ValentineXavier

Well, I wish they would repeat *Amarcord*, because it was interrupted by an emergency broadcast test on my local Comcast. I won't repeat the rest of my reasons why most people want repeats at one time or another. But, I WILL repeat, from another thread, that TCM has far and away the fewest repeats of any movie channel, even the premium ones. Do you complain about repeats on FMC, HBO, STARZ, Cinemax? I'd bet that none of them shows more than 20% as many different titles as TCM, in any given month. To say TCM has too many repeats is absolutely ridiculous!

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > > > And why did they hate the Koreans? > > > > If you had seen the first part of the film, maybe then you'd have your answer. > > > You don?t have any legitimate answer, do you? Because they were viewed as intruders in the black neighborhood, and as exploiters, selling things at too high a price. But Lee's well-written film makes it clear that they are in much the same boat as the black people in the neighborhood, so that isn't really true. Of course Sal can have pictures of whoever he wants in his restaurant. But, have no black celebs ever visited his restaurant? His pizza parlor is in a nearly all-black neighbor hood, and almost all of his customers are black. So, why no photos at all of anyone black? The film makes the point over and over again that all these people have their individual viewpoints, and all have some legitimacy, even though they are at odds. So, the question is, What *is* the right thing ? If you had seen the whole film, I think you'd probably understand all this. Spike Lee is a great director, with a wide range. As I posted on another thread where he was discussed, DtRT, *Malcolm X*, and *Four Little Girls* are probably his greatest films, but he has made many, some that are just good entertainment, like *Inside Man*. Edited by: ValentineXavier on Mar 8, 2011 8:52 PM Edited by: ValentineXavier on Mar 8, 2011 8:52 PM

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > Maybe DeNiro got tired of taking each role so very seriously and now just wants to have fun. He's certainly earned the opportunity to take roles for the fun of it. Probably so. After all, how could he ever top "Harry Tuttle" of Central Services?

> {quote:title=JonnyGeetar wrote:}{quote} > I've always felt that the set decor for the 1962 version is too claustrophobic and not Baroque enough (which was maybe the idea.) Surely that was the idea. The film is deliberately about as claustrophobic as you can get. That's a large part of the film.

> {quote:title=Ascotrudgeracer wrote:}{quote} > Amazing! In my post I was going to mention Day-Lewis as the one modern example who has exhibited integrity in his career choices. Well, I love *Eversmile New Jersey*, but a lot of people think it stinks. *Berserk* and *Burnt Offerings* are classics, at least to some of us. I think that a lot of actors just want to keep working, not just for the money, but because it is what they do. So, they just have to take the beast roles offered them, even if they aren't great roles.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > I think it needs to be washed and dry cleaned. Fred, Fred, Fred! Then people will accuse TCM of sanitizing its films...

I was in high school when it came out, and saw it then. I found it to be the most horrifying film I'd ever seen. It was so intense I never watched it again, until TCM had it on a few weeks ago. I liked it on my second viewing. It was still frightening, but also poignant. A well done film, with two great actresses, and a fine supporting cast.

The film I was thinking of is called *The Concrete Jungle*, or *The Criminal*, (same film.)

Number one sounds a little like *Heaven With a Barbed Wire Fence* with Glen Ford. But, with that description, it could even be *The Egg and I*.

Thanks, Kyle. Yeah, a Warhol film just might violate "standards and practices." Or, perhaps MOMA doesn't have a digital transfer.

I agree with your other "tentpoles," but to me, *2001* is an epic, certainly far more than Star Wars, and LOTR.

Nino Rota for just about anything he did!

In the theater, I always sit through the entrance and exit music. If the film was good, the exit music extends the afterglow nicely. I do often take an intermission, for food and or bladder, during that music. When I record such films to DVD, I put chapter stops at the beginning and ending of the musical interludes. Even though my DVD recorder will record on double layer discs, I sometimes break long films at the end of the intermission music, and put the rest on a second disc.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > . I hate epics. GWTW should have ended with Scarlet's holding up that handful of Tara's soil and *vowing she'd never be hungry again.* I often like epics, but agree about GWTW. That's one of its funniest lines, and a good place to end. I don't have a problem with violence in film, if it is appropriate to the film, and done from what I consider the proper perspective. I don't like *Pulp Fiction*, because it is amoral, and makes violence stylish and good fun. I don't like *The Godfather*, because it glamorizes and romanticizes violence, and the people who commit it, as well as humanizing them. Films like *Blood Simple* and *Fargo* do have violence, but have a moral point of view, so I can appreciate them. Japanese director Takeshi Kitano's *Fireworks* (Hana-Bi) is as violent as almost anything Tarrantino has made, but it is an intensely moral film, and I enjoy it immensely. And Tarrantino is a fan of it, saying he wishes he had made it. I don't think he gets it, because I don't see that he has ever tried to make a film like it. Generally, inappropriate violence bothers me more than inappropriate sex. I think it's really the opposite of what Fred says was the rationale of the Hays Office. It's easier to be violent, and we have more opportunities to be violent, than most of us do to have sex. Inappropriate violence in films is mean, bordering on evil, and destructive of society. But inappropriate sex is just silly and sophomoric. I think that many films today feel that they have to go well beyond what has been in previous films, just to get noticed. And, that goes well beyond sex and violence. Much is exaggerated to the point of absurdity, but not necessarily meant as comedy. I don't like that element of modern film making. Fortunately, there are still lots of films made that don't make that mistake.

The IMDb has been working fine for me, on Firefox. They recently changed their format, so it looks different. I prefer the old format, which is still selectable.

There is an ep of the classic Twilight Zone where a southern guy's hunting hound helps him discern heaven from hell. There is Dick Powell playing "Rex Shepard" in *You Can Never Tell*. There is "Blood," the dog in *A Boy and his Dog*, who seems as human as any of the humans.

Of course I know that popular opinion of *Heaven's Gate* was very negative. A few years after its original release at 149m, I saw the 219m director's version in a theater. I was stunned. I find it to be the best epic film about the US in that era I've seen. Its biggest problem is that there are too many gaps in the last third. Thus, I say it needs to be 20m longer.

I would agree that most, probably all, of your list are epics. But, I see a few omissions... One of my favorite epics is *Heaven's Gate*. At 219m, I think it's about 20 minutes short. I'd have to call *Seven Samurai*, at 207m, an epic. I'd call *Fitzcaraldo*, at 158m an epic. One of my favorite films, *O, Lucky Man*, at 183m isn't what most people would call an epic, but it's scope is vast, so I would. The length of a film doesn't matter to me, if it sustains, and uses its time. I'm sure there are 90m films that are too long, and some well over two hours that could be longer. I have watched all 450m of Bela Tarr's *Satantango*, okay, in two sittings... so length doesn't scare me.

I think that was a British film starring Stanley Baker. I don't have time to check the IMDb right now, but you could...

Johnny Weismuller, and Audie Murphy. How about people who started in Vaudeville, like the Marx Bros, Jimmie Durante...

You'll need a supersonic jet to keep up with *Rodan*. I think *Rodan* is my favorite Japanese monster film. I love the parts down in the mine. I like the miners who are scared to death. I like seeing more suburban residential areas, instead of the cliched tall buildings. Years ago, here on the U of Mich. campus, a campus film society showed two Japanese monster films side-by-side, that is, at the same time, on screens right next to each other. What an experience! Interestingly, it seemed as if they were both on a schedule. When the scientists were conferring in one, they were conferring in the other. When the monster was destroying buildings in one, the monster in the other was doing likewise. Most, but not quite all, of the two films coincided like this.

Thanks for confirming I wasn't hallucinating. I figured that's what happened.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. Sadly, that came all-too-close to being true, and was actually taking place in Darwin's time, i.e. the genocide of Native Americans by the European invaders. Of course we use more polite terms than "savage races" today.

Obviously, *TTM* is a better film than *TGG*. But, I like complexly-plotted, difficult to explain films, so I don't really buy your generalization. *Syriana* is an excellent film, and any reasonable "log line" would be longer than the one for *TGG*. Also, one could easily write a shorter one for *TGG*, and a longer one for *TTM*. That said, I might buy your generalization as applying to box office, or to pitches for funding. Edited by: ValentineXavier on Mar 1, 2011 8:29 PM

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote} > Roman Bohnen (Andrews' father) pronounced her name Hor-TENSE, which I found unusual. > > Edited by: finance on Mar 1, 2011 3:12 PM Well, he wouldn't pronounce it ****-tense, now would he?