misswonderly3
-
Posts
12,768 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
36
Posts posted by misswonderly3
-
-
I dunno. I prefer Pat Boone's.
-
skimpole, while I certainly agree with you that Hitchcock is indeed an incomparably better film maker than Brian de Palma, I'm not sure why you conider Hitch a maker of "horror"movies. Thrillers, yes, suspense films, yes. But to me his films don't fit any kind of criteria for the horror genre at all.
-
Well, yeah. But the original was by Bo Diddley. As C.B. and I have both noted, many people have covered the song, Who Do You Love. I guess it's one of those standards that everyone puts their own stamp on.
-
Swithin said many interesting things in his post, but the part I'm going to quote is this:
"...The genre is so rich, and I love most of it. ..." That's it...the genre is rich, and I guess what I was trying to say in my earlier post on this subject is, there are many sub-genres and sub-categories to it ( noir is the same).
I wish I could say I'd seen the films you cite, Swithin. Maybe TCM's got some of them coming up. (Of course I've seen *Frankenstein*, and I agree with you about the ending's being satisfying and yet leaving it open for a sequel(s). )
There are times when it "works" to see the monster/demon/ghost/source of fear. But as you said, it usually is better to show it at least halfway through the movie.
I still think it's very eerie and effective to give just a hint of the fearful creature -a sound, a fleeting glimpse of an ethereal thing, or -and I find this very scary - evidence of something supernatural going on in the form of seemingly ordinary events. Example: someone leaves the room for a second, and when they return a closet door is open, when they'd just closed and locked it (feeble example maybe, but you get the idea.)
I always thought the ghost scene in the 1951 version of *A Christmas Carol* was deliciously scary, what with the face on the door knocker, those clocks and bells ringing, and then Marley himself appearing in all his ghostly ghastliness (or, if you prefer, ghastly ghostliness.)
There's just something about ghosts that I find more creepy and spine tingling than a whole passel of monsters and murderers.
Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 22, 2010 12:43 PM
-
Richard Thompson is possibly the only musician more under-recognized in American than the Kinks. Great song-writer, there's no lyricist like him. Unique guitar style.
Friday night coming again. Annie's getting restless, she's painting her lips a bright bright red, and Buddy's getting worried. He thinks she's working the Midnight Shift :
-
Well, perhaps not. Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwQGHC8qP4
(In any case, it's not really a video - just a picture someone stuck on youtube to go with the song .Possibly a Sophia Loren fan who was wondering if La Loren loved him.)
Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 22, 2010 9:43 AM
-
Depends on how you define "horror".I agree that the latter-day ultra violent movies that feature images of people getting hacked up by unspeakably evil psychopaths are not my idea of a "horror" film. Haven't they in recent years been labelled "slasher" films? What's somewhat disturbing is their main appeal seems to lie with teenagers and young adults. Maybe it all started with the original *Texas Chainsaw Massacre.*
Although "horror", however you define it, does have to carry an element of suspense, I 'm with Tikisoo that the Hitchcock films do not fit into this category. I would never label them "horror". The only two that come close are of course, *Psycho* and maybe *Frenzy*, because these two films are about a crazed individual who has a need to kill people, preferably young women. But the story and dialogue and general quality of those two titles elevate them from the type of horror film I was talking about above.
It seems there are two ways of looking at it: "horror" films that involve maniacs hiding out with a view to killing people, preferably as violently and painfully as possible; and films that involve some aspect of the supernatural. Most of the classic oldies fall fall into this category: *Dracula* (pick whichever version you want), *The Wolf Man*, all *The Mummy* films, and even *Frankenstein* (although technically speaking, that last isn't exactly about the supernatural per sec.)
But my own idea of "horror" films is about neither homicidal maniacs nor monsters, but ghosts. If it is well done, I find this the scariest type of horror movie of all. A major part of what makes them genuinely frightening is if they don't show much, but leave most of it up to the viewer's imagination.
Some of the most effective ghost stories that fall into this genre: *The Uninvited*, *The Haunting*, and a truly chilling film based on the Henry James novella The Turn of the Screw, *The Innocents*. All three of these excellently made films are extremely scary, and there's nary a knife or saw in sight.
Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 22, 2010 9:46 AM
Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 22, 2010 10:46 AM
-
Nope.
I looked up the Sapphires - a Phillie band, no less. It was a pleasant little song. The video I selected had a picture of someone who looked a lot like Sophia Loren.
Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 21, 2010 8:25 PM
Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 22, 2010 1:01 AM
-
Well, I'm just a low-brow. I find that often the so-called high end, big budget films are wretched. Big stars, big money, and "posh" production values do not necessarily add up to a great or even a good film. Conversely, some of the best movies ever made were put together on a ridiculously tight budget with unknown actors and cheapo sets.
-
I'm afraid that Eleanor Parker just doesn't "do it'" for me. I think of her as whiney and clingy. This is unfair of me, because I only remember her in two films, both of which featured her as a whiney clingy character. I know I've seen her in other roles, but I don't remember them.
The two films I'm referring to are *Between Two Worlds* and *The Man With the Golden Arm*; in both she played an irritatingly anxious and foolish character -although certainly her character in the former was not nearly as contemptible as her character in the latter. She's just annoying (yeah, yeah, in my opinion.)
-
Cinemaven, I know we've not had the friendliest of forum conversations in the past. But please believe me, I never intended to "make the most" out of this thread, or have it go on so long. If others want to discuss the pros and cons of locking old threads or reviving them, fair enough, I have little to say about it one way or the other. I never contrived to stretch this topic out like this, and don't want to be perceived as doing so. "But you are prolonging it by adding yet another post to it." you say. Yes, but only to clarify to you ( and any others who are disapproving of me about this) that it was not my intention. I sincerely want you to believe this, and not make some ulterior motive out of this plain explanatory post. Anyway, I really don't bear you any ill will and wish you would demonstrate a similar friendly indifference to me. No sarcastic happy faces or anything.
-
Arturo, you can't hear it, but I am applauding your post right now. I agree with everything you said, including your hesitation to even post on a thread that uses ultimate terms like "most important" and "greatest". Not to say that I don't like discussing movies, why I like or don't like them, what makes " good", "mediocre", or "bad", because like most people here I do. But I do feel that designations such as "most important" or "greatest" are meaningless.
-
Well, I'm one of those who loves Mulholland Drive. It's like entering a strange dream. It's just so damned mysterious and weird and disturbing; but it doesn't feel contrived, like "yeah, let's stick in a bunch of weird stuff and freak the audience out - they'll think it's art". I've seen movies that do that, and they don't impress me. Mulholland Drive feels like it was just some eerie enigmatic dream floating around that David Lynch managed to grab hold of long enough to make a film out of. (Kind of like that theory that sculptors are just releasing from stone, figures that are already there.)
Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 21, 2010 8:09 PM
-
mrroberts, it seems as though just about everybody has covered this song, or a variation of it. Must be one of those "universal" appeal tunes -either that, or it's easy to play.
Randy Bachman and Burton Cummings, excellent Canadian musicians that they are, remain amongst the few Canadian musical exports that most people outside of Canada have actually heard of.
Randy Bachman has a fun radio show, called "Vinyl Tap", that airs at various times on CBC. It's very eclectic, and each week he takes on a different "theme". I think it's possible to get CBC radio in the States, but I don't know how. Also, probably, through the internet, although again, I don't know how you do it.
Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 21, 2010 10:56 AM
-
Tracey65 was talking about Bo Diddley on another music thread, and it reminded me that I've been meaning to post a Bo Diddley tune for a while. Here's probably one of his most famous, but it's a good one, and the lyrics (not that we can make them out) are a lot of fun:
Just by coincidence, there's a Jesus and Mary Chain cover of this same song. I hadn't been planning to post anything other than Bo, but since we'd just been talking about the Jesus and Mary Chain, it seemed like kismet. So here's their version:
-
Ignorance is bliss. For over a week I was blissfully unaware that I had a glaring mistake in my "Stagecoach/Stage Fright" movie announcement. I don't know if this means nobody looked at, or nobody noticed the mistake, or those who did were too polite to correct me. It wasn't the greatest of "mashups" anyway, and now I wish I could delete it. I've always erroneously thought that Teresa Wright is the heroine in Hitchcock's *Stage Fright*. No, i'ts Jane Wyman. Even after someone set me straight on this, I still revert back to thinking it's Teresa Wright. I have no explanation for why Teresa haunts my Stage Fright dreams. I have nothing against Jane Wyman.
Anyway, I'm probably making it worse by this pathetic admission of ignorance. I just woke up this morning and the first thing I thought was "Hey, that dumb joke about Teresa Wright in Stagecoach/Stage Fright is lame, because it's Jane Wyman in Stage Fright. " (Well, it was kind of on the lame side anyway, but naming the wrong actress makes it lame and incomprehensible.) Anyway, just wanted to correct myself. Carry on.
-
> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}
> It looks like the locking of the Paramount/Universal thread pretty much killed the fresh new conversation that had started on the subject.
Could the few recent comments on the locked thread be somehow copy and pasted or otherwise transferred to this thread? Then we could rename it, and Bob's your uncle.
...Actually, I feel a little silly suggesting that, because I personally have neither knowledge nor that much interest in the subject. Still, the point is, if some people do, maybe they could get the discussion going again here.
-
There should be a law against being that funny. Then you'd have to be on a chain gang.
(Hey, another excuse to play The Pretenders. Or Sam Cooke.)
-
Yikes, I think that most recent Richard Widmark thread was mine. Sorry, mrroberts. I guess you can't have too much Richard Widmark.
"What's all this about duplicate Richard Widmarks. Is someone trying to clone me?"
-
How about " 96 Tears" by Mysterio and the Question Mark (?) ???
-
Cinemalice, how kind of you to respond to my query. Since you expressed some surprise that I had not already "researched the boards" to discover the answer to my question on my own, I will gratify your curiosity by informing you that I never "research" the boards, as I find such activity tedious and time consuming; and look how quickly I got my answer just by doing this. I wasn't aware that we were required to do homework when we start posting here.
I would also like to enlighten you as to my "Posting" habits, since you seem to take such a solicitous interest in them: I do not post on every single thread or start a thread "for every thought that dribbles out of my head". Good heavens, for someone who thinks she's more polite than everyone else around here, that's not a very courteous way to express yourself. Since I've started posting here, I've created approximately 10 threads -that averages out to less than two a month. I did not know it was unseemly to create a lot of threads -what is is the limit, one a month? Fifteen a year? But then, perhaps I should "research the boards" for an answer. You'll also be pleased to find out that the majority of threads on these forums, I don't post on at all.
Again, Cinemalice, thank you for your interest in my tcm forum habits. How sweet you are.
Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 20, 2010 11:44 AM
Edited by: misswonderly on Oct 20, 2010 11:45 AM
-
Wow, the Tom Tom Club are still around? Who knew? (Well, apparently you did.)
When it starts to turn cold, I always wonder more about "street people" and how they manage. Here is a song by Belle and Sebastian, a British group that started in the 90s. It's about a street person called
"Lazy Line Painter Jane". It's a great song, but unfortunately the sound quality is not the best on the youtube clip. Too bad, because the arrangements for this song are fantastic.
-
Thanks, talkietime, that clarifies it a bit. Although they still seem fairly similar to me. Anyway, I love
'em both. merci .
-
Oh, ok. I guess I'm still "new" in some ways (been posting here for about 6 months ). I didn't know that. Fair enough. (Although I still say, they could have said so: "This thread has expired ahd has therefore been locked. If anyone has an interest in this topic, they can start a new one.". Something like that. )
Can anyone help name this movie
in General Discussions
Posted
It does not sound like a film noir to me. Noir rarely involves family dramas of the type described.