Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Everything posted by mndean4709

  1. I never considered Iris Adrian ditzy. I'd call her brassy, even when she was a semi-regular on Jack Benny's TV show.
  2. > {quote:title=racketbuster wrote:}{quote} > > I see that in "Road To Paradise," she plays twin roles -- a girl who falls in with gangsters and a wealthy socialite. Since I've never seen the film, I don't know if there are any scenes featuring both Lorettas. > I just watched the sample segment of that one, and yes they are on screen at the same time. the funny thing is, i can't figure out how they did it! Some scene clips of the two Lorettas look like could have been achieved by having a movie screen projection as a background, but other clips look too seamless to be done that w
  3. I believe I've seen American currency at least in silents. For one, The High Sign looks to have genuine bills in the till. Also, the Secret Service reasoning is actually pretty dumb. Anyone with an 8x10 camera could photograph both sides of a bill in much more detail than a cine camera, at 1:1 magnification and using filters to remove certain colors printed. All fairly basic photographic knowledge in the old days. I tend to believe fear of sticky-fingered actors was much more a reason for studios to have stage money. I mean, if you hired Jack Benny, would you want real money around? (old, old
  4. > {quote:title=musicalnovelty wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=Rickey wrote: > > }{quote}I've liked Charley Ruggles in everything I've seen him in, great character actor that adds some comic relief very effectively. > I usually like him too, but have you seen MURDERS IN THE ZOO (1933)? There's WAY too much of his alleged comedy relief and he almost spoils the horror mood. I swear this was done intentionally to keep it from being unrelievedly gruesome. Ruggles didn't have to play it that way (I've seen him do far less two-reel comic bumbling in other films), so my guess is
  5. > {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote} > Warren William would definitely have been an interesting choice. Now that I think about it, I wish I could have seen him play the part in a movie or serial. William would have been a good choice inasmuch as he could do cold and egotistical very well, and those were two properties of Lupin in the novels. Physically he's pretty close (tall, fairly thin). Any Robin Hood qualities are kind of done away with since he keeps most of what he steals. The Lone Wolf series is really a lot more Lupin than the MGM films.
  6. > {quote:title=perfectpawn wrote:}{quote} > Thanks for the responses. I'd tried the "customers also recommend" on Amazon but it was a bust. However the "Let's Go Native" thread below makes me suspect that this movie indeed was the movie I read about (and so thanks to musicalnovelty for suggesting it), as the recap in the other thread sounds a bit like the summary I read of this mysterious film. The only thing is...the film I read about, I'm certain there was a vhs of it, because I remember reading reader reviews on Amazon. Yet there doesn't appear to be a vhs release of "Let's Go Na
  7. > {quote:title=njpaddy wrote:}{quote} > I didn't really care for Fay or the film. My wife, on the other hand, who's not a Fay Wray or pre-code fan, enjoyed it. Go figure. I did enjoy Fay's guinea hen line. Only in pre-code. I found the courtroom scene pretty nauseating - it reminded me of the old "one drop of blood" rule for determining race, and the assumption that since the plaintiff may have been trying to pass, that relieves the (really eager) defendant (honestly, when she pulled her strap down, I thought he might jump her) of any breach of promise obligation. Fay does have a t
  8. > {quote:title=gagman66 wrote:}{quote} > ziggyelman, > > I couldn't agree more. Ad's for older movies are virtually non-existent. The films for the most part are not on Television, except for TCM. And many young people honestly have no concept of what even makes a good movie. They have grown up on garbage. Amusingly, another cable station has been running a lot of '80s blockbusters that I saw in the multiplexes and after a steady diet of classics, it's amazing to me how bad some of those '80s films seem now.
  9. > {quote:title=chandler5710 wrote:}{quote} > Well, the fan mags did build on something true to write the story - Tyrone Power told Mai Zetterling that those stories always had some truth to them. When I first started working for a biographer, he wanted some fan magazines, and I questioned it, and he said, well, the basis for the stories is usually factual. Yes, but which part is true? Any truth in them usually has to be teased out through other sources. I recently read a fan-mag profile of Lee Tracy (I specialize in precode era), and one thing stuck out - the claim that he wasn't a
  10. They've shown Marion's films last year as well. I had about half of the day's schedule already recorded before. The only real disappointment this time around was Page Miss Glory. It really was too noisy for me, Dick Powell acted as a smitten imbecile, and the film contained a totally unnecessary subplot with Barton MacLane and Allen Jenkins. There was a good idea behind the film, but it wasn't developed well. Ever Since Eve was a nice surprise, though.
  11. > {quote:title=chandler5710 wrote:}{quote} > Stars' families cannot take biographers to court - as someone else said, once you're dead, someone can say whatever they want about you with no consequences. You can bet that his Doris Day book didn't have one untrue comment in it, because she could sue, and the publisher's lawyers wouldn't have let anything like that go. When it comes to dead stars, they don't care if you make it up. > > No real biography is based on hearsay and speculation. No legit bio is so based, but unfortunately many of the better sellers are (as you've
  12. > {quote:title=georgiegirl wrote:}{quote} > And what do most other bio writers have to go on? Unless it's autobiographical, all bios are hearsay and speculation. They do research, speak to family and friends, read letters to and from, and review newpaper articles, etc. I doubt this Bret just pulled this stuff out of his head and wrote it down. I'd bet he did research, just as others do, and came to his own conclusion. I searched him online and as far as I can see, he's never been taken to court by present family members of the stars he's written about, and, my God, there are plenty! H
  13. > {quote:title=ziggyelman wrote:}{quote} > *his affairs with men, such as the actors Earl Larimore, Johnny Mack Brown, William Haines, and Rod LaRocque men whom Gable outed to the press to prevent himself from being outed.* > > Huh??? Does that make any sense??? Umm, you caught me so I will umm.. out some other guys that are gay if you don't out me??? I am sure it was quite the shock for folks to find out Haines was gay! > > As for the writer, as mentioned above, his books are almost always trashed, and boy is he thin skinned! > > http://lisaburks.typepad.c
  14. > {quote:title=VonFrankenhausen wrote:}{quote} > I'm sure that they try but are they tryig hard enough? Take yesterday's showing of George Pal's groundbreaking sci-fi classic Destination Moon shot in technicolor. The colors are somewhat faded to but it mildly and the hues are terrible. Hell, I've downloaded Destination Moon myself and put it through VirtualDub, made adjustments to brightness and contrast as well as tint and what I got on a vcd looks a helluva better than TCM's lousy print. Often it's a matter of showing a lousy print or no print at all. If the studio sends TCM a bad
  15. > {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=mndean4709 wrote:}{quote}> In what way is what you just wrote any better than what zasupittsfan wrote? > > I wasn't trying for "any better" but then I was also stating to zasupittsfan I would not start an entire thread about ZaSu Pitts called "ZaSu Pitts stinks" and starting it out with one post that simply said, "Boring!" I would speak a lot more if I was starting such a negative thread...but I don't like starting negative threads like the OP. If anything, starting a negative thread, inserting a one word opening
  16. > {quote:title=filmlover wrote:}{quote} > I like the Ma and Pa Kettle movies. It's not Grapes of Wrath, nor is it the other extreme The Beverly Hillbillies. They are just nice little series movies, not offensive, just cute little pieces from a period. Marjorie Main is always enjoyable, and was quite funny in the one where she tries to seduce the men at the police station. Percy Kilbridge brought a nice, reserved charm to Pa Kettle, something you needed to play opposite Main. Saying Ma and Pa Kettle "stink" is your opnion and one it seemed you just had to share with everyone here.
  17. I love Lynne Overman! He was another '20s Broadway actor who went to films. He didn't prosper right away, but got better parts later in the '30s and did get his due in Roxie Hart, made a little while before he died. It was a heftier part than he usually got. A lot of good actors are little appreciated today because they died early, before they could do more. As long as it wasn't a "tragic" death that Hollywood could milk, actors were often forgotten quickly in those days. If it weren't for the few big parts in major films he had, I think the same might have happened to Walter Connolly. I don't
  18. I wish they'd release They Just Had To Get Married, since Preston Sturges worked on it as writer. He did a lot of uncredited and credited work in the early '30s, nearly all of it Universal-owned, even his first Paramount films (I mean The Big Pond and Fast And Loose). Good enough reason to run it.
  19. > {quote:title=musicalnovelty wrote:}{quote} > mndean: > You mention "Miracle of Morgan's Creek" while discussing Universal. I assume you know that "Miracle...." is a Paramount picture, not Universal. It wouldn't matter if it was produced at PRC. My point was that you could have something that looked like a hick comedy, but wasn't. Sturges was smart enough to glean the best parts of those small-town comedy films (he never lived in a small town, you know) and used those comic archetypes to way better effect. Even the outlandish names of the characters are perfect. The Kettle
  20. Universal was always in financial straits from the Depression on until the '60s. They could do quality stuff (think of James Whale and William Wyler if of anyone), but they also put out a large amount of hick B comedies as well in the '40s. The Miracle of Morgan's Creek directly uses the hick comedy as a base (and parodies it as well), showing what a smart writer could do with the form. I watched the Kettle films more as nostalgia for what I saw as a kid on TV than for anything approaching quality. I'll tell you there are worse ones than the Kettles, though. Much worse. At least Percy Kil
  21. > {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote} > >>Lots of time after "Night of the Hunter" tonight with no short scheduled...tune in, maybe they'll run another Van Dine short unannounced. > > > Good call - they ran THE CLYDE MYSTERY right after NIGHT OF THE HUNTER. > > EDITED TO ADD > After THE FIRST AUTO, they aired THE COLE CASE. > > Message was edited by: clore It's real fun to not catch these as they're unannounced. I'm getting a little tired of how sloppy the schedules are. They always list the dull travelogues, but anything mildly interesting? F
  22. > {quote:title=rkukan wrote:}{quote} > TCM seems to be running a lot of the early 30s S.S. Van Dine shorts these days without mentioning them in the schedule, which is, to say the least, quite annoying. I caught "The Cole Case" purely by accident tonight, since I was recording "The First Auto", but there was another unscheduled Van Dine before the feature of which I caught only the last few tantalizing moments. Same thing happened last week. Why aren't these shorts listed in the online schedule? This is really irritating me as well. I catch a glimpse of the short, check the daily
  23. > {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > *That only answers half the question. Why has this been going on for 2 1/2 years?* > > If I was to wager a guess, it would be that Sony Pictures has not committed the budgetary dollars as quickly as the titles are needed. If they clear the title for scheduling, then it should be ready. TCM wouldn't schedule a title without Sony saying it'll be ready, that just doesn't happen. This baloney has been pulled too often, even with Warner titles (remember all the precode Joan Blondell titles scheduled then pulled last year?), to be a mista
  24. > {quote:title=PrinceSaliano wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=ModernMaiden wrote:}{quote} > > Why has Deception (1932) been removed from the schedule? > > > > Message was edited by: ModernMaiden > Be prepared for a rambling explanation concerning analog v. digital; why TCM can't do certain things, but try enjoying FATHER OF THE BRIDE...it's twice a month. Yes, some apologist for TCM's ridiculous behavior will eventually show up with a mealy-mouthed explanation. Isn't it always the way? It's too blatant to be random - they're always doing this to silents o
  25. > {quote:title=goldensilents wrote:}{quote} >otherwise rape was considered a crime back in Faulkner's day, though rarely reported due to shame. ...or falsely accused to support a lynching. Usually the real rapist was too powerful, and they picked a hapless victim to lynch, often of a darker hue. Just want to get that out there, as it was common practice in the bad old days.
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...