Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

SansFin

Members
  • Posts

    10,146
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    29

Posts posted by SansFin

  1. As usual, SF you have come up with some stunners.

     

     

    I will patronize my ego by assuming that you mean that in good way. ;)

     

    I find that I forgot to include: The Pillow Book (1996). There is overt surrealism but I find it is much more than that if you are in mood to identify strongly with the character. I believe it is rare for any movie to celebrate so enthusiastically the pleasures of: calligraphy. 

    • Like 1
  2. The Color Of Pomegranates (1968): directed by Sergei Parajanov, this visually fascinating film explores obscure (to me) references to Armenian culture and history.

     

     

    I like this movie very much! I find his work very compelling. I would recommend also: Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors (1965).

    • Like 1
  3. I believe that you might find: Kondom des Grauens (1996) a bit bizarre. I can write little of it here because: Mr. Otto Censor would asterisk-out many words. You may find a sense of it in the summary and comments here:

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116791/?ref_=nv_sr_1

     

    I find: House (1977) quite unconventional.

     

    I believe that: The Nude Vampire (1970) one of the more interesting surreal-vampire movies.

     

    I find: Pleasures of the Flesh (1965) to be an odd little movie.

     

    You need only look at list of movies which were produced and/or distributed by: Troma Entertainment to find a wealth of unconventional movies.

    http://www.imdb.com/company/co0019150/?ref_=ttco_co_11

     

    Among my favorite: Troma movies are:

     

    A Nymphoid Barbarian in Dinosaur Hell (1990)

    Ferocious Female Freedom Fighters (1982)
    Surf Nazis Must Die (1987)
    Dialing for Dingbats (1989) I find this an absolute treasure of oddity!
    • Like 3
  4. How does that happen when one time a film is shown on-demand and the next time it's blocked?

     

     

    It may be that license expired or it may be that they rotate movies to have bandwidth for new offerings or it may be that gremlin got into server or ...

  5. Don't forget about leasing the rights to show a film on mobile devices. I'm still trying to understand why certain films cannot be shown on these devices.

     

     

    I have been told it is often due to differences in contracts. The owner of a movie might have sold the right to market the movie to television to one distributor and the right to market the movie on VHS/DVD to different distributor.

     

    It could be argued that the owner did not sell rights to stream the movie to any other party and so they own that right still.

     

    It could be argued that streaming rights are subset of television rights and so distributor who owns those rights owns also streaming rights.

     

    It could be argued that streaming rights are direct-to-consumer arrangements and so distributor who markets VHS/DVD owns streaming rights.

     

    The exact wording in any particular contract may vary slightly from wording in similar contract by different parties and so this gives footing for arguments.

     

    A truism of American life is that if any point can be argued then there are attorneys anxious to argue it. It may be with many movies that cost of settling legal dispute re: rights may be higher than amount of revenue which could be expected from licensing the movie.

    • Like 1
  6. And since leasing arrangements seem to allow repeated showings for a certain  amount of time, they can be shown again, not just for a SOTM. I feel too much money is going for salaries and not movies....

     

     

    It is my understanding that salaries for on-air personalities are a tiny part of their budget. A Programmer once stated on these boards that the cost of leasing a movie is significant. I remember the implication in the thread was that the cost is five-figures.

     

    I believe also that there is arrangement that several divisions share studio facilities. It is likely that there is fixture in budget for TCM to share that cost. I feel that it is likely that other divisions would not wish to assume TCM's contribution. I believe TCM would do well to maximize return on what they must pay by using those facilities as much as they can.

     

    On-air personalities are important also to: TCM as: brand. There is much advertising of on-air personalities attending festival, cruise and other: TCM-sponsored events. Money which: TCM makes on such things must ease demand on overall budget and free money for leasing more movies. I have been told that placing a face on any product increases sales. That is basis of having celebrity endorsements. On-air personalities are the face of: TCM and help to sell all of: TCM's subsidiary activities.

    • Like 1
  7. Like to mention the Comedy Channels "Drawned Together" that satired our favorite cartoon characters.

     

     

    I am very sorry to say that I have seen three episodes only of this. It is quite very wonderful! It is sad to say that I can not speak of the best parts because it would be spoilers. "You can not say: slaughter without: laughter" indeed!

  8. Tomorrow I'm recording Promise Her Anything, which is the only Warren Beatty movie I haven't seen, and Raffles, because it sounds good.

     

     

    I like: Promise Her Anything (1965) but it is not a movie which I recommend. I feel that the actors are giving good performances individually but there is no cohesion. It is as if each performed alone on stage in front of green screen and these performances were then assembled into scenes in post-production. 

     

    I feel that: Raffles (1939) is a true treasure! I envy you watching it for first time. It is classic drawing-room comedy with moments of intrigue and pathos. I have slight preference for: Raffles (1930) because it is: Ronald Colman. His chemistry with: Kay Francis is wonderful to behold. I have felt at all times that:  David Niven and: Olivia de Havilland do not have the same spark. Their relationship seems to me to be more formal.

    • Like 2
  9. The Mystery of the Leaping Fish (1916)

    Heathers (1988)

    M*A*S*H (1970)

    Catch-22 (1970)

    Daisies (1966)

    The Devil's Disciple (1959)

    The Bed Sitting Room (1969)

    I'll Never Forget What's'isname (1967)

    The Inspector General (1933)

    Paris When It Sizzles (1964)

    The President's Analyst (1967)

    When the Cat Comes (1963)

    • Like 1
  10. These movies were banned and their directors either exiled or barred from making movies for a period of years:

     

    Afrique 50 (1956) The director was imprisoned for making this movie.

    All My Compatriots (1968)

    The Blue Kite (1993) 

    Case for a Rookie Hangman (1970)

    Castle of Otranto (1977)

    Daisies (1966)

    Fruit of Paradise (1970)

    Kuhle Wampe (1932)

    Leonardo's Diary (1972)

    Squandered Sunday (1969)

    A Report on the Party and the Guests (1966)

    To Live (1956)
    • Like 1
  11. I believe that: The Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your Bath! (1975) passes your test in that it is shown each New Year's Eve and ratings have never faltered. It is a movie which many people watch more than once each year. I watch it each time it is available.

     

    It remains so popular that sequel: The Irony of Fate, or Enjoy Your New Happiness! (2007) was made thirty years after original. I feel that it is not quite as good but it is very popular also.

  12. I tried to Google the subject but all the news is about TCM - Traditional Chinese Medicine. :blink:

     

     

    I Googled: "TCM" once and found: "The Candle Mandate". It is: Congressional Conspiracy to force people to revert to using candles. The first step was to ban normal incandescent bulbs.

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...