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


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by JamesJazGuitar

  1. Well I know what happens when christians elect an a-hole like Trump;    We get comments like this about someone that just died:

    "Wonderful to see Colin Powell, who made big mistakes on Iraq and famously, so-called weapons of mass destruction, be treated in death so beautifully by the Fake News Media," Trump said in a statement released Tuesday morning. "Hope that happens to me someday. He was a classic RINO, if even that, always being the first to attack other Republicans. He made plenty of mistakes, but anyway, may he rest in peace!"

    Also,  in that last few years what Republican has attacked other Republicans more than Trump?   NONE!



    • Like 1
  2. I didn't go to this thread  at first because I felt it was silly to create on just for this one film.       I only went to it now because of who created it;   I.e.  this guy is solid and I just had to find out why he would focus on this one film!    I see now that my assumption was all wet. 

    Amazon.com: The Long, Long Trailer (1954) : Vincente Minnelli, Lucille  Ball, Desi Arnaz, Marjorie Main, Keenan Wynn, Gladys Hurlbut, Moroni Olsen,  Bert Freed, Madge Blake, Walter Baldwin, Oliver Blake, Perry Sheehan: Movies


  3. I predict a Federal Judge will grant Trump's request that the subpoena's for White House records etc... is too broad.      While Trump typically hires idiotic and unprofessional attorneys,    the basis of denying ALL the request is based on sound legal theory (IMO);      This is based on the sheer number of request and what they are looking for,  that goes way beyond Jan 6th.     So the Judge will deny ALL of them and advise the House Legal team to draft very narrow subpoenas.     If Trump then challenges these,  the same Judge will allow them to proceed  (if they are indeed narrow and targeted only to Jan 6th).

    Anyhow,  just my prediction.  




  4. 2 hours ago, unwatchable said:

    I do hope, however, the truth comes out about the killing of this woman. This is something else which shouldn't have happened. She didn't need to be shot. The officer who shot her was in no danger. Go ahead and laugh at that. It doesn't matter. I've seen the video.

    So you're saying that based on the video you saw,  that the officer that killed this woman should be charged with some type of crime?

    I'm sure you know there was an investigation but I assume you believe that was just a government cover-up.

    As for the officer was in no danger:   this concept has been litigated to death,  especially since BLM came on the scene.     How close does an officer have to come to believing they are in danger of bodily harm before they can use lethal force?      BLM appears to imply the officer needs to be actually harmed first.       To me that is crazy talk.


  5. This is another thread that will exaggerate the powers and influences of A President    (note,  not THE President).

    Oh,  well,    as long as the left and right have fun with this silly game of "well it did occur under their watch",    all is fine.



  6. 5 hours ago, TopBilled said:

    She's gorgeous in LIBEL a year later. Not at all like Jo Van Fleet...right, Nip? 

    Screen Shot 2020-06-30 at 5.42.13 PM

    Well the make-up department left alone her eyebrows;  They are the same in the two photos.

    But all joking aside,  I don't think one can compare how Olivia looks in the two films for the very basic reasons I gave related to a western and the fact that in Libel she lives in London,  a major city, with a well-off husband and such a women can afford to look their best and often do for social status reasons.

    Also I wonder if how Olivia looks in The Proud Rebel relates to the plot line;  that Ladd and her form a bond over his son.   Note the town rumors when she hires the proud rebel as a worker.     If Olivia was made to look stunning audiences might focus too much on their relationship,  instead of all focused on the boy and that would distract from the main point line that resolves all around the son.        

    I can't recall the ending,  but is it implied that the two will get married?     If yes,  that doesn't mean they love each over;  i.e.  it could still be all about the boy. 

    PS:  I actually believe Olivia has the right look for the time period \ setting \ character in The Proud Rebel.   If she looked like she did in Libel it wouldn't have worked especially in color.    (we see this with some early T.V. color westerns where the women look like they just got out of a beauty solon in Beverly Hills,  because,  well,  they did!).


    • Like 1
  7. The vast majority of people don't go to jail for such tax evasion crimes;   it is a lot more likely one would go to jail for lying to authorizes than tax evasion;  I.e.  it is usually the cover-up that leads to jail time and not such low-level crimes.    AND if anyone goes to jail it is the accountant and not the actual business owner(s).

    So don't get your hope up folks,   but we can always wish for Trump to get actual jail time (and be made to serve it).


    • Thanks 1
  8. 26 minutes ago, DougieB said:

    I hope we see some comedy, because I think she was a very deft comedienne when the role called for it. I like Cactus Flower, but I adore Indiscreet with Cary Grant, in which she effortlessly handled the sophisticated wit and visual style. I'm also in the mood for Notorious again. I've mentioned it in a past thread but I think she did one of the best jobs of playing drunk of any actor I can remember. She didn't go for the usual slurring of words; it was as though her thinking and mental state were slurred and compromised. Brilliant.

    Nice post and one I agree with;    so no one has been able to get access to the SOTM schedule so we know which films will be shown?


    • Like 2
  9. 1 hour ago, Sepiatone said:

    And I can agree with that "above poster" and his "eye of the beholder"  claim. 

    I could agree with such a claim but that wasn't really the comment;  instead it was "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that but the statement is simply not true.

    Adding 'simply not true' is another way of saying that they, and they alone,    know what "beauty" is and that it is in their eyes and not that of the beholder.

    That is  not the same as saying;  we can agree to disagree,  but instead is the polar opposite.   

  10. 15 hours ago, LuckyDan said:

    If Gruden had a legitimate expectation of privacy when he wrote these emails, (like say if he and Allen were communicating from their personal email accounts) AND the person who made the emails public was an NFL employee, the league may have some liability. And if it is found that the leaker was acting under the direction of a league officer ...

    But this is all guesswork. I really don't want to go so deep into this as to search out the NFL's terms and conditions of employment, but if the league starts to make privacy claims in response to demands to release all emails, that could get really sticky for them if they either authorized the leak, or were negligent in protecting the emails. 

    It was my understanding Gruden et all were using company email.   In most cases these are owned by the company;  I.e.  the employee has no right to privacy.

    So only an idiot would use company email for such discussion.    Note that there can also be no right to privacy using social media;  E.g.   each year I have to sign a doc that says there can be consequences for what I post publicly on public industry websites. 

  11. 2 hours ago, TopBilled said:

    The shots of Olivia from THE PROUD REBEL that were posted above conveniently do not include the close up of her at the end of the movie. It's one of the most unflattering images of the actress to appear in any of her films. Special care should have been taken to make her look more glamorous. There is no reason why they couldn't have done something extra with the make up and lighting. As I said earlier in the thread, it's on a par with that dreadful close up of Kate in SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER.

    My theory is that some of these male directors were misogynistic and in order to punish outspoken female actresses of a certain age, they got revenge by retaining an unflattering closeup of said actress to tell the rest of the world she was getting older and past her prime.

    THE PROUD REBEL is a film with flaws. The director and lead actress were not collaborating well.

    Interesting theory:   I suspect it has more to do with the breaking down of the studio-system.    I.e.  films such as The Proud Rebel,   produced by Sam Goldwyn,  were independent productions;  the actors, directors,  crew were all hired for the film instead of using under contract by the studio staff.  

    Of course director Curtiz and DeHavilland made a lot of films while they both were under contract at Warner Bros.     I would like to believe Curtiz didn't make Olivia more glamorous because he wished to focus on realism (a women living a fairly rough life in the west without access to beauty parlors,  hair dressers,  make-up etc...).     AND when he made those other films with Olivia the studio protected her image as a glamorous movie star.  




    • Like 1
  12. 30 minutes ago, LuckyDan said:

    Sounds good to me but if the public is unaware of the conduct, because it is done privately, and the employer or an agent of the employer makes the conduct public, should the employee have any protection?

    I don't think the employee should have any protection from being fired by the employer,  but they can sue the one that made public the information.   Thus say Gruden was fired by the Raiders:   Gruden could sue the NFL and hopefully he would prevail.  

  13. 4 hours ago, midwestan said:

    As I recall, Jean Arthur didn't look all that fetching in "Shane".  Maybe Ladd had it in his contract that when he played in Westerns/Frontier-type films that the female lead could not look more attractive than he?

    Jean Arthur was 52 when she made Shane.     That is too old to have a son especially in the west at during that time period.     (de Wilde was 10 when the film was made).    


  14. 13 hours ago, LuckyDan said:

    I'm not sure how that is a conservative value. Sounds more like you are saying Republicans (not a synonym for conservatives, please note) believe businesses should be able to do whatever they want, especially where workers are involved.

    Note also that Trumpers are more blue-collar than the Republicans you may be used to. They are populists more than conservative. They are Republicans only because Trump ran as a Republican.

    But .... 

    Would you allow an employer to fire over an incident involving prior moral turpitude? And is this such a case? 

    Gruden was not an NFL employee when he wrote this stuff. He therefore was not subject to any morals clause, or other NFL regulation.

    P.S. Gruden of course was not fired, he resigned to avoid being a distraction, he said. I'm wondering, though, if he had not resigned, and the Raiders as an organization backed him - which would have been an incredibly brave and beautiful thing to see - could the NFL have fired him? Can they say to a team, "We don't like some of the things your coach has said in private as a non-employee. Hire someone else."

    An employer should have the legal right to fire an employee for conduct that is determinantal to the employer.   This is the case with Gruden.   

    E.g.  lost of sponsorships.    Players not wishing to play for him.  Etc......

    Public facing employees have an even higher bar of conduct.     


    • Like 1
  15. 16 hours ago, Vautrin said:

    He had  enough anger in that one for the other eleven jurors, though that was part of  the role he was playing.  

    I like Cobb, even though he does go off the deep end on occasion.

    Cobb was casts in some odd character roles like this one in Left Hand of God:

    Humphrey Bogart & Lee J. Cobb in "The Left Hand of God" 1955 Vintage Movie  Still | eBay

  16. 33 minutes ago, JakeHolman said:


    Worked for a couple of Fortune 500 companies ... so glad I'm retired and gone ... young white males have a tough-road-to-hoe in front of 'em ...

    I'm a conservatize that believes in the rights of the employer to terminate an employee at-will.

    Sadly Trumpers no longer support this conservative value.    


    • Like 1
  17. 43 minutes ago, ElCid said:

    Sorry, my error.  Brain not fully in gear yet.

    The film,  The Dark Past,   is a remake of Blind Alley (1939),  and it is being shown on Noir Alley,  so any confusion is understandable.


    • Thanks 1
  18. 27 minutes ago, ElCid said:

    Back to Noir Alley.

    The Dark Alley (1949) is tonight and tomorrow's presentation.  Saturday's does not come on until 1:30 AM ET Sunday due to the Clint Eastwood double feature.  Repeats again at 10:00 AM as usual.  This one does not sound familiar to me, so I guess I have not seen it. 

    The film is The Dark Past with William Holden,  Nina Foch and Lee J. Cobb.

    The Dark Past (1948) - IMDb

    • Thanks 1
  19. 18 minutes ago, Bogie56 said:

    You got to wonder what the motive is here.  "The only reason we lost is because ...."  ???

    The motive for Trump is for the GOP to suffer losses in the House in 2022  when normally the opposition party gains seats.     This creates fear and panic among Republican voters thus making them come out strong in 2024 for Trump, the House and Senate,   as well all down steam state contests.

    In other words the GOP shouldn't gain power unless Trump regains power.    


    • Haha 2
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...