JonnyGeetar

In my opinion your opinion is 100% valid. The end of December-into-January schedule was as wacky a line-up as ever we've seen. Fail Safe as an encore for NYE, Night of the Living Dead, shorts galore (many without any discernable theme or reason to be played), Close Encounters and The Searchers BOTH ON TWICE WITHIN FIVE DAYS, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington for the 200th time, The Marx Brothers, some Z-Grade horror and DOA as the first movie of the New Year. And I know I'm forgetting to mention a few other oddballs. I think the money in the 2011 programming budget just ran out and it was either this or Suck it: 48 Hours of "The Yearling", Whether You Like it or Not. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Jan 2, 2012 9:51 AM

Must disagree on two big fronts: FEBRUARY is the most depressing month of the year and Lansbury was (is) a terrific actress- p'raps you should have seen some of her film triumphs (like her Oscar-nommed role in The Manchurian Candidate before ye ripped on her so harshly.) That said, her films are in heavier rotation on TCM than any other star I can think of. Gaslight is in the top ten when it comes to repeat offenders. All Fall Down (which will surely be featured on Malden's month), National Velvet, Dorian Gray, Blue Hawaii and even her less common titles like Mr. Buddwing, Henry Orient and that boring love-triangle thing she did with Peter Finch and Jane Fonda show up constantly throughout the year. There was a period a few years ago when Bedknobs and Broomsticks would show up twice a month, thank GOD it seems to have been put back on the shelf (don't think it's even part of the tribute this month, thank you Film Gods.) Ev'ry month is Angie's month on TCM and that is why I can't work up much enthusiasm for January. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Jan 2, 2012 9:36 AM

Her choices (aside from the rarely screened The Front ) are a trifle uninspired, but nonetheless, she did a fantastic job guest hosting this summer and she's been fantastic thus far tonight- the anecdotes are inspired, her rapport with Os is great and her entusiasm is palpable. I really wish she was doing The Essentials instead of Drew Poo.

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote}{quote} > I think there is much more subtlety and variety in Hepburn's work than she is given credit for here. She did a considerable amount of Shakespeare. I don't think I can see Stanwyck touring with the Old Vic. Well yes, but can you see Hepburn in Double Indemnity or Ball of Fire ? Or even Sorry, Wrong Number ?- which is a film whose success is owed in entirety to the fact that Stanwyck is about the only actress who could pull off the mix of being unlikeable and yet compelling that is required. The end to that movie is such a stunner because we don't expect such a thing to happen to Barbara Stanwyck. Being a smart actor means knowing your limits and what's right (or wrong) for you. And you never know, Stanwyck may well have stunned as Lady Macbeth had she been given the chance, I just don't think she had the interest or thought that sort of thing would be the right fit. (Stanwyck had a very modern appearance and sensibility, in fact I can't think of many period pieces that she did outside of her westerns and Man With a Cloak. ) Stanwyck's decision to play a remorseless cold-blooded murderess in Indeminity, whom we see commiting the act with premeditation and an animal-like hate was really a first in its degree (to me it tops even the eeeeeville Bette Davis does in The Little Foxes ) was a brave choice that rewarded her, gaver her a second persona, broadened her range and inspired a lot of other actresses (Gene Tierney in Leave Her to Heaven comes to mind) to do the same.

> {quote:title=JonnyGeetar wrote:}{quote} And it's interesting that for Stanwyck'scomplete lack of misfired performances, she was (IMO) the gutsiest damn actress of the day, taking real risks with her acting in Martha Ivers, Double Indemnity, Miracle Woman, Bitter Tea of General Yen and Walk on the Wild Side each one a bolder, braver turn that anything Bette Davis did (again IMO) I've been thinking about it, typoes aside, I was _very wrong_ to write this. Bette's work in Human Bondage, Now, Voyager, Juarez, and All About Eve (as well as some others I may neglect to mention) is as gutsy and bold as anything Stanwyck ever did. All apologies to Bette, (please don't come up out of the grave to get me.) Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Dec 20, 2011 7:17 PM

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}Funny thing about Stanwyck. I love her work, but she didn't really continue to make films that received the same degree of notice that Davis and Hepburn did in their later years. She had no Baby Jane or Sweet Charlotte; or Lion in Winter or Guess Who's Coming to Dinner in her golden years...Maybe she stayed at Paramount too long. Actually, I think Stanwyck (like Irene Dunne) was more of a freelancer- she worked all over town (WB, Universal, Columbia and Paramount), much to the alleged ire of Bette Davis. And, Like Dunne, I think that goes a good way towards explaining why she never won the Oscar (she never had studio support that a contractee would've.) A lot of people also maybe considered Stanwyck and Dunne's continuing to get good roles independently as their own reward. Let's also not forget that Baby Jane and Sweet Charlotte were not of the same status or held in the so high a regard as Lion and (undeservedly) Dinner and Hepburn's film career cooled considerably after 1968,+ the Golden Pond+ Oscar being a surprise, but momentary uptick. I will say this for Stanwyck, I have never seen any performance of hers that I would classify as a failure. Even in her final film, 1964's The Night Walker which is (like everything else William Castle EVER did) a heap of steaming garbage she's solid. Meet John Doe, Christmas in Connecticut, Jeopardy!, The Two Misses Carrolls and Crime of Passion- each has considerable faults, but Stanwyck ain't one of 'em. And it's interesting that for her complete lack of misfired performances, she was (IMO) the gutsiest damn actress of the day, taking real risks with her acting in Martha Ivers, Double Indemnity, Miracle Woman, Bitter Tea of General Yen and Walk on the Wild Side each one a bolder, braver turn that anything Bette Davis did (again IMO) And on the subject of Bette Davis, I love Bette Davis, but she reached a point of no return with 1956's A Catered Affair wherein she blatantly milked the audience for sympathy in an utterly desperate and pathetic bid for love that the same Bette of ten years before would never have done. She does the same thing in Pocketful of Miracles and Sweet Charlotte- the last film is one I personally consider to be her worst performance. The courage of her 1940's roles is totally gone, replaced with mannerisms and a "LOVE ME!" plea to the audience that makes Shelley Winters at her whimpering worst seem low-key. ps- I love Shelley too. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Dec 20, 2011 6:58 PM

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote}To me, however, sometimes she seems to be doing the same thing every time...almost "playing herself", so to speak. Yes, but as Anothony Hopkins says in the tribute that oft airs between films on TCM: "what a personality." Sydney Greenstreet, Nigel Bruce, Peter Lorre, Gladys George, George Sanders, Cary Grant, Bille Burke- and numerous other classic film actors often played "the same character." Many times we assume that that character is in fact a mirror of the personality of the actor him or herself...But again, what a personality, and what an utter delight to watch. It's one of the (numerous) things I bemoan about the present state of the film industry- these bobble-headed, vapid lollipops have no personality. I have no interest in watching them play someone else, and I certainly have no interest in watching any of them play themselves. P'raps what turned off many people then (and turns off many people now) about Hepburn is the aloof, icy, patrician undercurrent to her persona, what many people see as the holier-than-thou New Englander, the Bryn Mawryness of her speech, the occasional feyness that creeps in to her earlier work....I get it, but to those people I recommend Stage Door as a great example of how she was humbly willing to poke fun at what many people percieved her image to be. To a lesser extent she does much of the same in The Philadelphia Story. Of the numerous Hepburn films that I have seen, the only two performances of hers that I would definitely classify as failures are Morning Glory (for which she oddly enough won the Oscar even though she's utterly stilted and awkward) and Suddenly Last Summer (for which she was undeservedly nominated, and in which she is blown off the screen by Elizabeth Taylor.) To be fair, I have not seen Spitfire (which is her own personal Nell ) or Dragonseed. I understand she may be crummy in both. Is there the "Hepburn Persona" on display in all her work?, of course. Just as the Stanwyck Persona, the Crawford Persona, and the Davis persona are always lingering in the background in all their films. When you have that large a personality, you can't help but bring it with you. But is there nuance and honesty and emotion accurately portrayed in most (if not all) her work? Absolutely. And, the ultimate test, is she inn-teresting to watch? For me, ab-so-lutely. Recommended viewing: The Sea of Grass (1947), Sylvia Scarlett (1935), Long Day's Journey into Night (1962), Holiday (1938), Stage Door (1937), Christopher Strong (1933), Alice Adams (1935)

> {quote:title=mrroberts wrote:}{quote}Give it about 25 years, if its still being talked about then it may be considered a classic Oh, it's happening. I'm positive 25 years from now people will be saying: "wow, do you remember Mission Impossible IV: Ghost Protocol ? That movie totally sucked. " It's funny, a friend of mine and I were talking yesterday about how much someone would have to pay us to watch MI:IV:GP . I settled on $80.00 because I am superbroke, yet somehow $60.00 just wouldn't be enough for my pain and suffering. My friend, who has a good chunk of change in the bank, said she'd see it for $1,000. (she can afford to charge the adequate and fair pain and suffering rate.) Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Dec 17, 2011 3:32 PM

I made it about 150ish pages into Our Mutual Friend and I was intrigued, but overwhelmed. I enjoyed the dark tone and dark comedy but following the plot was more energy than I could mentally muster at the time. In many other cases with Dickens I will make it a hundred or two pages into a book and then take an extended break, only to pick it up later and finish it (such was the case with Copperfield. ) I could certainly see with Our Mutual Friend that Dickens was gravitating towards detective fiction. There are elements of mystery in it and Bleak House, but again- I just had to come up for air. I saw some of the BBC version of Friend, which I had to use as "Cliff's Notes" of a sort to make sure that I was understanding just what in the hell was going on. It was interesting, but I did note that they moved some big elements of the plot forward (the husband and wife who mistakenly marry thinking each is rich when they are dirt poor happens very early in the movie.) I have to say, I liked the book Bleak House, and made it through in one straight shoot, but also had to check out the 2005(?) BBC version as a kind of flow chart. I remember reading nothing but critical praise for it. I absolutely could not stand it it was so awful and most of the acting was too, too over-the-top. They guy playing Grandfather Smallweed was waaaaay too young and the worst case of overracting. They cut out some of the funnier, more interesting, elements of the plot and they had this REALLY ANNOYING tendency to do long establishing shots with Matrix -style jump cuts accompanied by the whooshing! sound of an arrow at the start of EVERY scene. It really got old fast. Gillian Anderson was, however, beyond fantastic in it. Just about the only thing I liked about the whole damn, dreary affair. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Dec 7, 2011 1:26 PM Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Dec 7, 2011 1:27 PM Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Dec 7, 2011 1:30 PM

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Really? I would have put "Oliver Twist" as his third best-known work, with "Great Expectations" further down the list. But I'm certainly no literary behemoth. s'allright. as you said, it's arguable. i was supposed to read Great Expectations for three different classes in college and I never did. I just do not care for it. Love the Lean movie though. I read Oliver Twist in college and kind of sort of liked it, but it has some really big plot holes that detract from the overall impact of the book. Fast forward many years later and I was living in California. I had quit reading and felt the need to try again as I was struggling with some depression issues. I recalled my sister telling me how much she loved A Tale of Two Cities, so I picked up a second-hand copy. What a book! One of my best memories of an experience with a book will always be sitting on the Universal lot reading ATOTC on my lunch break, and remembering how much fun it can be to read. Since then I read David Copperfied which I really, really liked; Hard Times which is all right, Pickwick Papers which is very good and in places quite funny and (last winter) Bleak House- which I liked a good deal. I keep meaning to get another big long Dickens to spend the coming winter with...But I've tried Our Mutual Friend and The Old Curiosity Shop on for size a few times and had a hard time getting "in" to both. But I do have much love and respect for Chuck D. Does he sometimes go on a little longer than need? P'raps- but he is so eloquent and humorous with such insight on humanity that I personally forgive him for taking three and a half pages to say "Dora went to the market and got some eggs." Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Dec 7, 2011 8:08 AM

> {quote:title=Hibi wrote:}{quote}SPOILER QUESTION. > > My cable company decided to run a weather alert when they were opening the crypt. > That is way weak. I'm so sorry. If you'd like to catch up pn what you missed, the film is in six parts on youtube. I like it quite a bit, personally. It has the right (dark) tone and it almost pre-code in its depiction of the opium den, plus a nicely theatrical ending.

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}What is interesting to me is that film adaptations of, arguably, Dickens' two best-known works, TALE OF TWO CITIES and DAVID COPPERFIELD, were both released by MGM in 1935. Very arguably. I'd argue his two best known are Great Expectations and Oliver Twist. The 1947 film version of the first is the Dickens adaptation to beat them all. Personally though, I think Copperfield and (especially!) Two Cities are his two finest books. Both of the 1935 MGM adaptations come up a leetle short of the thrill one gets reading them.

Maybe it was that terrible hairpiece, but I just didn't completely dig Reginald Owen as Scrooge. Someone else mentioned Ernest Thesinger, that would have been fabby beyond words (of course Ernest Thesinger as anyone in anything would be fabby beyond words.) Meself, I was thinking KARLOFF: THE UNCANNY would've nailed the role of Scrooge, but I'm sure he never would've gotten that role at that studio at that (or any other?) time. Shame Universal didn't get to the property first (was it in the Public Domain by then?) a version directed by James Whale with Karloff, Thesinger as The Ghost of Christmas Past, and Claude Raines as Jacob Marley would've been something to see. ps- I also thought the kid playing Tiny Tim in the 1938(?) MGM version looked like Shelley Duvall and the Demon Puppet from Child's Play had some kind of hellish offspring. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Dec 6, 2011 5:46 PM

Miss W., your concept of "mean" and my concept of "mean" are in whole different zip codes they're so far apart. On the kvetch-o-meter this thread rates a three out of ten- but I see your point. My take on the overly detailed plot synopsiseses is this: you know the scene in In a Lonely Place where Bogie takes the hat check girl home and she's thrilled at the chance to recap the lurid plot of the novel in great detail to someone so important? It's kind of sort of the same deal with the wikipedia/imdb/tcmdb plot synopsi- enthusiastic writers looking to cut their teeth and show their admiration for something by regurging every detail down...It's actually not bad practice for people looking to improve their writing skills (of course, I think of the Capote quote "that's not writing, that's typing" but you gots to start somewheres, no?) Wikipedia often puts something in bold blue at the top of the article that says (in effect) "YO! THIS PLOT SYNOPSIS MAY BE OVERLY DETAILED AND NEEDS EDITING." Often when I return, it has been. I've also discovered the FAQ section under the TRIVIA entries for films on imdb- sometimes those are done by some folks who it would seem have ample free time on their hands. This sort of thing goes on in all sorts of different circles though. A year ago, I read the book The Woodlanders by Thomas Hardy. It was excellent- in no small part to the fact that you want to keep reading it to see how it's going to end, and when it does, POW! you really don't see what's coming. I loved it so much, I decided- after I was done- to read the arty little five page foreward they always have some English Lit professor from Harvard or Yale or Cambridge tack on at the very beginning. The stupid cow not only missed many of the main points of the novel, SHE GAVE AWAY THE ENDING COMPLETELY IN THE FINAL PARAGRAPH OF HER ESSAY! AND the paragraph stood by itself on a page that faced the title page to the book, it would have been rather easy to let one's eyes wander to the left and see the ending right there- thus ruining the whole experience. So I see where you're coming from. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Dec 5, 2011 9:09 AM

Herbert Marshall,Gladys George, and Jan Sterling.

Ees fonny. I kind of sort of watched this yesterday morning as I was doing the laundry and loading the dishwasher and various other little things. Every review I have ever read compared this movie most unfavorably to Rene Clair's 1945 version And Then There Were None. While I admit I did not devote 100% of myself to the 1966 version, I have to say I liked it a good deal better than the Rene Clair film. As much as I like Clair (and many of the castmemembers of the 1945 version) I feel like there is far too much comedy in that version and no real suspense. It's like he's going for the "Lubitsch Touch," even though it is hardly appropriate for the suject matter (it's like trying to give The Green Berets or The Silence of the Lambs the "Lubitsch Touch.") Oh, and since people are so touchy about spoilers I'll just say that the actor who plays the murderer in the 1945 version is very miscast. The '66 version moved, it was suspenseful, well-shot and the music (while a tad on the DeVolish trumpet fanfare side) packed a nicely outre' wallop. I guess my one beef would be that they in almost no real way deviated from the plot of the original- so there was utterly no mystery as to how it would all play out. ps- was Fabian the hero or the first victim? Just personal curiosity.I'm not good as identifying my 50's pop idols. pss- I may well have misspelled "Lubitsch." All apologies, the man was a genius.

Wow. I have always had this on my "want to see" list as the title is brilliant, I'm intrigued by the "disaster" genre, and I remember this used to play on Cinemax years ago...I caught some of it then, but had to go to work or something and it has always stuck with me. For those who missed: a terrorist has planted seven bombs on a British ocean liner on a pleasure voyage in the north sea. He demands a half-million pound ransom or he'll blow up the ship (which can't be evacuated due to the rough seas) Bomb expert Richard Harris has to come in to save the day (just having your life depend on the steady hand of Richard Harris is enough of a premise to build immeasurable suspense on!) What a wonderful film! Fast-paced, no fat, none of the "two-days-from-retirement" stereotypes, believable (with a couple of slightly dubious theatrical moments involving the owner of the cruise ship line and the representative of Her Majesty's government- which nonetheless are inn-teresting, and as resonant and relevant now as I'm sure they were then.) Crack dialogue, smart mix of scenes dealing with the action on the ship and the hunt on the ground for the terrorist bomber...THIS THING WAS ROBBED OF AN OSCAR NOMINATION FOR BEST EDITING! Terrific ensemble acting- wisely there is no "star" of the show, although Richard Harris takes acting honors, abandoning his guy-liner (and looking about twenty years older then he did in Camelot from seven years before this) and delivering his world-weary, slightly nihilistic lines with a downright Shakespearean flair. Best of all, I really enjoyed the adept use of comedy- the kind of strange, ironic black comedy that comes in real life but is so hard to accurately capture in film and books. It's laugh-out-loud, scream-out-loud, never a dull moment, don't stop for air, don't stop to ask questions, move-move-move, bang-bang highly intelligent action- in essence: everything that movies made today are not. (And what higher compliment is there than that?) If you missed it, rent it on Netflix or check it out the next time it airs (especially those of you who are writing screenplays as it is a great example of how to present a smart story that moves, is believable, and is as entertaining as a five-alarm fire.) Well played, all involved, well played. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Nov 18, 2011 10:20 AM

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote} JAWS is an exceptionally well-made film and at times even more cerebral than given credit for, but like PSYCHO, it's one of those films that is perceived as being considerably more graphic than it is. I really liked everything you wrote in your post, but I single this out as something I am in particular agreement with you on. This is the reason why I get mad with Spielberg for Hook and War of the Worlds (which sorry, I thought was lame) and (arrrrgh!) Indiana Jones and the Quest for More Money- he is capable of so much more- I mean, (obviously) I don't know a lot about filmmaking, but to me, Jaws is one of the best examples you can site when pointing out good direction in movies. Here he was, very young, very new, up against the odds- no budget, egotistical actors, a lame rubber shark, an actor's (?) strike looming- and he makes a very smart, well-directed, terrifiying,and intelligent film that is not all "in your face" with the direction- a great film in spite of all the reasons why it should not have worked (and there were many.) On music alone- he and Williams trick the audience with Pavlovian intensity- cueing us to expect the shark when we hear the music, clueing us in that the shark is not really present in the scene with the cardboard fin, using the child singing Do You Know The Muffin Man? and the men singing The UCLA Fight Song (sic?) immediately proceeding the shark attacks- there's almost a literary quality to it (as is having Quint sing Farewell and Adieu (To You Fair Spanish Ladies) - the same song Ahab sings in Moby Dick. Then, near the end, he scares us shitless at least twice having the shark pop up with no music cue whatsoever- showing us all bets are off. It's an all-round brilliant film.

> {quote:title=TikiSoo wrote:}{quote}I didn't bother to watch because I can't think of any director or composer I care less for than Spielberg & Williams. Yeah, I feel you. To be fair- I would cite Raider of the Lost Ark and Jaws as two of the absolute BEST examples of a score making a film and a film making a score- going together in an absolutely brilliant synchronicity and working to evoke a mood and feel (and in the case of Jaws ) further the story in a very, very clever way. For Williams, I would say his good scores are excellent- some of the best ever. But I think often his MUSIC is *TOO BIG *and *SWEEPING!!!! *for some of his other efforts, and I get how people say he often recycles or has the same kind of sound (the 1979 Dracula comes to mind as an example of his returning to the standard well once too often.) I got no beef with Williams though. Spielberg on the other hand (and I know the AFI thing was a show strictly devoted to the subject of music scoring, but I don't care) is someone who *I NEVER WANT TO HEAR FROM AGAIN ON THE SUBJECT OF MOVIEMAKING.* I am about as free-thinking and non-censorship, free-speech, Libertarian as they come, but as far as I am concerned SPIELBERG NEEDS TO GIVE BACK BOTH OSCARS AND THE THALBERG, SURRENDER HIS DGA CARD AND TAKE (AT THE VERY LEAST) A FIVE YEAR SABBATICAL FROM "FILM"-MAKING. Why the hate? I was willing to forget Hook. I'm willing to overlook the fact that The Color Purple, while a beautiful and funny film, is based on a story that was never meant to be told in a beautiful or funny way. I overlook some of my issues with Schindler's List (it's a film about Jews without a single real Jewish character.) I forgive him for The Lost World. Saving Private Ryan I like. Jaws is easily in my top five faves, But Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull??? *NO. STEVEN SPIELBERG, WE WILL NEVER FORGIVE YOU FOR THAT. NEVER.* (I can't add anything to that that South Park did not absolutely nail.) Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Nov 16, 2011 10:03 AM

> {quote:title=MontyC wrote:}{quote}There's a big difference (both in quality & subject matter) between HOARDERS and MOVIES STARS & MOGULS. Absolutely. Hoarders is both compelling and informative. > {quote:title=MontyC wrote:}{quote}I'm not too interested in seeing James Lipton interview Will Smith either (although you can't argue there are a lot worse things one could be watching). Actually, I really- honestly and completely- cannot think of anything worse than watching James Lipton interviewing Will Smith...Well, maybe if he brought Jada and those damn kids along (which I wouldn't put past him.) Seriously, I'd rather watch a six hour loop of Keeping up with the Kardashians or re-runs of Mama's Family than James Lipton and Will Smith having a tet-a-tet. (Shudder!)

> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote}Once again I apologize to Jonny Geetar for my unnecessary sarcasm. Sarcasm is never unnecessary. Without sarcasm some of us would be utterly unable to get up in the morning or put one foot in front of the other. Never apologize for sarcasm! That said, my "ya'll" remark was a trifle elitist and b*tchy. I'm just that way lately. I'm s...s...sss....(gagging)...ssss....s... orry. JG

SOME OUT OF THE BOX SUGGESTIONS FOR 31 DAYS Seems to me as these films haven't been seen in a while: 1. Save the Tiger (1973) 2. A Touch of Class (1973) 3. The Day of the Locust (1975) 4. The Letter (1929) 5. Sadie Thompson (1927) 6. The Patriot (1929) 7. Svengali (1931) 8. Bad Girl (1932) 9. The General Died at Dawn (1936) 10. B.F.'s Daughter (1948) 11. The Sniper (1952) 12. Billy Budd (1962) 13. The Cardinal (1963) 14. Freud (1962) 15. Women in Love (1970) I quite possibly got some of the years wrong- and I know it's top-heavy with films from the 70's. I'm not one of those that has issues with Post-Nixon era films airing.

> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote} Y'all, it's a RED LETTER DAY in the history of the message boards of TCM. Jonny Geetar actually said something nice about TCM. Mark your diaries & calendars. It may never happen again. I will disagree with you on the point of the trailer for Lonely Are the Brave. Didn't that just show up in the Michael Douglas tribute. Wrong and wrong, Miss Baby. I could cite numerous other instances wherein I have given my "programming is on the uptick/ Temple Drake/ Constant Nymph/ Vastly improved SUTS line-up/ the programmers jobs are not easy" spiel. Someone, dig up the thread about the Lonely are the Brave trailer (yes, the whole trailer, not the clip from the Michael Douglas tribute) airing repeatedly (something like seven times) even after we found out they did not have the rights to show the film and it was not, as repeatedly promised, showing it at 11:30 on whatever night in September they repeatedly claimed it would be on. In both cases, I'm not very good at digging through the archives but some of you who are more tech savvy and have a more relaxed shedule today than I, feel free. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Nov 10, 2011 12:43 PM- ps, really one should refrain from using the word "ya'll" in one's correspondences, unless one is quoting from Buddy Ebsen or Gabby Hayes. But again- free country.

I'm sensing a growing dissatisfaction with the programming choices of late, from the new line-up of The Essentials to The 31 Days to the third Burt Lancaster tribute in four months that ran about a week ago. One reason I say this: the last few posts dedicated to these topics have been (I must say) refreshingly free from the "Defenders of the Realm" with their "why are you so mad because TCM doesn't play what you want to see, it's not all about you; apples and oranges! apples and oranges!; how dare you besmirch the good name of TCM, don't you know how hard they try to get the permission to rent these titles, you're lucky they even show movies for you ungrateful bastids!; why all the negativity?, it reflects poorly on us as a community when you don't agree with us that nothing is ever wrong with the network" soft-shoe routine. That said, allow me to grab my top hat and cane and do a little routine in their place: The programming from August into this fall on the net has been a big improvement over recent years, SUTS was the best they've had in years, the Kirk Douglas and Buster Keaton months were great (although their repeatedly showing the trailer for Lonely are the Brave and not pulling it when it turned out they didn't have the rights to show the movie was pure laziness), Temple Drake was nice, and The Constant Nymph was a real treat. I know it's not easy for the programmers, with their limited budget and the tangled rights issues and the fact that a lot of studios are just plain DUMB about how they manage their catalogues, to get films to show. Also, and this is the biggee: it's November, the 31 Days sched is not complete, maybe the films listed are just a bedrock of "The Usual Suspects" on which a trove of new and thoughtful selections will be placed. Let us keep our fingers crossed. That said, if I may be allowed to foist a few suggestions whilst the sched is stillbeing hammered out: 1. Try showing some of the Oscar-nominated documentaries from years past. I'm not against foreign films either. Lord knows I'd prefer Rashoman or Bill and Coo or Hearts and Minds over Around the World in 80 Days. 2. Please incorporate more from the very early years of the show- surely some of these titles are in the public domain and I don't care if they're not in pristine condition (Lord knows that's never stopped you from showing some titles before) I, for one, would rather watch an iffy print of The Letter from 1929 than view From Here to Eternity or Gaslight for the n-thousandth time. 3. End the festival with a whole day of well-reveared movies that did not earn a single nomination: Paths of Glory, His Girl Friday, The Searchers- any discussion of the Academy Awards must include the sad fact that they are, ahem, not exactly always on the money. 4. Include moments from past shows during the commercials. It would be such fun to actually see clips of these films and stars winning than to see the usual "Frankenheimer on Burt Lancaster" promo or those g-damn smarmy Pete Smith specialties. They're all on youtube, surely The Academy would not begrudge you the rights to show them. 5. PLEASE LIST WHAT NOMINATIONS A FILM RECIEVED IN WHICH CATEGORIES BEFORE YOU SHOW IT. You used to do this. WE ALWAYS ASK YOU TO DO IT AGAIN AND FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS YOU HAVE NOT. It is really annoying. Thank you. Anyone who has anything else to add, please feel free to thow in. Anyone who wants to chastise us for being a bunch of Negative Nancies and griping about "the best darn network on TV" also feel free to speak up- it's a free(ish) country. Edited by: JonnyGeetar on Nov 10, 2011 10:24 AM

I am so with you on Scars of Dracula. In spite of its flaws, it is the scariest and most entertaining Dracula film ever. Hate that it's always left off the list when TCM drags out the Hammer titles- I think there must be some sort of rights issue.