of dvd's to arrive ever since... Thankfully that one is soon coming to an end. But I've also been reading George R. R. Martin's series of books as well. And I thought that I had long left my interest in such allegorical fantasy tales back with my childhood.... Oh and Yeah, so on top of TCM, I have these other quirks in addition to an insatiable appetite for PBS documentaries. I used to be such an active outdoorsy sort-of guy, now I spend way, way too much time with my eyes glued to some damn screen. Do I need a life or what?