JonnyGeetar

you know... As awesome as Citizen Kane is, I actually think Touch of Evil is better...Maybe it's because Kane suffers (from no fault of its own, quite the opposite in fact) from Casablanca Syndrome: it's been so aped, parodied, and quoted that the first time you see it, you feel a trifle as though you've seen it already. Odd since it is so innovative, oh well. ps- saw Mr. Arkadin for the first time the other day, had no idea what the hell was going on, but enjoyed it greatly...even though Welles does look a little like an evil mall Santa.

On the flip side of the "two sentence review" coin, has anyone else here ever read a film/music/tv review in Time magazine that was six paragraphs long and chock full of $5 words, only to have not a damn clue whether the reviewer liked, loved or hated the damn thing when you were done? (I haven't read Time in years, but I know it used to be a real problem.) Pauline Kael and Libby Gelman-Wexler are the only two critics I take seriously...Oh, and Jay Sherman. ps- Maltin gave Roger Corman's The Undead THREE stars. I don't know if it's offensive to use this word or not, but that movie is ****. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Aug 10, 2011 2:01 PM

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}Re: Maltin: On the money or off-target? > > Money *IS* the target. Nice. -JG

My vote is, more often than not: he's off target. Maltin's earned his cachet by being the McDonald's of movie critics: he's reviewed everything , only it seems as if he's a bit glib, glossy, and quick with the overviews. He misses a lot of nuance and (his worst offense) he gives low-budget crap a pass while he is way too hard on A-Level stuff that aims high. Mystery Science Theater often chided Maltin, who inexplicably gave good reviews to a lot of Roger Corman's s***.and gave the atrocious 1980's SciFi movie Laserblast two and a half stars (a half star more than In the Name of the Rose ) He ended up making a cameo in one of their final seasons, defending the really bad British Godzilla ripoff Gorgo , but they really nailed him. But really, there aren't any critics working today whose word I give any weight to. Peter Travers, Roger "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" Ebert, Owen Gleibman: they're all too quick to praise esoteric, pretentious 8mm crap and sometimes they're waaaay to quick to give a pass to big-name studio stuff that stinks, but has big money behind it. I'm not naming names, but oh yeah, there's more than one critic who can be bought. And let's not forget the late Joel Seigel whose review of Brokeback Mountain was one of the most close-minded, prejudiced readings of a film that I can recall. (Look it up on youtube.) Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Aug 9, 2011 2:15 PM

> {quote:title=MovieMadness wrote:}{quote}I think the Rosebud issue was set up as cover, It is sort of like an abstract painting, it is there to allow people to see what they want. That said, my one (and only) issue with Kane is that it is stated repeatedly that Charles Foster Kane was alone when he died, so how did anyone hear him say "Rosebud"? (Poetic liscense, I 'spose)

FROM THE RULES: "posting content or comments that have no relevance to what is being discussed by others, is prohibited." Oh boy. I may as well cancel my profile right here, right now. (millions rejoice)

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > Luckily for many, that image wouldn't be real. Eve Arden had two husbands, neither were Danny Kaye. From wikipedia.org: After Kaye and his wife became estranged,^[[12]|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Kaye#cite_note-TV-11]^^[[67]|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Kaye#cite_note-66]^^[[68]|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Kaye#cite_note-67]^ he was allegedly involved with a succession of women, though he and Fine never divorced.^[[69]|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Kaye#cite_note-68]^^[[70]|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Kaye#cite_note-69]^ The best-known of these women was actress Eve Arden. So you see, I was only partly wrong, but I forgot that you're always right. Ever get nosebleeds living at the top of the mountain?

yes, purpletoasterwaffleiron. SPeeLUNK! ps- I am leaning towards voting Ron Paul in 2012, if that makes you happy...

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote} > I like the funny part where the girl jumps out of the window. Is it wrong that your comment made me laugh out loud? I see your point, but 95% of Stage Door is wisecrackapalooza, 5% is tragedy. Well, maybe 90/10...but Lucy's role is strictly comedic- every scene she's in, she's revved up to an 11- but it works for Lucy. IMO, Stage Door is the best film of 1937- which was a real Crackerjack box of a year. And it is stunning how verite' it is, what with Hepburn playing Hepburn, Rogers playing Rogers, their animosity towards one another spilling into every scene, the dialogue from The Lake, Constance Collier as acting coach...I could keep going. It's like early, early reality TV, only the people have talent and the story is compelling and well-done...and there is one. I am so glad we were spared The Facts of Life and Yours, Mine and Ours yesterday- thank you, TCM. ps- Eve Arden was the best, but it is disturbing to imagine her bumping uglies with (real life husband) Danny Kaye. pss- Hope I didn't ruin Eve Arden for you. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Aug 7, 2011 8:21 PM Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Aug 7, 2011 8:27 PM

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}I'm sure that had that info been up there on the teleprompter, Ben would not have had a problem reciting it. I am reminded, for some reason, of the time Ed Sullivan was doing a bit on live T.V. and the cue-cards had a line about "WW II." Ed read it off as "double-u, double-u, eye-eye." ps- Lucy may have only been in Stage Door for seven minutes, but they are seven fantastic minutes. pss- Stage Door is a comedy.

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}Heck, they showed CITIZEN KANE as part of an Alan Ladd day a few years ago. He's easier to spot by his voice than he is visually as one of the reporters in the shadows. He doesn't even get five minutes. Wow, that is weak. They had more of an excuse to show Rebel Without a Cause as we at least see him for a coupla' seconds in Sal Mineo's locker. Those Fox stars (almost) always get the shaft during SUTS, but I blame FMC for that...Was surprised Gene Tierney got her (much deserved) day last year, though sadly minus Laura The doc on Garfield they showed to fill in the 7:00 pm hour was great, wish they'd show more bio/docs on TCM. I enjoyed Patricia Neal talking about his coaching her during the filming of The Breaking Point: "okay, you're a ****, you get it? A ****!" And she was all "yes, John, I get it." Sigh, Pat Neal was the best. ps- sorry I keep getting off topic.

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}I understand that the title is being changed to THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS FIFTEEN TIMES, OR AS MANY SHOWINGS AS IT TAKES FOR EVERYONE IN NORTH AMERICA TO SEE THIS FILM. Hee-hee. As (mostly) happy as I am with the SUTS line-up this year, I think the prime time choices are lacking greatly. The 8:00 pm slot should be home to the greatest triumph of said star, and that hasn't been the case for Garfield, or Colman, or Davis. And tonight we have Lucille Ball in all of seven minutes of (the otherwise excellent) Stage Door. At least it's better than last year when they had the audacity to show A Face in the Crowd (AGAIN!) at 8:00 as part of Lee Remick's day: she's barely in the thing! And for tomorrow's prime time slot, while Laughton is great in Hunchback (and the film is awesome too): damn, have we not seen it enough already??? (Ostensibly it's on because it appeals to children and it's Essentials Jr , but hasn't the thing already been chosen for Essentials Jr on a past season (or two)? Nonetheless, this year's SUTS is a vast improvement over last year's lameness. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Aug 6, 2011 1:30 PM

> {quote:title=RainingViolets101 wrote:}{quote}I regard Humoresque as Crawford,s best work...it seems as if the part of Helen Wright was written for her...and the ending is Crawford's finest hour as she walks along the beach.... I believe the part was actually written with Ida Lupino in mind, but Crawford is splendid. I kind of sort of agree it is her best work- (it's the only time during the prime of her career that she died on screen.) The Oscar no doubt buoyed her confidence- but what gets me is that it totters on the brink of being a supporting role. She does not show up in the film until, what?, about 40 minutes into the damn thing (and those are forty tedious minutes.) It's always seemed odd to me that, Crawford being CRAWFORD, she didn't demand a re-write to make the thing center more on her. I agree that the ending is a triumph, easily the best scene in the film as it is wordless- just pure direction, none of Odets' "Golly, aren't I brilliant? and by the way: HERE'S THE MESSAGE" dialogue. I like the line of Levant's about how "she has a whole alumnae association behind her"- but his character is there as pure one-liner delivery system, it's not even a character: "how's this? Didn't think that was funny? Here's another! And another..." They should've hired Groucho for the role. It is a well-directed film and gorgeous to look at, but I lay the blame for its failure (in myh eyes at least) square on the Bolshevik shoulders of Clifford Odets. When it comes to classic films, there are some I like and some I don't, but (honestly) very few I hate. I HATE everything Odets had a hand in, from Clash by Night to (ugh!) Golden Boy (one of the hidden turds of 1939) to None but the Lonely Heart to (the WORST) The Big Knife I think Humoresque was actually the "best" thing he ever did.

Watching Humoresque right now. It really is a testament to what good actors Garfield and (yes!) Crawford were that they could handle the awkward, ham-fisted, ludicrously pretentious dialogue of Clifford Odets (my least favorite screenwriter of all time) with such style and ease. Gorgeous cimenatography, great sets, sharp direction, great music- just wish the script didn't clunk so loud. ps- I love Oscar Levant, but I f***ing hate him in this movie. pss- I may be wrong, but isn't this movie supposed to be set in the 1920's? If so they missed on the hairstyles by a couple of decades. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Aug 5, 2011 6:29 PM

> {quote:title=CasaCinema wrote:}{quote} > Does anyone know why A Double Life has never aired on TCM? Or, horror of horrors, have I somehow missed it? I was wondering the exact same thing meself, I mean Homeboy did win an Oscar for it. Instead we're treated to A Tale of Two Cities (again!) and Random Harvest (again) All you Rights Issues people, what's the deal? I believe Double Life is on DVD...

> {quote:title=Fedya wrote:}{quote} > > I thought Ben's intro for THE OLD MAID was great tonight. > It was better than the movie itself, which I didn't think was very good. The weirdest thing about The Old Maid is the scene where the guy Bette is going to marry goes to her room to tell her it's off (because he think's she's sick, and she thinks it's because he knows of her illegitamate child.) They embrace and he says "I release yo..." ...and then it's the most abrupt fade-out in the history of the cinema. Something must have not worked about that scene for it to be cut so harshly- or maybe Miriam Hopkins pulled some strings. Hell, maybe she even snuck into the editing room and spilled some tonic water on the film as it had to be one of Bette's most demanding and dynamic scenes. Either way, it's a very **** moment, given that Warner's was such a sharp studio and Edmund Goulding (he did direct it, right?) was a good director. I think the film suffers for it greatly.

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}Yes, I agree. I dont mind it being gone, but SHOW at least it existed. I post on other boards and they will show it locked or closed......... I don't know if you (or anyone else) has ever noticed this or not, but sometimes certain posts in threads will disappear- and it's not because the original poster went in and deleted it. It's happened to some of my posts, even ones that weren't ranting about The Mank- one happened a coupla' years ago when I made a joke about...how...meander...ing... Eyes ...Wide .... Shut ....was in a Stanley Kubrick thread. That cheesed me off.

> {quote:title=MovieMadness wrote:}{quote}This thread reminds me of the 1972 movie *Ben* for some odd reason. ?:| Maybe it's the "TEAR 'EM APART!" aspect.

> As was pointed out in that other thread, TCM's hiring of Ben M does not mean that TCM has less money to spend on film preservation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We get your point. We really, really do. ...And I get your point (that nothing about TCM ever warrants criticism and they never do anything wrong; that nothing about the net can ever be improved upon and that it's sunshine, lollipops and gumdrops all the way around) after two years of posting, trust me: I really, really do. Why don't you ignore me?, Lord knows I ignore you (I checked the thread before logging in today.) It's my opinion he has no charisma, it's my opinion he doesn't draw people to the net. But the fact that he is unqualified for the job and that he is a superfluous waste of money is just, well, a fact. Every time I point that out, people are so quick with the kumquat/orange/apple analogy. It's starting to irk me. It's like saying spending trillions on defense in no way hurts the budgets for education or the arts, *money is money, and the thousands they waste, er, spend, on retaining the Mank could and should be put to better use.* But really, I think it's great that he's around- it gives all the qualified people who can't find jobs in the unending recession a ray of hope: that someone with zero credentials can get a great (albeit unnecessary) job and make way too much money at it. ASIDE: I don't care for Baldwin at all, but I get that he has gobs of credentials, status and quite likely does draw people to the network who would otherwise not watch. I have no problem with his presence on the net and just use the mute button for his in and outros. I'm like a cocker spaniel with a Gym sock people, I ain't dropping it. Then again, I don't think the Mank is going anywhere, anytime ever. (What other career options does he have, after all?) ps- the other thread's vanishing annoys me too, but it was getting a little tacky. But when you gripe about The Mank, people always throw in unnessecary political crap and stupid, trashy, gossipy bullcrap that clouds the basic reason of my argument: the dude is a waste of space and money. pss- I would take The Mank over Rex Reed. That make anyone happy to hear? Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Aug 4, 2011 11:59 AM

> {quote:title=TopBilled wrote:}{quote}I thought Ben's intro for THE OLD MAID was great tonight. His intros are usually much shorter than R.O.'s, but they are jammed full of interesting information. Yes I had absolutely no idea Davis and Hopkins did not get along, and was stunned to learn Davis didn't get along with Joan Crawford, who knew? Really, Ben is just an absolute dream on toast! So polished, so learn-ed, such condescension! I would highly recommend his collection of film essays if there was one. Or his syndicated column...if he had one. Or his produced screenplay for...oh. Well: that film he direct...um, no. Or that one he produ...Oh. Nevermind. Well, he was on The Practice once, wasn't he? Anyway, thanks TCM for shelling out thousands of dollars to keep him on year after year: it is money well-spent. His unending charisma and Svengali-like charm pull in big numbers I am sure. Besides, I'm sure every film that needs to be preserved has been so, just let the rest rot on their volatile silver-nitrate stock. And who wants to free up the rights issues to countless Paramount and Universal titles we haven't seen in years? Why, if you don't know what you're missing- it doesn't really matter does it? I'm sure Beyond the Forest and Dangerous suck anyway. Yay rah, woop-woop Mank. ps- yes, I am familiar with the Abend decision.

No, I don't believe it. No one who snorts coke could be so consistently boring.

(throws up hands) All right, I give up. I'm going to watch No Man of Her Own (1950) on youtube. (stomp, stomp, stomp) Door shuts. ps- whatever they're paying the Mank, it's too damn much.

Look, screw politics. Forget politics. *BOTTOM LINE:* The dude takes money away from acquiring new films and preserving films- which is (or should be) TCM's primary goal. In spite of the really stellar SUTS line-up this year, the programming on the net has been at best so-so for some time now, with scads of titles in HEAVY rotation while the really fun, between-the-cracks, not-on-dvd, really obscure titles that used to be on stay locked in the salt mines. I cannot imagine how hard it is for the programmers to acquire, wrangle the rights to, and pay for new stuff to show- made even harder since a healthy chunk of cash is dedicated per annum to pay for this un-appealing lump of melted wax who attracts NO ONE to the net, adds no insight to what is shown and has- after almost a decade- not improved on his wooden, stilted and thoroughly un-engrossing delivery. Let the movies introduce themselves and save some damn money, TCM! The Mank serves no purpose

> {quote:title=rayallen wrote:}{quote}Do what I do. > When Ben is on mute the sound, or if you recorded the movie and Ben is the host, fast forward through the intro and just get to the movie. > No Ben to deal with. you are wise man, Mr. Allen, and I like your style. the only footnote I do tack on is that Mankiewicz makes money to do these bumpers. How much money, I don't know, but as he's been on the job for, what, eight?, nine?, ten? years now- I assume it's upwards of $600.00 a bumper segment (this is an estimate based on my time in television years ago.) That's $599.99 too much and it's money that could go to producing in-house docs, acquiring new titles, finally freeing up the rights to some long-lost old titles, restoring classic films, and promoting the network in print media and advertising. But yes, Mr. Allen, I do advocate your viewpoint and admire your Zen. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Aug 3, 2011 1:35 PM

> {quote:title=WonderMoon wrote:}{quote}he does not have many employment options available outside of TCM. That much of your post I do believe. Everything else: eh.