ValentineXavier

Of course W. C. Fields made a career of playing a drunk. But, as said of Barrymore, he wasn't just playing. Errol Flynn plays a good drunk in John Huston's neglected *Roots of Heaven*, but by then, he wasn't just playing, either, even if he was sober on set.

> {quote:title=JefCostello wrote:}{quote} > Good films (minus Easy Rider) > *Easy Rider* was the best of the lot. But, I agree, as far as being Jack's film, the others are better.

I love the Marx Bros. humor. It incorporates both surrealism and Dadaist art. The European art world of their time thought so, and I agree.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > One of the biggest problems with the film is the simple basic fact that an oil field worker cant possibly be a concert pianist, because his hands get all messed up within a few months, working with the heavy equipment. They get scarred, broken, frozen in the winter, and all messed up in general. A concert pianist would never go to work as an oil field worker. > Having grown up in the oil patch, I can say you are spot-on about the hazards of being a roughneck. But, as Miss Wonderly correctly points out, he was so disgusted and disaffected by his previous life that he probably took the job specifically because it would eventually make playing a piano well impossible. *Five Easy Pieces* is a great film. My only quibble with TCM screening it is that it ran over long enough that I missed the last minute or so, even though I had padded the recording time. > The next problem is that the film is dated specifically to 1970, and it is basically a California college-crowd film. Its got stuff in it for California college-kid audiences. Thats because in those days the studios opened their first several weeks of new films in Westwood, near the UCLA campus, so they could get high box-office income during opening weekend, opening week, and opening month, because all the UCLA kids could walk to Westwood to see the latest movies. So this film was made specifically for 1970 UCLA students living in the Westwood area. > > That joke about Alaska being so white and clean was just a simple ecology joke designed for UCLA students, who laughed like crazy when they heard it. All the sex stuff was added to the film so the UCLA girls wouldnt feel so bad about sleeping around, since they were away from home for the first time, and they didnt know if it was ok to do it with a lot of different guys or not. And of course the film makers knew the right time to release the film so it would get maximum publicity. > Now, this is some of the funniest stuff I have read anywhere, in quite a while!

Fred, you need to pick up that Magnavox DVD recorder with the 500GB HDD. You'd love it! I thought you once said that you were getting one.

Fred, for mirror tricks, you really should check out the 1950 film *Orpheus*. It has lots of real mirrors, and other things used as mirrors, like water. We see people walking into mirrors, and exiting mirrors, because that is how to access the underworld. It is amazing what they do, without seeing the camera in the mirror. IIRC, they messed up only once, where you can see a camera, if you look closely. It's a very good film, too.

As a kid growing up in Oklahoma, I watched Gene Autry, Roy Rogers, Hopalong Cassidy films, and Rin Tin Tin was my favorite TV show. I'd guess that most of us of a certain age saw B westerns, when we were kids. Perhaps we liked them then, perhaps we didn't. But, they defined the western for most of us. They were simple entertainment, at best, and rarely anything more. So, it is hardly surprising that many people don't like westerns, or had to discover that some were worthwhile. If we put aside our prejudices, a western is good if it has the same elements that make a film of any genre good. Indeed, westerns can fit in many genres, from the screwball comedy-like *Destry Rides Again* to the intense and affecting drama of *The Ox Bow Incident* to the psychobilly *Johnny Guitar*, to noirs like *Blood on the Moon*, and *Pursued*. My tastes have changed considerably since I was a kid. Gene, Roy, Hopalong and Rinny no longer appeal to me. I have no great love for westerns as a genre, as I do for film noir. But, I have no prejudice against them, and recognize that there are many great ones. Lots of good films have been mentioned already, so I'll just mention a couple of unmentioned favorites that come to mind: *El Topo* *Hombre* with Paul Neuman playing a half-breed *One-eyed Jacks* the only film Brando ever directed *The Appaloosa*, starring Brando, John Saxon, and Anjanette Comer *Forty Guns* directed by Sam Fuller. His other westerns are good, too

Nope, not a bun. She has short hair. A bun is long hair coiled, or wrapped up tightly, so it is tight to the head, and doesn't hang down. Styles could be simple, or elaborate, and might include braids, also tied up. Actually, I guess pinned up would be more accurate.

U.S. states: *Oklahoma* *The Oklahoma Kid* *The Baron of Arizona*

> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote} > Actually, I think it's a viable idea. And no doubt, some owners of those films probably have considered it as a way to re-market them to contemporary audiences. > I find it particularly strange and inconsistent that you would support this idea. As I recall, you said 'silent films are silent for a reason,' and said that you wouldn't even listen to the original score/soundtrack, that was made to go with the film, but watched them in silence. So, now you want them dubbed? That's just too weird. Some countries had a tradition of having live narration for silent films. Japan had the Benshi, narrators that were as much stars as the actors in the films they narrated. Just last night, I went to a showing of Ozu's *I Was Born, But*, with a Benshi, narrating in English, and live musical accompaniment. The music was great, and experiencing the narration was interesting, but not something I'd want to do regularly. Adding voices? A resounding NO from me.

> {quote:title=traceyk65 wrote:}{quote} > > Or Barbarella. I love to hear her justify that one! LOL Take that back, or we'll throw you to the mathmos!

Marlene Dietrich should have been the first one mentioned!

Although some women look good in short hair, I generally prefer long hair. However, I love those sculptured bun hairstyles of the 40s. I've read that those were popularized then so that women working in factories wouldn't get their hair caught in the machinery.

She was a bit Lake-like. They played similar characters. Veronica came across as being a softer person, not as determined as Ella, at least to me. But, I like them both.

If I had known who Mel Brooks and Buck Henry were, or would become, back then, I probably would have watched it!

> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote} > Get Smart is a show I'd probably like. I kinda feel guilty about not liking Get Smart. I watched it a few times when it was originally on TV. But, at the time, (I was in HS) my favorite show was The Man From Uncle. Although a lot of people didn't realize it, TMFU was a satire. Supposedly, at least at the time, Get Smart was intended as a satire of TMFU. A satire of a satire was weird to me, like they didn't realize that TMFU was already a satire, and GS was also a satire of my favorite show. So, I didn't like it. Oh, well...

I've seen *The Web*, most recently in about the last year. I think it might have been on TCM, but I'm sure it was on cable. I like it a lot. Great cast. Price is at his snakily unctuous best. O'Brien plays a good, but kinda naive guy, but Ella allies with him to sort things out. Lots of plot twists. Bendix is almost inscrutable. Check www.allmovie.com for a detailed synopsis, or, to avoid so many spoilers, read their review.

I'm a Fleischer fan too. I wouldn't begrudge others seeing them, but I have managed to collect almost all of them. What I would like to see is some of the old B&W Warner Bros. toons, especially the B&W Porkys. I'd like serials too, and Commando Cody would be fine. I believe we have some Buck Rogers coming up. That's good, but I already have it on DVD.

They did show an Oscar MIchaeux film or two, a couple of months ago. They have shown a few Herb Jeffries "Bronze Buckaroo" films, and other 'race' films, from time to time.,Yes, they should show more, but unfortunately, February is traditionally TCM's 31 Days of Oscars. So, that dominates the schedule.

I'm not a musical fan, so I can't answer all the questions properly. Best Marx Bros. song, I already posted Lydia, the Tattooed Lady. Best singing not in a musical: *Casablanca*, singing the Marseillaise. Best dance scene not in a musical: dance of the vampires in *Fearless Vampire Killers*

A shark isn't even sentient? When I watched *Jaws*, I rooted for the shark.

Terrance Malick has only directed five films so far, including *Badlands* and *Days of Heaven*. Marlon Brando directed only one, *One-eyed Jacks*. Australian director, Ray Lawrence, a less well-known favorite of mine, has only directed three films, all great - *Bliss* 1985, *Lantana* 2001, and *Jindabyne* 2006.

*Flaxy Martin* is a decent film. Flaxy Martin is an indecent woman... Nice to see Virginia lathering on the mayo, and playing a really bad girl.

Some of my favorite TV shows that haven't been mentioned (unless I missed them) The Great American Dream Machine That Was the Week That Was, aka TW3 Johnny Yuma, The Rebel Wanted, Dead or Alive One Step Beyond Science Fiction Theater The Westerner (the darkest, noiriest TV show ever made, starring Brian Keith) Great Ghost Tales Topper East Side, West Side (George C. Scott playing a social worker) You Bet Your Life Star Trek (the original, of course) The Outer Limits Babylon 5 Push, Nevada (blinked, and it was gone...) My Living Doll (with Julie Newmar) I'll add the PBS Mystery series, which had Inspector Morse, but so many more, like Rumpole of the Bailey, Prime Suspect... I can't agree that Route 66 and Dobie Gillis were bad, they were good... Edited by: ValentineXavier on Feb 1, 2011 10:03 PM

> {quote:title=Ascotrudgeracer wrote:}{quote} > I regret starting this thread. > But there is something about the rehab industry, the prices they charge, the failure rate (always blaming the patient, not their treatments) and people always looking for "supports" rather than being independent and SELF-reliant, that is irritating to me. > > Since no one here agrees with me, I will admit I am wrong, as usual, and I apologize sincerely to anyone I have offended. I'm not offended. I also accept that the rehab biz, especially for 'stars,' might be a bit of a racket. But, I don't think most people who have a drug or alcohol problem can defeat it by themselves. If they had that much strength of will, they probably wouldn't become dependent in the first place. Stars with such problems are naturally going to seek out very posh rehab facilities, and are going to get charged for all the amenities. Of course, whether such a facility does provide good quality professional help is another question, one I can't answer. Your statement above seems to be a bit conflicted. You say that the rehab places always blame their failures on the patient. Then, you say that the patient should be "independent and self-reliant," meaning they don't need a rehab place. Perhaps some rehab attempts do fail, due to poor service by the rehab place. But surely, a patient must want to be rehabilitated, in order to be successful. I don't exactly follow stars with these sorts of problems. But, I do read the news, and see such an article from time to time. It seems to me that some of them don't really want to reform, but just go through the motions, for the public, their mates, the courts, etc. I'm not sure it is appropriate to blame a rehab facility for their failures.