rohanaka

Larry... you need to import some of that Florida sunshine and aim it at all that snow... so you can UN-bury your cat...I mean car. Ha.

OH my golly!!! I have never tried indian food... (I don't know what "naan and roti bread" is... but the rest of that all sounds pretty wonderful... and the samosas are running low!)

I don't know what you mean... Not buying it!!! The last time I saw that face, I think it was on the side of a 24 roll package of "Angel Soft" Ha!

I wonder if they buried my car!!!??? Just for a half a second there... I thought that read CAT instead of CAR!! ha. (I need to get some NEW glasses.... no kidding.) :-)

Comparing Greer to Lassie! Tsk Tsk can you imagine??? HA!! I just saw this way down there under all the new stuff... I CAN imagine... ony because he (and someone who's name rhymes w/.... SOLO... have tried that trick before)... but I won't say WHO that other person is... I am too busy eating my samosas!! Ha.

Woo hoo!! The piece de resistance!!

Fresh deep fried samosas Aw.... Mr Molo... watta guy!!! That's enough for me... what are the rest of you going to eat! HA! (ps...where is the mango dipping sauce????) :-)

You do need to watch your step around this swamp. You never know what may get you or what'll you step in. NOT afraid... I am already prepared!! I have ALWAYS known I needed to wear my hipwaders when I get around YOU... ha. Here is a little "promo video" for your next techno training course:

Cough, cough.. sputter.... ahem... excuse me while a blow a little DUST off this thread here... So Yoda...I mean Grey Guy... what?? I make a wise crack about you living in a SWAMP.... and 2 and a half weeks go by with no "snappy" comeback??? (I must be slipping....)

Hi Ms Cutter! Very nice ramble on The Rains Came... I enjoyed this film a lot... both for the story and also because it had some really interesting characters. I LOVED the Maharani. She was a really rich character... no pun intended... She was hilarious, and as you say, compassionate, but also she was one tough old bird as well.... a great combination. I thought the special effects were first rate and very well done. And although the story (at least for me) seemed to lack a little direction at first (I kept waiting to see WHAT the point was behind all the little subplots) it really picked up speed and took off once THE RAINS finally came. Ransome and Fern are forced to come to grips with themselves and each has to decide if they will take this opportunity to become better people. Fern and Tom rise to the occasion much faster than Lady Esketh. Edwina continues to play cards while those around her rise to the occasion and pitch in to help in disaster relief. Having lost her husband in the disaster, Edwina sees her chance to get close to Rama by volunteering at the hospital. This was one of the most interesting parts of the story for me... how all that diversity brought out the best in almost everybody... except for Lord Esketh, perhaps. ( I really was surprised though that after he is dispatched... NOBODY seems to notice. Edwina never says anything like... "I wonder what happened to my husband." I know they more or less only tolerated one another... but still... that seemed a little odd) But I do like how she starts to see a bigger world around her than herself and the picture of her down on her knees cleaning up the floor following a surgery shows how far she'd really come in her mind and her heart toward making a sincere effort to be a part of the doctor's world. But to go even further, she eventually she seems to understand that she is not there just to be near him anymore... and that the lives of those she is helping at the hospital all really matter too. It is a VERY nice portrayal of "redemption". This film was a surprise for me in more ways than one... I had only heard of it for the first time just a couple of days before it aired... and THEN I thought I had missed it... but now I am really glad to have it on tape as I am sure I will look forward to watching it again sometime. Thanks again for bringing it up! :-)

Hello there little Bronx gal... Re:my "ramblings"... you are probably just saying in a nice way that I am a big jabbering blabbermouth. (But PS.. thanks for saying it in a nice way!) Ha. Hope you and others have a few more words to say about ole Dan'l. Re: your multi-toothed, giant green fellow.... YIKES! The only "good" one of those I have ever seen was either on a handbag, a belt, or a pair of shoes! HA! :-) PSS... Be careful all you Northeastern-ers (and those of you who got the surprise in the south as well.... POOR MOLO!!! Sorry about your cable!) At least this time... we midwest folks managed to get by w/ only about 4 or 5 inches of snow (around these parts anyway)on Saturday before it all headed out to your neck of the woods. Not enough snow to shut down the place... but just enough to make it pretty for a while and give all the kiddies some fun over the weekend.( I have about a dozen or so snow angels in my back yard even as we speak) :-) Drive and/or Walk safely out there, folks. :-)

Finishing it off... Ah yes, I knew your people, Sean. Your grandfather... he died in Australia.... in a penal colony "And your father.... he was a good man too." ____________________________________________________________________________ Anyone else feel free....

insidious nefarious SO not either of those things... :-) But it is WAY cool... you NY folks get all the cool stuff. :-)

Whoo Hoo! Molo! Another fine ramble, my friend. Thanks for bringing this film up for a chat. And again.. very good use of the screencaps to make your points here. :-) I have been waiting for this ramble since way back before Thanksgiving! I remember you and the Grey Guy bringing this film up sometime... or rather more or less just bringing "Belle' up... ha! And that, combined w/ a vague remembrance of this story from High School (though I really remember very little of the study we did back when) is what led me to check it out from the library way back when... and I was really glad to see it air last week on TCM as well. I made a copy of it and the QT and I watched it the other day... he had never seen it before, so was glad to watch it. This story has it's basis in "folklore"... WAY more than in "faith"... so leaving a lot of issues of faith out of it, I can say that it is a very entertaining and intriguing... and thought provoking tale. Major Spoilers Ahead As soon as the opening credits role, you get the idea that you are in for something a little different.The scrolling of the names of those in front of the camera and those in back of the camera is unconventional. The film opens with a certain Mr. Scratch (Walter Huston) looking over his book. He comes to a listing for Jabez Stone. Something that I did not catch the first time I watched.. but I noticed it right away this last time was the name of the character "Jabez". In the Bible, (in the book of 1 Chronicles) Jabez asks God to bless his property and increase his wealth and keep him from harm... and I find that an interesting twist here... because the Jabez in THIS story had the same desires... He just chose to go to a different source to get them. I think all of the characters in this film were very well developed and very well acted as well, and I found them all quite interesting for a variety of reasons... and that is more the focus of my ramble this time. For all his loud talk and hard work, Jabez really seemed to be a very weak man who focused more on himself than ANYTHING... even from the very beginning. He took all the "hard luck" personally... blaming EVERYONE (including God, most likely) for his situation. And he seemed to think it was his lot in life to suffer and go around in misery. He spends the first part of the movie whining and crying about all his misfortune but rather than pull himself up by his boot straps as he was likely raised, he takes the "easy way" out with very little hesitation when the devil lays his offer on the table. It really is a mystery to me how he could have been so "self" centered and weak a character, having been raised by someone as strong and determined like his Ma... who was to me, the most interesting character of all. She had a lot of "common" sense... but she also had some really "uncommon" sense as well... She knew the ways of the world, but she was NOT going to let the ways of the world influence her character and the things she thought were right. She had her feet firmly planted in the ground that she worked and her heart firmly planted in her faith. A very good combination when it comes to facing both hardship AND temptation. And she stayed true to herself and to the things she believed in as a result. And I really like how she lets Jabez go his own way... but she refuses to alter HER course. VERY strong willed and yet very "motherly" all at the same time. And Mary was the perfect "stereotype" of the loving, faithful wife... even when Jabez is at his VERY worst (and lets face it... by the time things all came to a head... Jabez was about as bad as a guy could be) She STILL loved him and believed he could overcome the person he'd become. And she would not let anyone say a bad word against him. But eventually she was driven away for the sake of their child... (more about him in a minute) I like how at one point... as Jabez undergoes a variety of behavior changes and his mind and heart become more and more accustomed to his new way of thinking... he tells his Ma and Mary to forget the things he has said in the past and listen to the things he was saying "now". And that he had "made up his mind". But later... Mary echoes those same words (with a different meaning) and says she TOO had made up HER mind and she decides to stand with her husband on HIS terms in HIS house and I think by doing that...she hoped to be an influence on him for good. Because sometime before that, she is seen praying for him and asks God to "bring Jabez back into thy kingdom" so she seems to understand the REAL battle is for his soul... even if she doesn't know the details. And Mr. Scratch... well... all I can say is he is VERY well portrayed. And very well written too. A lot of times the devil is shown as a "comical" sort of character in movies like this... but I saw very LITTLE comedy in him. He was more or less portrayed very much (in some respects) like I believe the devil would be if he were to physically appear and seek to stir up trouble. I don't mean to say he'd show up w/ contract in hand and a big pot of gold, but the way he uses discouragement... and encouragement (or should I call it specific sorts of temptation) to lead and mislead people was very well written. In many ways he was like a smooth talking "salesman"... almost like the stereotypical "used car salesman". As in..."But what about the big car payment?" "Oh... don't bother yourself with that... what's a little old car payment to you compared to the prestige you'll have in driving that big shiny car?" (ha). Ok.. all you used car salesmen just sit down... I am NOT calling you the devil... ONLY making a "general" statement, here... NO specific reference intended. (Ha) :-) Actually, let's forget the movie and just look at Belle Ah Belle... her name means Beautiful... but other than the OBVIOUS outward beauty... it was such a misnomer. Evil personified and rotten to the core, she was. And almost "scary" in her hypnotic beauty. In fact to me... she was WAY more scary than old Mr. Scratch. VERY well played by Ms. Simone. When she is hovering over the new born baby... Mary instinctively covers the child to protect him.... that was VERY telling of the way she seemed to understand already that this woman could be a threat... but ever the one to think good of others, Mary then goes on to tell Ma later that Belle is such a kind person... Yeah.. "kind" like a RATTLESNAKE! :-) Another thing that escaped my notice the first time I watched was a little scene where Mary is getting ready to go to church and Ma and she are about to leave... and Mary leaves an open Bible on the table.... perhaps a carefully selected scripture reference just for Jabez... and he sits down and starts to read... and is for a moment drawn away from Belle's "spell". But of course she wastes little time in ridding him of the distraction of ANYTHING that might smack of "conscience stirring material" and he is so weak by his own desires he willingly submits to her temptations. Now... about the "two" Daniels... BIG Daniel Webster is an interesting character. He has almost two separate natures... He's bigger than life and yet very down to earth. And he seems to have remembered "where he came from". Unlike a lot of bigwig politicians and men of means that surround him. And still... he is not without flaw or without fear of failure. Throughout the film, Webster will serve as the moral counterpoint to Mr. Scratch. An early scene shows that he has been dealing with him in his own way for quite some time. I thought a lot about whether he knows who Scratch was when he saw him in town and says "oh it's you" and I think he REALLY does... but he is NOT willing to be intimidated by him. That is an interesting twist. This sets up the film's great climatic scene. Webster convinces Scratch to submit the case of Jabez Stone's soul to a trial by jury. Confident enough to even throw his own soul in on the bargain if he loses. Webster insists only on an American judge and jury. I must confess that the big scene in the barn where he has to fight for Jabez's soul sort of left me flat the first time I watched it. Though I thought Arnold did a good job w/ the acting... It really did not impress me all that much and seemed almost half hearted (from a dialogue standpoint) But as I watched again... I listened a little harder and I enjoyed it much more the second time. I liked his "no nonsense" business like approach when dealing w/ the Devil in terms of "lets see what sort of evidence you have' etc... just as he would for any client facing any sort of opponent. And I got a better look at the judge and the jury this second time around and listened more closely to some of the verbal exchanges there (a few of them are hard to make out altogether due to that sound quality issue) Overall it really is a much better scene than I first thought. And now... what about the younger Daniel??? Because for me... THAT is the REAL hinge that this whole story rests on. I don't think Jabez would have ever "snapped" nearly so hard (in either direction) were it not for his son.... He had signed away his soul.. and his pride would have led him astray...without much help from Belle. But when he realizes he is about to become a father... he gets it in his mind that he is going to leave something for his heir... again as a matter of pride. And I think THIS may have been the real reason for Belle to show up in the first place. NOT to distract Jabez and keep him from his conscience to make things more easy for Jabez...(since the devil already had HIS soul anyway) but rather to distract Jabez and make him (and Belle through him) the greater influence on the boy as he grew up than his mother and grandmother would be. . Because even if Jabez became resigned to his future fate.... he might still have enough conscience to teach his son to do better... and to let him follow the better path of the two women. But by using Belle to help relieve Jabez from his conscience...the father would then be a different sort of influence more to Scratch's liking. And that way he would get them both. (I hope that all makes sense). I think that it is clear the hold Belle has over both Jabez AND little Daniel in the exchange in the garden between the Grandma, Mary, and Jabez over Daniel's awful behavior. And Belle more or less takes over with Daniel and leaves Mary to watch as her son is led off all smug and as full of pride as his dad wearing that lovely red coat. And at that point, Ma and Mary are the absolute contrast... working faithfully in the garden, toiling and keeping to the things that are right as Jabez, Belle, and Daniel ride off to partake of the pleasures of idle fancy. It is an interesting turn of events. And when Mary sees that THIS is where the real battle lies... she goes to the one person she thinks can best help her husband... (Daniel Webster) and perhaps by helping him... she can influence him and keep her hand in the battle for her son as well. But I like how Webster lays it all out for her that he has heard the REAL story about the man her husband has become and that he will do what he can to help HER (but not necessarily help Jabez). And the exchange between Big Daniel and Little Daniel is the first step... That boy had a "britches warming" coming to him that was long overdue... and Big Daniel wastes little time in bringing that about. :-) And of course (as most morality plays would have it) that gives the boy's conscience a whole new outlook. And the whole dinner party scene was VERY eery. Miser Stevens really was a lesson for Jabez in the cost he was going to be forced to pay soon himself. And then when it is nearly too late, Jabez sees that he really has made the worst of all possible deals... and tries to get away. This will sound a bit "twisty and turney" but I think Scratch decides to offer Jabez more time in exchange for his son....because he thinks Jabez (by this point) is actually weak enough to take the deal, and THAT is where things really got interesting for me. He was banking on Jabez loving himself more than his son (because he seemed to have had a habit of loving himself more than others throughout the whole ordeal) So even IF Daniel Webster had not shown up to argue the big case, as it were... this would have been a losing "victory" for Scratch had he only gotten Jabez in the end. He did not count on the redeeming power of a woman's faithful love toward her husband, and the overwhelming power of a father's desire to protect his own flesh and blood (which all FINALLY managed to kick in for Jabez in the end... My golly, it sure took him long enough.) :-) All in all, I enjoyed this film very much. The whole early American folklore aspect was very appealing, but this is also a timeless tale of how the choices we make and the things we value have consequences in life.... And in the end... the measure of a man is NOT in what he has but more in how he lives and loves others. Thanks for letting me ramble a bit, folks. And thanks, again, Molo. Nice job brining this one up for review! PS Barb.... its nightmare-while-awake Expressionist cinematography, its "tall-tale" American iconographic folksiness wedded to an indeed timeless morality tale about living A good life, instead of THE good life. THAT is a perfect way of describing this tale... I like the part about living "A" good life instead of "THE" good life. VERY well said. (wish I'd have thought of it! Ha.)

In February of 1812, the devastating earthquake hit southern Missouri. It was reportedly felt over 50,000 square miles. Church bells began ringing in Boston because of it and chimneys toppled in Maine because of the movement Ms. Cutter, you do know your earthquakes! :-) I haven't read up on this one in some time, but I do recall these details now that you bring them up. It is an intimidating thing to think that this sort of situation could happen again in the present day with very little notice. I think one reason we respond so much to San Francisco (the movie) is because of the earthquake sequence and its historical accuracy. I think you and Mr. Dobbs are right on target as to how accurate the portrayal of these events was. And if you stop and think about it, the film was only made 30 years after the actual event... so there was likely even access to a lot of first hand accounts as well as historical photgraphs and early film footage for them to go by. I wonder (though I have NO idea if I am right) if there may even still have been areas of the city that had not yet completely recovered by then, (even though the vision of the "new and improved" San Francisco is shown at the end of the movie over top of the rubble). It never ceases to amaze me the deteremination those folks must have had to pick up and start over that way.

Well, turn out that it was the result of the Alaska earthquake. We had no tsunami, but a big wave in the ocean traveled around the world, around the tip of South America I suppose, and then came up the Atlantic ocean and into the Gulf of Mexico, and that caused the water to go up and then down in the Industrial Canal. I didn't find that out until years later. Oh my golly, Mr. Dobbs... That sounds like something off of the National Geographic Channel... that is an amazing story. It really makes you stop and think about how the things that happen in one area during a quake can have implications far off in a completely different location. And also about how we are more or less just left to look and wonder. The more science works to solve the mystery behind how and when and where earthquakes (and their resulting side effects) all happen... the more they seem to find that they still just have so much to learn. Just this weekend we watched a program on the History Channel about a study that is being done along the San Andreas Fault and part of it centered on a couple of towns that are right along the fault but seem to suffer very little in the way of big quakes like the ones that have hit other areas in California. They were able to drill way down and took some core samples in one of those areas, and one of the things they discovered was a "talc" substance in the rock that would allow the plates to move more fluidly w/out so much "shock" and so they believe that what these areas get as a result is a lot of smaller less discernable movement instead. Earthquake study is a big deal here in the midwest too, oddly enough, because of the New Madrid fault in southern Missouri. I am no big student of all of this, but I have read that the series of quakes that hit that area in the early 1800's were among the more powerful ever felt in US history, and were even supposed to have been felt as far away as Washington DC (due to the geology of the midwest allowing the tremors to travel greater distance... if my limited understanding is correct) I have always been interested in the news reports and articles I see on this topic because that whole area is one big seismic disaster waiting to happen. I live about 400 miles north of there, so around here in KC, there would not likely be so much of a catastrophe, but cities like St Louis and even all the numerous smaller cities and towns could be devastated. Especially when you think of the huge increase in population and how old some of the structures are around that area (many dating back to the mid 1800's and early 1900's) and how virtually NO updates have been done to these buildings to make them more "earthquake" proof. Yeeesh... I am starting to sound like a prophet of gloom and doom... sorry. This is far beyond the topic now from where we first started, but you really got me to thinking of all this by the interesting insight you have given to the whole "earthquake" conversation here. I think that nature in general, but specifically the way nature can wreak havoc on puny little man (who is just arrogant enough to believe he can outsmart it w/ all his technology) has always been a topic of interest for me. Which probably explains why I enjoyed these films so much. NOT because I wanted to see the devastation and destruction or enjoy the thought of all that "mayhem" as much as it just makes me appreciate even more how MUCH we really are bound by the laws of nature... no matter what we may or may not do to try and resist them. Ok... again I am saying "yeesh". Stepping down from my little "soapbox" now. Thanks for letting me spout. :-)

I have always enjoyed Ben Johnson in just about any film I have seen him in... (I really like him for his voice...but also think he just has the most hones looking smile too) My absolute favorite film for him though is not a western... (though he DOES play a cowboy sort of character) *Mighty Joe Young*.

But Northridge was different. It was like Godzilla was playing jump-rope just outside my apartment in Hollywood Ha... I am getting a mental image here that is quite comical.. but I imagine it was anything but that at the time. I still remember watching the news that morning and it was such a shock to see everything that had happened... and if I was so surprised all the way out here in the midwest... I am sure you folks out there had quite the rude awakening. One of the things that got my attention in watching SF yesterday (and it HAD been a few years since I last saw it) was the dazed and confused look on poor "****'s" face... especially early on. And then how he went from place to place...witnessing all the devastation and tragedy mixed with scenes of great joy as well as various people were reunited w/ their loved ones. I think Gable did a good job of portraying the various aspects of all this emotion all with saying only very little. Again... I think this film (of the three yesterday) is sentimental favorite of mine... The stories in the other two films go on much further following all the action of the earthquakes, etc... but in San Francisco... this is more or less the ending of the film and the inspiration factor (in the scenes that Fred brought up especially) just makes it a bit more emotional for me.

Thanks again, Mr. Dobbs for your insight... and WAY cool on those artifacts you found. You mentioned that you have them stored in your garage... I am sure that in S.F. there are plenty of fine examples of such things, but have you ever thought of seeing if a local museum or perhaps a university closer to where you are now would be interested in some of that stuff? Not trying to tell you what to do... I just think it's cool. :-)

THANKS, Ms. Cutter for the info on Vorkapic. Was he still around when you attended school there? I am sure (if he was still alive) he would have been getting way up there in years by then. I don't know for sure how the things he revolutionized early on are still applied today, but it is always interesting to see how the early days of filming have gone on to influence films later on. PS... I have never been in a major earthquake... but I am sure it would be terrifying. We lived near Anchorage Alaska when I was a kid (early 70's) (my dad was in the military) so the big Alaska quake from the 1960's was still pretty fresh in many people's minds... We had a few noticable tremors when I was there, but nothing too scary like that. I remember there was a park in Anchorage near the ocean where they had left things "as they were" following the big quake, so to speak. More or less the whole area had just dropped maybe hundreds of feet and you could look out and see parts of cars and rooftops from buildings and houses and such in among the trees and things down below... It really brought home the way a major disaster like that can alter the course of your entire life.

Whoo Hoo!!! Thanks Mr. Dobbs for filling in a lot of the gaps in my poor attempt at detailing the work that went into the filming of these sequences. (especially the way the streets and water pipe scenes were filmed) I was hoping someone would come along who had a lot more knowledge about it than I. I think it is fun to also hear about your personal recollections too, after having lived in that area and having more familiarity with the history and locations that were shown in the movie. I bet that made it all the more interesting getting to see these places for yourself. Thanks for those links... and for the info on the directors too. I had come across some of the other names as you did... but was not smart enough to go to the IMDB thingie and put it all together (I am NOT that good at searching.) :-) When I went into youtube looking for the scene from the film that I posted, I also found some clips from actual film footage of the area that was taken shortly after the quake... and you are right... the re-created buildings were very close in many instances. But none of what I found was nearly so clear as the images you posted... so I hesitated to put them in. Thanks again for your input!

Wow.... just blowing the dust off this old thread here... yesterday was such a red letter day on TCM for special effects "junkies" (Ha) I thought I would just post a little "admiration" for all the DISASTERS and the mayhem... But before I get to all the destruction and devastation... First I want to mention.... THE GOLDRUSH (which also aired yesterday) Now in all honesty.. I MISSED this film yesterday (I didn't even get it taped because of the early hour and my own poor planning) but I got to watch it back a few months ago, and just want to salute all the technical skill that must have gone into the numerous "physical" parts of this film... ESPECIALLY the tipping house (inside and out) OH my golly.. that is my favorite "comic" portion of the film... but also I am writing in praise of all that SNOW. Some of those winter scenes looked very real given the time frame this was filmed... one of my other favorite "comedy" parts was when he is hiring himself out to shovel snow and the way he end up removing it from in front of one door only to pile it up in front of another. Charlie Chaplin is just a master... such a brief little nod to him here... but I really enjoy this film. Ok... Now on to the DISASTERS... I very much enjoyed getting to watch San Francisco yesterday. This is a film I have seen a couple of times before and have always appreciated for its amazing scenes from the historic 1906 San Francisco Earthquake. But more on that in a moment, as I want to discuss a couple of other films first... First, I want to give a nod to two early Oscar winners in the category of Special Effects... Now (to my limited understanding of such things as I am NO expert on the matter) I believe the category of special effects was created in 1939 and was to be given for both sound and visual effects all under one heading... "special effects". And both of the following films won in that category ( And then later on the category was split in two for visual and sound) Though I am CERTAINLY no expert, both of the following films were winners in visuals AND sound as far as I am concerned: *Green Dolphin Street (1947)* I did not see this entire film... but by chance, I caught just the right moments (for an FX junkie anyway) of Green Dolphin Street... I missed the beginning altogether, but the big earthquake, landslide, falling trees, geysers, and tidal wave/ flood were FASCINATING. (and very frightening too) since I did not have any idea who these characters were or even where they were (New Zealand, I later found out) and what might happen to the storyline depending on the outcome of the events... and in a completely separate part of the storyline, I also got to see Donna Reed climb hand over fist up this huge rocky tunnel in order to escape the rising tide... VERY dramatic and suspenseful. Someday I hope to go back and watch this film from beginning to end and get a better feel for how all these events play into the story as a whole. *The Rains Came (1939)* I was very happy to get to tape and also watched The Rains Came yesterday... It was a very unusual film for a lot of reasons... both in story line and in characters... but also on the grand scale it was filmed regarding the multiple disasters of the huge earthquake, the monsoon-like rains, the giant flood, and the fires. From what I have read, this is the first film to ever win the academy award in the category of "special effects". I enjoyed it very much and the quake and flood scenes were VERY intense and extremely well put together. Also well done were the scenes later on as the waters kept rising due to the rain. It was very believable watching the little canoe get swamped and seeing poor George Brent have to swim for it. And the scenes like the one where the elephants are used to carry the orphan children to safety were just such a nice extra as well. This film was a very pleasant surprise for me on a lot of levels and I am glad to have gotten a chance to watch. Now.. back to *San Francisco (1936)* ... I must confess, this film is my sentimental favorite among the these three "disaster" tales... Maybe because I am most familiar with it having seen it at least a couple of times before. I have had longer to think about and appreciate all the work that went into it. This film was made before the creation of that Special Effects award.... but would CLEARLY have been equally as deserving given the scale and the task involved in telling such a tale... There is just so much to appreciate about the work that went into this film...You have all the scenes w/ the movement of the quake (and aftershocks) plus there is falling brick and glass and stone EVERYWHERE you look... people running in the streets and mayhem happening all over. Then there is the whole aspect of watermains breaking and fires breaking out and all the numerous side effects of such a cataclysmic event happening all at once. VERY well done for it's time and extremely realistic looking. I did a little googling (and if I were a better researcher I am sure I could have come up w/ more) but all I really was able to find about the whole process of how this was all done was just a few bits and pieces, but one name that kept popping up was Slavko Vorkapich who is (again, from my limited understanding of such things) apparently a pioneer in the use of montage sequences in filming and was instrumental if the filming of the earthquake montage sequence in this film as well. Here is a youtube of the big shake up from the film San Francisco.... even by today's standards... still VERY impressive: Wow... Now again...I do not have any sort of film background and all this has been written more or less from a "this is what I saw...this is how I felt about it" perspective, so please understand that I KNOW there is a lot I could have said better as I am NO expert on this sort of thing. But I know SOME of you out there ARE experts... So if any of you have any sort of comments regarding how these films were made or your thoughts on the way they were all put together, I hope you will chime in. (or if you are just like me and really enjoyed these films and want to comment, I hope you will feel free) :-) Thanks for letting me share my thoughts with you, folks. And if anyone missed these "FX/disaster junkie treats" I hope you will get a chance to check them out sometime. I am sure the stories themselves make these films entertaining enough to watch... but the special effects really make them exceptional films to enjoy even more. Message was edited by: rohanaka (because aside from my technophobic tendencies... I am also often a very poor typist. I am sure if I keep looking I will find a few more typos... so please don't read TOO closely) ha. :-)

implanting Fur Elise in my head I wish it WERE just the song that got implanted in my head... because now since I looked that silly commercial back up after all this time, all I seem to be able to think about is getting a "big chocolate shake, a cheesburger, and also (whoops) and also fries" Ha. :-)

Hello Reyman I would also like to voice my appreciation for your comments and for all the leg work in putting these facts together for us... I think it's been a very nice addition to the whole discussion as it frames the whole point for making the film... and gives us a much deeper insight into the intent behind the filmmaker as well as some of the motivations of the individual characters. My husband is an amature "history buff" and has a lot of interest in WWII and the significance certain battles and strategies played in our nation's part in the war... and in our nation's history as well... and I hope you won't mind if I print your posts off for him to read as I am sure he would enjoy them as well it is a story that probably is not told in high school history classes. Possibly college students have read about MTB squadron 3's exploits, but I rather doubt it. I think you have hit the nail on the head, there. American History in general but specifically as it pertains to war and the conflicts we have been involved in as a nation are among the most undertaught and misrepresented subject matters placed before our school children today. Of all things, history should be among the least "subjective" subjects taught to kids today because there are enough documents, records and facts in place that clearly indicate the events leading up to as well as the outcome of numerous historical events in our nation's story; and they offer up a very clear picture for those seeking how and why things happened the way they did. But sadly it is often a subject that comes under the most influence of individual "opinion" based on the teacher (and/or the textbook) and their individual bias or personal points of view. History, when exposed to the clear light of day, would be better taught w/out such "spin". It was what it was... and it should be held up for review without the "window dressing" of political opinion and personal bias that so often influences the teaching of such subjects... Oh.. how did I get here?? Sorry... stepping down from my soapbox .. QUICKLY.

A little variation on Beethoven's I love it!! :-) Chris... If you want to improve your "classical" maybe you just need a little motivation. That youtube made me think of the following "variation" of a Beethoven classic.... Maybe you just need to think about going to McDonalds.... http://tvadsview.com/mcdonalds-recital-commercial-circa-1986/ (In order to find this..I "googled" the phrase "I will eat the fries myself and not give any to my dumb brother" because if I EVER hear Fur Elise... that is what I start singing when it gets to that part of the melody.. I am sure Ludwig would just be so happy to hear that.)