misswonderly3
-
Posts
12,768 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
36
Posts posted by misswonderly3
-
-
Actually, seriously, I cannot understand why TCM never airs The Pajama Game. Now that's a pro-union movie ! Plus, it's a lot of fun ! It would be a great choice for Labour Day. Hey there, TCM programmers, you with the stars in your eyes, get on it !
-
3
-
-
On 8/31/2018 at 11:35 PM, slaytonf said:
A major attraction of TCM for me, naturally, is its liberal bias. Love those up the people flicks! But here it is, another Labor Day weekend, and no worker movie marathon--to say nothing about May Day. You know, looking at things on the whole, a gnawing fear that the lefty lean of the channel is just a pose is beginning to grip me. On two holiday weekends, Memorial and Veterans Days, we get three days of war movies. And you can toss in 4 July, too. In December, we get a whole month drowning in Christmasy schmaltz and sugar coating, and not one movie involving Kwanza, or Chanukah. I--I don't know. . .I--
(sigh) Agonizing reappraisals.
Well, there's always Picnic. They've shown that on Labour Day weekend a few times, I think. Not very political or union-ish, but hey, it's got Kim Novak and William Holden dancing to "Moonglow", what more can you want?
-
2
-
-
30 minutes ago, Emily Emerac said:
At first glance I actually thought it was Nina Foch.
Looks more like Nina than it does Laraine.
-
22 minutes ago, Hoganman1 said:
I love these old movie posters. I guess they don't use them that much anymore with everything being online. I have replicas of the Casablanca and Gone with the Wind posters. I displayed them in my office before I retired. I think they're still available for purchase for those of us who want them.
Right, I like them too.
But do you think the woman in that poster even remotely resembles Laraine Day, the woman who stars in the film?
-
Has anyone already started a thread about this? I didn't see one... Anyway, I'm delighted to see this feature in TCM's programming this month. It includes quite a few rare films, including at least one by Oscar Micheaux, a director whose work I've always wanted to see.
I'm also looking forward to Anna Lucasta, The Learning Tree, and several others, some of which I'm pretty sure are new to TCM.
-
1
-
-
By the way, people, take a look at the promo poster for The Locket. The supposed image of Laraine Day looks oddly modern, and uh, just wrong - doesn't look a bit like Laraine. Now, I know the posters back then often gave a very different impression of the film they were advertising than what met the reality, but really, this image of the woman in the film looks like a totally different person.
Waddya think?
-
2 hours ago, lavenderblue19 said:
Fay Helm played Mrs. Bonner, the one in the wheelchair. Nancy steals her necklace when they are at the party at Helm's and Ricardo Cortez's ( Mr. Bonner) house. Mr. Bonner probably walked in on Nancy stealing the necklace so she shot him.
Thanks for that info, lavender. Oddly enough, wiki does not mention her in its cast list, even though it includes bit part actors with fewer lines than she had.
I do think it's interesting that the fact that Nancy is responsible for the deaths of two people -- Mr. Bonner, whom she killed directly, and the hapless servant who was blamed for the murder and subsequently executed -- is of less importance to the other characters in The Locket than the fact that she was a thief and a liar.
-
1
-
-
Nice to see so many posts the first day we get back to Noir Alley.
Re. The Locket: I'm usually pretty open to sticking the label "noir" onto films that some might not think fit that genre (or style), but I think it's stretching things a bit to call The Locket a film noir. Ok, it had some nice black and white cinematography, and yes, some of the main characters were troubled, to say the least. That's about the extent of the noir elements. I would call it more a melodrama, or "psychological drama", something like that. A kind of sub-genre that was popular, as Eddie pointed out, in the late 40s and early 50s.
This is not to say I didn't enjoy the film. I always like Robert Mitchum, and Laraine Day was convincing, not to mention so pretty in this. (Laraine fans, check her out in Foreign Correspondent, she's quite good. Fun Hitch movie.) And yes, the Russian nesting doll flashback thing worked, I agree with everyone who says it was not hard to follow at all.
I do have a few questions, though: Like others here, I had to wonder how she ended up with the brother of the rich little girl who'd befriended her when they were children. We don't see that it's the same family until almost the end, when the mother puts the locket around her neck. ! ! That mother was a bee-atch. Horrible snobbish nasty woman. So, how come, if Nancy's going to marry this guy, she'd never met the mother before? Or if she had, did the mother really not recognize her? I know it's supposed to be 20 or so years (Nancy's about 30?) since they laid eyes on each other, but still...seems odd neither one would recognize the other.
Here's another question: What really happened back when she was 10 and the horrid rich woman was bullying her to confess she'd stolen the locket? Nancy tells Norman (the Robert Mitchum character) that she did not take it, that her mother the servant found the locket while straightening out the rich little girl's party dress. Hmm. Ok, maybe.
But aside from anything else, this kid needs to get a life. It's not normal to covet something to that extent that you feel your life is ruined if you don't have it. I suppose some would argue that the locket is just a metaphor for Nancy's wanting something, maybe not a piece of jewellery...security? respect from b1tchy rich people? love? two slices of birthday cake?
Another question: How come Mitch's character offs himself? I don't believe he was that in love with Nancy; he seemed to be a guy who had his feet on the ground, his suicide does not feel authentic to me. Plus, if he were as concerned about the execution of an innocent man as he claimed, he could have gone to the authorities and told them he lied when he testified about where he and Nancy were when the murder victim was shot. Whether Nancy confessed or not, they would have at least staid the execution to investigate. But of course, the poor butler or whoever he was who was wrongly executed was just a mcguffin. And everyone seemed more concerned with Nancy's kleptomania than her indifference to allowing an innocent man to be sent to his death.
Anyway, these are quibbles. And in spite of them, I enjoyed The Locket.
-
2
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, GGGGerald said:
During these difficult times, think of all the beautiful maple trees that are allowed to live because of your dear sacrifice.
As you can see with the newspaper industry, paper itself is going away in many areas of life. Change is always a part of life and TCM has to adjust or get left behind. I prefer to look at the positives of TCM. Because in this world, you don't get anything for free.
If TCM kept the printed version, they would have to cut something else. And frankly, as long as its good films commercial free , I can deal with the rest.
Ok, Gerald, but really, I was just being sympathetic to the original poster. Although I did prefer the hard copy version of "Now Playing", the switch to the on-line version wasn't something that haunted my dreams or anything.
I actually rarely complain about anything TCM does ( except not screening certain films in Canada, which is probably not their fault, but a rights issue.) And I would not have created a thread about this particular topic myself; as I say, I was just empathizing with the O.P.
However, as for books, I will never want to read books on a screen. I stick by that. As for trees and paper use, we have more to worry about with the ongoing destruction of the rain forests than we have about paper from trees that are planted, grown, harvested, and replanted for the specific purpose of producing paper.
sorry if I seem curt, you're actually a poster here who I like a lot. But I don't like feeling reproved for not appreciating Turner Classic Movies, when in fact, as I said, I never complain about anything they do - unlike lots of people here.
-
1
-
1
-
-
No, you're not alone. I'm very "old school", and vastly prefer reading printed hard-copy text of any kind to on-line reading. I never read "Ebooks" - old-fashioned,turn-the-page, bound books for me !
Same thing with "Now Playing". I really liked getting it in the mail, and enjoyed just holding it in my hands and being able to browse through it. I find everything I look up on-line less enjoyable in terms of finding the information I want. Plus I dislike scrolling, it's harder on my eyes, - - I could go on, but I realize I sound like a cranky old thing.
"Gol darn it, I just can't keep up with this dad-blasted digital nonsense. Where's a nice tangible magazine or book when you need it?" (I'm making fun of myself, not anyone else who prefers hard copy to digital....)
Yes, it's too bad TCM eliminated their hard copy Now Playing monthly magazine. I suppose it saves costs, and there are probably a lot of people who are just as happy to read it that way. Guess you and I are not among them, though.
-
5
-
1
-
-
On 8/30/2018 at 12:34 PM, CaveGirl said:
Good!
More of Zachary for me...
Oh, I didn't know we could share up classic movie stars. Hey, this presents any number of possibilities !
-
1
-
-
I love The Pajama Game. It's my favourite Doris Day movie. And, come to think of it, it's also one of my favourite musicals. I 've never understood why it isn't more well-known. As far as I know, TCM has never aired it - - is this some kind of rights issue?
The Pajama Game is everything a musical should be: lively, fun, romantic, with great songs and exuberant dance numbers. I recommend it whole-heartedly to anyone who likes good musicals.
Here's just a taste of the kind of entertainment you get in this delightful film:
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, calvinnme said:
I agree with what you say. l actually saw this film for the first time on TV when I was about ten, so I didn't really understand what was going on, but I did remember it because it somewhat traumatized me. I saw it again for the second time on TCM a few years back. Actually, moving into a dangerous part of town, going into a weird guy's apartment, etc. is a known part of PTSD as it is experienced by rape victims. They often do risky things, repeatedly, looking for a different outcome than what happened in their rape. This was documented in the book "Lucky" by Alice Sebold who was raped by a complete stranger and deliberately moved to very sketchy parts of New York City years later. She had no idea why she was doing this sort of thing at the time. However, if this wasn't really known until 1990 by mental health professionals, I'd like to know if Jack Garfein had any insight into the behavior of rape victims when he made this film, or if he was just trying to be edgy. I also wonder if the baby Baker's character was having was weirdo husband's or if it was the rapist's. It was not clear to me which was the case.
I will say this. It was refreshing to see rape handled as something that really traumatizes the victim and effects the choices that they make versus rape being portrayed as it is in "Anatomy of A Murder" just two years before where Lee Remick describes what happened to her as though she is describing how she had a one car accident that resulted in her running over a stop sign.
Thanks, Calvinme, for your comments, you make some good points.
First, it's too bad you saw Something Wild when you were ten. I, too, saw some disturbing films on tv when I was a kid - can't remember if my parents were around, or if it was after school or what, but even the best-intentioned parents couldn't always monitor everything their kid watched on tv all the time. That film is certainly one that a ten year old would not understand, but would be upset by, all the more so because they did not understand it.
Re: the post-traumatic syndrome of a rape victim deliberately seeking out similar dangerous situations, whether as some kind of catalyst or to have a better outcome, or for whatever indiscernible reason they may have: Yes, I've heard of that, and meant to mention it in my write-up. And it's certainly the only explanation that makes any kind of sense, as to Mary Ann's risky behaviour. It did occur to me that she was following some kind of self-destructive course of action because of psychological reasons too arcane and complex for me to comprehend. But I also feel that the viewer shouldn't have to try to guess so much as to her motivations. Now, I don't like films that spell everything out for the viewer, and movies that assume the audience is smart and can figure some things out for themselves are often very good films. But Something Wild gave us nothing - - we don't even have any idea what Mary Ann was like before she's raped.
I have heard of that book you mention, "Lucky". I remember when it came out, I was working in a book store at the time. For some reason I thought they'd made a movie about it, but when I looked it up I could find no mention of any such film (there is a movie called "Lucky" but it's not at all connected....)
I, too, wondered who the father of her baby was. How horrible if it's the rapist's . But I think we're supposed to think that it's Ralph Meeker's. Still, some of those early scenes after the rape, where she's feeling faint and ill and fatigued and nauseous - all early pregnancy symptoms. Hmm.
Anyway, you're right about how, whatever the film lacks, you have to credit Jack Garfein and the rest of the crew, including of course Miss Baker, for daring to make a movie about a rape victim. And for not trying to sexualize it in any way ( as you say, a bit too much of that in "Anatomy of a Murder".) At no point in Something Wild is Carroll Baker made to look sexy or glamourous. She looks consistently young, vulnerable, frightened , but never set up as a sexually alluring female filmed for "the male gaze". Good for them on that angle.
-
2
-
1
-
-
SOMETHING WILD
(Not the 1986 one, which is not a remake of this 1961 film.)
Hoo, boy, I honestly don't know what to say about this one. It's one of those films I'd always heard about and always been curious to see. So now I have. I can cross it off my list, I have no desire to see it again.
I would go SPOILERS , but honestly, there's not really enough plot to worry about giving anything away.
Now, I have no problem with plotless films; a movie doesn't always have to be about plot, and there are loads of great films that prove that. However, it has to have something - and no, I'm not making a pun on the title. In fact, it's the title that attracted me, I thought a film with a title like that would be fun, or at least interesting. But, despite the potential to be interesting (ok, once you find out the subject matter you know it's not going to be fun), I found Something Wild to be, well, rather dull. Certainly not engaging.
Briefly: A young woman on her way home one night is pulled into some bushes and raped. Her attacker immediately flees - he's not part of the story. The story, such as it is, is how this traumatized girl responds to what has happened to her. Now back in 1961, a rape victim, as we all know, often felt she could not tell anyone what has happened to her, and this is the case with Mary Ann (played well enough by Carroll Baker.) She does not tell the police, she does not tell her mother , with whom she lives. That's understandable, nobody would tell such a thing to a mother like that - a woman who seems to worry more about what the neighbours will think than about her daughter's well-being. But Mary Ann doesn't seem to have any friends, no one to whom she can talk about her horrible experience.
She leaves home, finds a very sketchy, dirty-looking apartment with a creepy landlord and a noisy, crude woman who lives next to her flat. She gets a job at a Woolworth's , and tries to make a go of living on her own and getting over the brutal sexual attack. But because she has no one to tell about it, she becomes increasingly depressed. After a few days ( I think - the time line is not clear, and I suppose it doesn't really matter), she leaves her job in the middle of the day, claiming she's sick (her co-workers don't like her and have bullied her), and wanders onto one of those New York bridges overlooking the river (or the sea?) It looks as though she's about to throw herself over when a man rushes up to her and pulls her away.
The man, played by Ralph Meeker, feels one of those "I've saved your life so now we're connected" things; also, he's lonely and somewhat dysfunctional himself, and he's attracted to the girl he's saved. He invites her to rest in his apartment, and - why does she do this?? - Mary Ann agrees. Once there, the man keeps her a prisoner. It reminded me a bit of a later British film, The Collector. A lonely messed-up man who can't connect in the normal way with women decides to keep a pretty girl prisoner, hoping she'll fall in love with him. He does not attempt sexual contact with her, except when he's drunk. He does attack her fairly early on in her imprisonment, but he's very drunk, she repels him by kicking him in the eye, which causes him permanent eye damage.
I'm afraid I'm going into too much detail on the plot, which I originally said didn't count for much. Ok, long story short, she escapes one day when he's forgotten to lock the door. She wanders around, enjoying her freedom. I thought she might return to her mother's place, but no, she just wanders around, falls asleep in Central Park, and then, presumably refreshed by her night under the stars, returns to her kidnapper and marries him !
Next scene, it's several months later, winter, Christmas time. Her mother has received a letter from her at last. The mother goes to her new home - the same appalling basement apartment she was held prisoner in - meets her daughter's husband - the man who took her prisoner and at one point tried to rape her - and is told that she's married, happy, and expecting a baby.
That's the end !
The reason I went into such detail on the storyline is to demonstrate how there are so many choices Mary Ann makes that don't make any sense. She's raped walking home alone at night, yet she chooses to move out and live all alone in a sketchy scary old building with a creepy landlord who openly ogles her. How would this move in any way make her feel safer? We know she has a poor relationship with her mother, but how is living all by herself surrounded by potential rapists any better?
Her school goals: she seems very young, I wasn't even sure if she was still in high school or attending college. College, I guess. It's not clear to me if she quits, or if it's just summertime and school's out for the summer. Why does she choose to quit (probably) and get a nowhere job at a five and dime? Ok, we know she's traumatized and not thinking straight. But we have to guess what she's thinking and feeling throughout the whole movie, since there's actually little dialogue from any of the characters, including Mary Ann, that would illuminate us as to their motives or who they are or what they're about.
Why would she willingly walk into a strange man's home? I don't buy it that she's exhausted and depressed and suffering the mental after-effects of a sexual attack, therefore she doesn't know what she's doing. There are so many things she does that don't make sense to me, and we never get to find out what's going on in her head. In fact, I felt I knew as little about Mary Ann, who she is, what she wants from life, why she makes the choices she does, at the end of the film as at its beginning.
I know Something Wild is supposed to be "different", and daring for its time, and edgy, and all that. But I just thought it was a bit dull, I did not like any of the characters - including Mary Ann - and a frustrating movie to watch. I'm not sorry I saw it, since I'd always wanted to, but I don't plan to ever see it again.
EDIT: There was one thing about Something Wild I liked a lot: It's set and filmed on location in New York City, and you get a real sense of what NYC was like then, especially the less glamourous areas of it. There are lots of scenes of actual New York brownstone apartments, bridges, parks, gritty streets with funny little stores, subway stations, things like that. The on-location NYC shooting was the best thing about this film.
-
4
-
-
On 8/25/2018 at 10:11 AM, CaveGirl said:
I woke up last night and the tv was still on and there was Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet in a movie I'd never seen so I had to watch. Basically Greenstreet as Grodman of Scotland Yard had been sacked and replaced by the great George Coulouris, of Kane fame, as his successor, Buckley due to a rather upsetting malfeasance of justice. Now we see a murdered boarder being found by Rosalind Ivan, as the annoying landlady, pounding on doors of the boarding house and windows on nearby dwellings, which could wake the dead, but didn't in this case. Who has killed this stiff, is now the big question. Many people are questioned, including the stately Paul Cavanaugh, who has some secrets about other men's wives and also stage performer, Lottie who is played by Joan Lorring. I wasn't too big on her Cockney sounding accent but otherwise she was okay. The air of a Jack the Ripper infused London is swathing the entire atmosphere of the film, though I have no idea about what time period it is set in. Lorre as usual, as an offbeat artist named Victor is superb, staying unflappable no matter what happens. Those eyes, those downward glances, the voice! Who cannot love seeing him say things in his typically lanquid manner like "Oh...you got blood on my shirt. I just may have to kill you." Okay, he didn't say that in this film but he could have which is all that counts. He and Greenstreet just make the perfect team and all their interplay is enjoyable to watch. The movie was nearing its end, I was mesmerized and then...the mesmerizing resulted in my accidentally going back to sleep on my down-filled couch and now I will never know who did the nasty deed. If anyone can tell me who the murderer was, I will be appreciative. I was leaning towards it being Greenstreet so please inform me if I was right.
Well,it would help if you said anywhere in your post what the title of the movie was.
edit: Ok, I did a little detective work of my own - well, not really, I just googled something like "film with george coulouris peter lorre sydney greenstreet" and it came up with The Verdict. So at least we know the title now. However, I've never seen this film, so cannot answer your question. Maybe now that we know the title, someone else can.
-
On 8/24/2018 at 1:25 PM, CaveGirl said:
I wouldn't care either if he was an escaped prisoner or was friends with Carrot Top.
It's Zachary Scott for gosh sakes! So suave and sophisticated.
Now you know you will have a good time with him, unless you've got a daughter named Veda.Really ? Hate to be disagreeable, but I've never really warmed to Zachary Scott. I wouldn't even mind his rather stiff acting style, if he were as handsome as many seem to think he is. Guess he's just not my type. But, chacun a son gout.
-
1
-
-
By the way, I like Christmas movies, even the usual popular ones that get shown every year.
Just thought of another noir suggestion: There's a few scenes in They Live by Night that take place at Christmas time. Again, it would be quite a stretch to claim it's a Christmas movie per sec, but still, Keechie and Bowie have a couple of sweet gifts for one another, and I think there's even a sad tiny little tree in their sad tiny little hide-out.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ChristineHoard said:
Christmas Noir is fine right around Christmas but November 24?!? We're inundated with Christmas movies, commercials, promotions, decorations, etc. the second Halloween ends and sometimes before. Please, no Christmas Noir on November 24. Can't we wait at least until December?
But noir "Christmas" movies are not exactly typical heart-warming, feel-good family Yuletide fare; therefore I would argue that unlike such "regular" Christmas offerings, noir Christmas films would be a welcome change. And certainly they are not shown over and over again, to the point where even one's favourite "holiday" movies can wear a little thin. Also, since most noirs are, as we all know, , edgy, often dark (in more ways than one), and altogether the opposite of sentimental etc., they would not cloy a Christmas-film-weary audience; so I don't believe we'd tire of them the same way as with the usual suspects.
And actually, there are lots of noirs that, if not exactly Christmas -themed, are set at Christmas time. Just to name a few:
Christmas Holiday and Lady on a Train...ok, Deanna Durbin isn't exactly an icon of noir. But it's just a bit of a stretch to say that these two are at least kind of noirish, and they certainly don't get aired very often.
The Lady in the Lake: Robert Montgomery's plucky albeit not always successful attempt at subjective camera; Audrey Totter's the best thing in it. Anyway, it takes place over Christmas and New Year's.
Kiss of Death: Well, it's not exactly a "holiday" movie, but it does begin at Christmas time, complete with department store decorations etc. Victor Mature does a little stealing, but hey, it's just because he wants to buy his family some nice Christmas gifts.
Also - I could be mistaken about this one, but I think The Sweet Smell of Success is set over the week between Christmas and New Year's. maybe not,can't remember....
Lots more, I just can't bring them to mind. Oh, honourable mention: It's not a classic era noir, but what about
L.A. Confidential? It's a pretty darn good neo-noir, and it's set over the holidays. And hey, I have no problem watching Kevin Spacey in it.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, CaveGirl said:
I find him very attractive too, but I get your drift, Miss Wonderly. But he could make those pretty eyes squint a bit when he wanted to scare someone, and he could scare me a lot.
Have you ever noticed that often the actors who can do the best scaring, are really nice guys in reality, like him and George Macready? I never in my life saw anyone in person do that narrowing their eyes to slits look, that you see often on soap operas till a few years ago with a wacko woman who worked where I did. She came up to me, and gave me this look where her eyes narrowed and she looked like she was ready to pull out a knife, and all I could do was kind of laugh, since it only reminded me of movie villains.Interesting you mention George Macready. I just watched "Paths of Glory" last night , where he plays an obnoxious - I'm tempted to say "evil" -French general.
Richard Widmark is another great example of a guy who often - particularly in the first half of his career - played horrible people,psychos or racists or weirdos, whatever - and apparently was an absolute sweetheart in real life, long-term marriage, only the one wife, pleasant and professional with all his co-stars and directors, etc.
I don't know about narrowed eyes, but he sure looks scary here:
So, did you find out what the wacko co-worker's problem was?
-
4 hours ago, CaveGirl said:
Your comment about Ryan looking 35 when he was 12 made me laugh. I'm trying to think who said it, but I can't remember, but some other actor said he liked Ryan's face since it looked like it had been run over by a semi-truck! He did have a roughened look and boy, could he make those beady eyes go into slits when he was ticked off!
Really? I've never thought of Robert Ryan as "beady-eyed". In fact, he has rather nice eyes.
Actually, I would say his eyes often convey a certain sadness, even when he's roughing someone up ("Why do they make me do it ? !")Now, it's true, since he often plays the "bad guy", he does sometimes narrow his eyes to look menacing. Comme ca:
But on the whole, I love Robert Ryan: his face, his eyes, his acting, and almost all the films he was in. He's one of my faves.
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Bethluvsfilms said:
Oh brother!
Does that mean any film made by Adam Sandler, Will Farrell, or Jack Black may end up taking home an Oscar?
Because if that's the case the Academy Awards will end up losing whatever respectability it has left by going this route. It won't be any different (or better) than the MTV Movie Awards.
I like all three of those guys !
-
Here's one I really miss:
-
1
-
1
-
-
This one was quite long...it was magical.
-
2
-
-
Actually, at the risk of looking like the contrarian in the room, I don't really mind the backlot commercials, or for that matter, even the wine ads. For one thing, any TCM promo, even if it's about selling their own products, is still more watchable than the majority of regular tv commercials. For another, I dunno, I just find them not all that bad.
BUT ! "That said", what I do mind about them is they have more or less replaced the really well-done, interesting, and fun TCM "bumper" ads, or "interstitials" - not sure what they're called - that TCM used to show on a regular basis. I mean those little, maybe one minute long, bits TCM used to show , usually right before a movie, maybe to get us in the mood.
Some of these included an animated film looking very noirish, with late night subway riders, a woman in the window of a brownstone walkup, and an all night diner. Another featured clips of different things and places that resembled film - I mean, they looked like actual celluloid- like a man running up some steps, the sun rising on the windows of a factory, a train....hard to describe, I tried to find it on the web to post it here, but no luck. But anyone who's seen it, I'm sure they'll agree with me, it was genius.
I also remember some funny little shorts, back in maybe 2006 or so: they showed a still from some movie (there were a few different ones) on a brick wall, as though the film still were graffitti. One had an old couple walking down the street, the old man looks at the image on the wall. I think it was Lolita. He kind of smirks at it, and his wife pushes him to continue their walk, glaring disapprovingly at the alluring image of Lolita. Again, absolutely brilliant, so clever and funny and so well-executed.
They must have at one time had a whole staff making these smart, funny, entertaining, movie-loving little promos; I loved them. Haven't seen anything like the ones I described for a long time - guess they had to make way for the ads they have now. That's pretty much the main thing I don't like about the ads: they replaced those incredibly imaginative and creative little shorts.
I tried to find some to post here as an example, but had great difficulty finding anything. It may be because I don't know exactly what to type in to find them. But here's one:
Anybody remember what I'm talking about here?
-
2
-
1
-
I'm beginning to doubt TCM's liberal credentials.
in General Discussions
Posted
Actually, Vautrin baby, I'm pretty sure they did show My Son John at least once. I can't remember when, but I do recall watching it in real time on TCM at some point within the past 5 years or so.
Although I like Robert Walker, my recollection of the film was , it wasn't particularly good.
What's more fun is the '50s sci fi flicks about Commie paranoia, all those alien monsters standing in for Communists. They're taking over !