Sprocket_Man

> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote} > Cornel's wife Jean Wallace sang the song that played during the opening credits of BEACH RED. I thought she did a rather good job. She is billed as a 'guest star' for her role in the film. Just what every war film needs: a torch song to get the audience in the mood for the carnage to follow.

> {quote:title=TikiSoo wrote:}{quote} > Of course, then I was sucked in (who _wants_ to vacuum?) and I so much enjoyed the background scenery. (and the cars!) You don't realize how quickly the landscape has changed until you see a glaring example like that film. Not ONE chain store or restaurant was to be seen. (OK one, I saw a Sears sign) If you'd had the presence of mind to first turn off your vacuum cleaner, you wouldn't have been sucked in.

> {quote:title=Scott99 wrote:}{quote} > I am looking for the title of a movie set during World War 2 in which allied POW's held by the German's in a castle must get a prisoner out before the German's find out who he really is and the secret information he has. The POW's build a glider just in time to launch their escape. > > Thanks The basic plot is based on the real-life attempt by British P.O.W.'s interned in Germany's supposedly escape-proof Colditz Castle during World War II. They actually built a working glider, which they were intent on launching, but were ordered by superiors in London (to whom information was being passed) not to make the attempt, as Allied forces were already so close to liberating the prisoners that the risk on the escapees' lives wasn't warranted. After the surrounding town was taken by American troops, they were literally moments away from shelling Colditz Castle because they thought it might contain holdout Nazi troops. An alert artillery spotter saw a British Union flag hanging from a castle window and contacted the battery commander just before he was to give the order to open fire. They grabbed a child from the town and asked him who was inside the Castle: "Oh, there are British in there," he replied. And so the glider-builders were saved, even if they never got to fly their creation.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} >I saw the 2-1/4 hour version of the film at the Museum of Modern Art in New York in 1965, and it was all movie, no still photos, and it was fine. Since you've never seen the version Stroheim shot and edited together, how can you say what you did see is "fine?" You've nothing with which to compare it. The film was butchered, all right, but by Irving Thalberg decades before you were born. The version reconstructed from the complete script (which survives) and still photos is not being represented as anything other than an approximation of Stroheim's intentions (as though anything incorporating stills because the film footage no longer exists can ever be taken as anything else) -- the best one possible under the circumstances; it is, in effect, like hearing anecdotal descriptions of something that is no longer around to be examined directly. As such, it's you who butchers the technique of analyzing the film (only one of many), without presenting any logical and considered rationale for doing so.

> {quote:title=movieman1957 wrote:}{quote} > Even Gummo (brother number 4) saw the writing on the wall. He went to war and became comfortable in the dress business. Except that Gummo (Milton Marx) left the family act to become a theatrical agent.

PATTON and THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES. They were just about the last two great movies to ever come out of Hollywood.

Though two-time Oscar winner Luise Rainer, and Gloria Stuart each turned 100 during 2010, each made relatively few films, beginning in 1932. It got me thinking: what's the oldest film with a surviving cast member? Logic suggested that that actor would actually be substantially younger than either Misses Rainer or Stuart. The winner? Jackie Cooper who, at the age of seven, had a small part in BOXING GLOVES (1929), eighty-one years ago. If anyone can think of a still-living actor actor who started working earlier than Cooper, I'd like to hear it.

The below quote fails to address my statement: where was arch right-winger Mayer when all this was going on? This wasn't some Pete Smith "Specialty," James Fitzpatrick "TravelTalk" or minor B-filler; would he not be keeping tabs on a major production featuring two of his biggest stars? Would he have not read the script? The man had spies all over the studio reporting every bit of gossip and transgression against his notions of Mon, Apple Pie and Americanism. In the end, KEEPER OF THE FLAME uses Fascism as its spectre in the dark, and it is no harder on that particular form of tyranny than, say, Frank Capra's Why We Fight informational films for the War Department were. I've read the novel, Keeper of the Flame; I have a copy, a first edition, on my shelf, and the movie makes no statements about Fascism's being a lurking menace on the American landscape that I.A.R. Wylie's book doesn't also. Of course, you also keep evading my other observation: Why do you keep standing up for Fascism?

> {quote:title=MovieProfessor wrote:}{quote} >The reason was that Tracy & Hepburn had garnered lots of respect along the way of their celebrated careers. I think there were enough right-wing columnists in Hollywood that they'd have eagerly exposed Hepburn on the basis of her politics alone, but those leanings and Tracy's own political conservatism probably canceled each other out, leaving the pair their privacy. There is, too, the obvious factor of studio pressure on said press -- up to and including a boycott on buying ads in publications -- to keep those sort of things out of the papers.

> {quote:title=greenkneehighs wrote:}{quote} > The reason why is because it's one of Peter O'Toole's first film roles; he wasn't yet a leading man in the movies. But when it came out, a director by the name of David Lean saw it and decided that the young actor playing the "silly **** Englishman" would be perfect for the lead of a movie he was going to film- Lawrence of Arabia That's not precisely true, since Lean cast Albert Finney as Lawrence; had Finney not walked off the picture a couple of weeks into shooting, forcing Lean and producer Sam Spiegel to scramble to replace their lead in LAWRENCE, O'Toole's career would probably have followed a rather different trajectory.

Dorian was an appalling choice to be host of AMC's old telecasts. There wasn't a name or word whose pronunciation he couldn't butcher. It was also quite apparent that he had no clue that the copy being given him by AMC's writers were collections of egregious misrepresentations, falsehoods and outright lies. The sad fact is that AMC hired a professional "host" who had zero expertise when it came to movies. Mr Dorian is now in retirement where he deserves to remain.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > CineSage, I?ve asked you several times to leave me alone and stop following me around just to complain about my posts with yet another one of your insulting and personal rants. I don?t bother you and I expect you to stop bothering me. It's rather childish to imagine that you can avoid having anyone disagree with you, or rebut what you write, by simply whining that they're "following you around" after you'd demanded that they stop. You seem to imagine that no one has any right to disagree and that honest debate constitutes an affront. In short, you're attempting to deflect the issue of your postings' veracity by painting yourself as a victim. This is a forum open to all its members for comment on TCM, the movies shown thereon, and the comments of others. In my earlier posting, I laid out facts about the film and the studio that made it, including the politics of the man who ran that studio with the proverbial iron fist. Yes, there's room for interpretation, but KEEPER OF THE FLAME was very much a product of its time, informed by the need to make Fascism, both foreign and home-grown, a clear and present danger to the American public. Your earlier postings, and your whining about mine, do nothing so much as defend the principles of Fascism. Is that what you really want? As long as you keep strewing around rubbish that's utterly unsupported by facts, then I'm going to set the record straight before your nonsense insinuates itself in the heads of those around here who might be inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you don't want others commenting on your comments, then stop posting them. That will guarantee the unassailability of your beliefs, since they'll remain locked up inside your head, unheard and unread by others.

There's no such movie; I do, however, recall one titled GANDHI.

Of course I remember it. If you missed any part of my reply, or enjoyed it and would like to see it again, it will be repeated in its entirety tomorrow at 4:00 PM.

Your political agenda is what's shocking. If one takes into account that the film was made at MGM, a studio run by Louis B. Mayer at the very height of his powers and influence (Mayer was so far right-wing that his friendship with newspaper tycoon and fellow arch-conservative William Randolph Hearst was forever severed when Hearst decided to back Franklin Roosevelt in the 1932 presidential election over Mayer's hero, Herbert Hoover). The very idea that Mayer would ever let a "Commie" propaganda movie be made right under his noise is laughable. As for the film's story, itself, its political content is nil and all but irrelevant: "Robert Forrest," ostensibly a national icon representing all the ideals that Americans hold dear, is actually the leader of an underground movement plotting a violent overthrow of the U.S. government (mirroring an aborted real-life plot to depose FDR that was organized by some of Wall Street's most powerful financiers in 1933-34, though author Wylie likely didn't know about it. Even today, it's an all-but-lost footnote to history). The point is not what political philosophy motivated "Forrest's" group, but that it was plotting sedition, a crime that, under U.S. law, is punishable with the death penalty. Y'see, Fred, old man, what Americans hate is the idea that anyone or any thing might subvert the political process that has been in place since the adoption of the Constitution and founding of the Republic in 1789, probably because it's the one real reason why this nation was founded, why men gave their lives to drive the British Crown from these shores, and have shed more blood in this country's defense ever since. Fascist or Communist, it doesn't matter; they're both alien forms of government, though one might reasonably expect and hope that if one or the other were truly suitable and acceptable to the majority of Americans, it would be adopted at the ballot box, and not imposed at the point of a gun, as "Forrest" and his minions were set on doing. Frankly, a better American, one acquainted with even rudimentary knowledge of the laws and traditions of this country, would know that.

The only danger in "socialized medicine" is in having too much of the latter, and not enough of the former.

> {quote:title=Kinokima wrote:}{quote} > I think Jewish immigrants knew more than most people what Hitler was about and this includes Fritz Lang. > > Although one of the people I admire the most is Marlene Dietrich. She was German (not Jewish) but she was completely against Hitler even from early on. Lang, who (according to him) was offered the position as head of the entire German film (read: propaganda) industry, wasn't Jewish, either. As for Dietrich, who'd been courted by the Nazi regime to return to Germany and become a privileged figure, rebuffed their overtures and devoted a lot of time and energy to selling war bonds and on trips to entertain Allied troops. Admirable, indeed. > {quote:title=C.Bogle wrote:}{quote} > It's hard to see why Stalin would join in a war against either England or America, considering the > geography of Russia. And since Hitler couldn't even manage to invade England, it's difficult to > fathom how he could have been a threat to America thousands of miles across the ocean. You're ignoring the very real threat of German industry, which was in the process of developing the V-3, or "New York" rocket, designed to strike the U.S. Though German physics and their vulnerable industrial capacity were most likely incapable of producing an atomic bomb within the time the war allowed them, the U.S. government saw it as a very real threat and instituted the Manhattan Project in reaction to the possibility. It's only a matter of the timing of Germany's surrender that saw U.S. nuclear weapons dropped on Japan, instead (though there are those who believe that this country would have ever dropped atomic bombs on a country full of white, nordic people, regardless of its effect on the outcome of the War in Europe).

> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote} > It was shot in Yuma, Arizona . [THE GARDEN OF ALLAH] was the first Technicolor movie to be shot on location (no fake sound stage dunes or rear projection of a desert). THE GARDEN OF ALLAH's filming ran from 15 Apr 1936 to 3 Jul., 1936; film released 19 Nov., 1936. The first three-strip Technicolor feature film (it's important to make the distinctions between two-strip and three-strip, and feature and short films) to be shot on location was really Paramount's THE TRAIL OF THE LONESOME PINE (began production on location 9 Oct., 1935; finished on location 8 Dec., 1935; film released 13 Mar., 1936). That's a six-month head-start for THE TRAIL OF THE LONESOME PINE in production, and eight months in release.

> {quote:title=fxreyman wrote:}{quote} > Why all the venom directed toward Ms. Thompson? She is surely allowed to have her own opinion. All of you who have decided to treat Ms. Thompson as Suspect Number One should rethink your comments. > > For one thing it borders on lunacy. How many times have any of you defended other actors, or have gone out of your way to describe how you feel about other actors. I was reading comments made by Jill Haworth when she appeared in the John Wayne/Kirk Douglas film In Harms Way. All she had to say about Wayne was negative comments. And yet I never have heard anyone take her to task for the things she said about Wayne. Why is Thompson being subjected to criticism in some quarters? Because he statement about Hepburn wasn't couched as an opinion, but one of straight fact (as though something so subjective could ever be quantified or seriously perceived as "fact"). Yes, one can deduce that anything that passes from anyone's lips is an opinion unless the speaker explicitly claims it to be a statement of fact but, as a practical matter, most people are not going to take the time and trouble to make the distinction. They will accept it as fact unless the speaker states it's just an opinion, not the other way 'round. Had Thompson made a statement criticizing a living individual's moral turpitude or conduct, couched in the same terms of not explicitly indicating it was opinion and not fact, she would be open to a defamation lawsuit. As for Haworth, if she criticized Wayne's abilities as an actor it's probably because she was probably pretty close to the mark. Wayne was, for the most part, a personality, one that the public happened to like immensely. He was lucky to work with directors, primarily John Ford and Howard Hawks, who knew how to exploit that personality to its best advantage, and craft material that, in some generally isolated instances, actually managed to pull a creditable performance out of Wayne (I have to admit that in RED RIVER and, particularly THE SEARCHERS, he is very, very good). This is not very far removed from what Wayne had said on occasion about his acting ability.

> {quote:title=ClassicViewer wrote:}{quote} > I do agree that Vincent Price badgers the witness and found it a bit corny that the other attorney never once objected. Price's performance is ham-handed and way, way over the top. Some defense attorney Ray Collins is, when he doesn't even object to all of Price's badgering and asked-and-answered examination. And as soon as Qutinton (Price) has Richard (Cornel Wilde) read Ellen's suicide note, which states explicitly that she'd "rather die than give up Richard," Quinton's whole case goes out the window, because it establishes an alternative theory of her death, namely that she killed herself based on a motive she lays out in her own words and handwriting. Any good defense attorney would then use that to plant reasonable doubt in the jury's mind. But, as I said, Glen Robie (Collins) wasn't a good defense attorney (though neither is Quinton if he'd introduce the letter into evidence knowing that it contains as passage in which Ellen practically admits that she committed suicide). Good help must have been hard to find up in Maine in the 1940's.

> {quote:title=edonline wrote:}{quote} > http://www.digitalspy.com/showbiz/news/a258769/emma-thompson-hepburn-couldnt-act.html > > Emma Thompson: 'Hepburn couldn't act' > Monday, August 9 2010, 3:57pm EDT > By Clare Wiley > > Emma Thompson has admitted that she thinks Audrey Hepburn 'couldn't act or sing', calling the actress 'fantastically twee'. > > The Love Actually star, who is currently working on a screenplay for a remake of My Fair Lady, insisted that she 'isn't fond' of Hepburn's portrayal of Eliza Doolittle in the 1964 musical. > > According to WENN, Thompson explained: "I was thrilled to be asked to do it because, having a look at it, I thought that there needs to be a new version. I'm not hugely fond of the film. I find Audrey Hepburn fantastically twee. > > "Twee is whimsy without wit. It's mimsy-mumsy sweetness without any kind of bite. And that's not for me. She can't sing and she can't really act, I'm afraid. I'm sure she was a delightful woman ? and perhaps if I had known her I would have enjoyed her acting more, but I don?t and I didn?t, so that's all there is to it, really." > > She added: "It was [costumer] Cecil Beaton's designs and [Hepburn's co-star] Rex Harrison that gave it its extraordinary quality. I don't do Audrey Hepburn. I think that she's a guy thing? It's high time that the extraordinary role of Eliza was reinterpreted, because it's a very fantastic part for a woman." If one is going to judge Hepburn's ability on the basis of MY FAIR LADY, a film for which she was, indeed, ill-suited, one might very well reach the entirely reasonable conclusion that she wasn't a very good actress. If one examines ROMAN HOLIDAY, a film whose success rests almost entirely on Hepburn's shoulders due to the miscasting of Gregory Peck, or THE NUN'S STORY, it's all but inevitable that one would come to the exactly opposite conclusion. I think it's safe to say that the judgment of the directors of those two films, William Wyler and Fred Zinnemann, in building those two films around her talent, somewhat outweighs Ms Thompson's decidedly revisionist opinion. I think, in fact, that Thompson's statement may reflect her sense that, as an actress, she is incapable of portraying the very sophisticated woman-child in which Hepburn specialized. There may even be a bit of envy and resentment at the heart of Thompson's words. Those feelings really don't give her license to make a blanket comment damning for all time the gifts that Hepburn possessed.

> {quote:title=gagman66 wrote:}{quote} > I'm not sure. However, TCM hasn't aired *THE PAGAN* since 2006. And that was very early in the morning on a weekday. Very gratified to see it running again. But when are they going to air the long-suppressed "Gidget Goes Paganistic?"

1. THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES 2. SUNSET BOULEVARD 3. DOUBLE INDEMNITY 4. ACE IN THE HOLE 5. FIVE GRAVES TO CAIRO I have not, nor would I ever, include any of Wilder's comedies among his greatest films. At best, those comedies are warmed-over Lubitsch (by Wilder's own admission), and were largely beneath his talent. His dramas (co-written, as always, with the great Charles Brackett, I.A.L. Diamond, Raymond Chandler, Walter Newman, Lesser Samuels, Harry Kurnitz, and several others) are all wickedly funny, but the wit is all the more acutely observed because its purpose is to sharpen the drama, often making tragedy seem all the more tragic, and not just provoke belly laughs from an audience. In fact, the immense success of SOME LIKE IT HOT was probably the worst thing to ever happen to Wilder professionally, because he was then typecast as a "comedy director," and Wilder, hardly immune to the siren-song of profits, was more than willing to accommodate studio executives and his producers who were pressuring him into sticking with comedies. I think it's telling that he only made two more dramas (THE PRIVATE LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES, FEDORA) and never made another comedy nearly as good as SOME LIKE IT HOT, though the ill-conceived IRMA LA DOUCE was actually the most profitable film Wilder ever made.

Of course it's MAN-HUNT; it can't be anything else. A good call.

JANE EYRE (1944): Joan Fontaine, Margaret O'Brien, Elizabeth Taylor. LIFE WITH FATHER (1947): Martin Milner, Elizabeth Taylor, Jimmy Lydon THE BLUE BIRD- (1940): Shirley Temple, Gene Reynolds, Ann E. Todd THE BOY WITH GREEN HAIR (1948): Dean Stockwell, Dwayne Hickman, Russ Tamblyn There are actually plenty of others, if one wishes to go looking for them.