slaytonf

If you read my OP, you will see I said horror is perhaps the genre which outdid eurospy for wretchedness. But, if you like 'em, I'm not gonna be stoppin you from watchin 'em. Let me recommend Hammerhead (1968), Requiem for a Secret Agent (1966), Kiss Kiss Kill Kill (1966), The Fuller Report (1967), and Tiffany Memorandum (1967), if you're not already familiar with 'em. But I wouldn't eat anything before watching them. One good one I forgot is one shown by TCM occasionally. It's Dandy in Aspic (1968), with Lawrence Harvey, Tom Courtenay, and Mia Farrow, directed by Anthony Mann. It's about. . . . it's about. . .well, it's complicated. But it's all well done, with ambivalence, disillusionment, twists, re-twists, and surprises up to the very end.

Aw, you only need to be extremely grateful. (hm. Sebring. . . .Sebring. . . .that name. . . .)

Like he couldn't have faced that before? Seems he wasn't so much of a lawman.

Hey, Dargo, seems I completely overlooked replying to you about Antiques Road Trip! No, it's not about cars. It's about antiques, jewelry, porcelain, furniture, etc. They just use classic cars to get about in. Frinstance, in one show they had: A 1950 Standard Vanguard Pick-Up. And: A 1999 HMC Healey MKIV, which they changed to from the pick-up due to its breaking down.

I know, I know, people'll say, "Which one?" For is any movie more riddled with egregiousness, and outrages? Contrivance is the stockintrade of Hollywood, but this one is uniquely burdened. There is the improbable broadcasting by the baddie of his plans for vengeance (on the witness stand, no less!). And the equally improbable lack of any cognizance taken of it. And the greater improbability of a lawman appealing to amateurs to assist him in an enforcement action (notably riffed on by Howard Hawks). And the most howling improbability of all, a Quaker so completely abandoning the tenor of her life that she commits the most violent act possible in killing a human being. Oh, but what rankles, what is just the most intolerable thorn, what just goads me to continually shout at the screen is the inexplicable fear Will Kane has of Frank Miller. He handled him before, what's different now? Has Miller turned into some sort of super villain, with extraordinary powers? I think not, so what's the big deal? Frank Miller's back? You handled him before, so just do the same thing. Problem solved. There is another enormity of the movie so great that it prompts me to make an extraordinary extra note. The character of Helen Ramirez--played so wonderfully by Katy Juarado, in my mind drawn as the most estimable character in this whole mess, a woman who, even if you had only her good regard, let alone love, as Kane did (and still does!), you would walk over broken glass for without hesitation--this woman, I say, is so violated by the screen writers as to be forced to hook up with the contemptible weasel Pell (! and !!). This snake is someone a woman like her would not even turn her gaze toward. Man, that was some gigantic rebound. What an idiot Kane is, and this comes through even the wretched writing, to have abandoned Helen in favor of that pathetic milk-toast of an Amy Fowler. He has traded a life wealthy in humanity and passion for a pallid existence of conventionality and unremarkability. Did I mention how terrific Katy Jurado was? Well, she was. High Noon Thursday, March 8, 5:00 P. M., Pacific Time.

Mostuvus are.

A Month in the Country (1987) tells the story of an English art restorer, psychologically scarred by his service in World War I, sent as part of a government program to a rural church to uncover a medieval mural of the Last Judgement. There he finds friends, platonic love, and healing. It's not a monument of moviemaking, and it gets sentimental at times, but it's diverting. And there's also the mural, painted by real-life artist Margot Noyes. Although her work appears most influenced by impressionism, which was enjoying a resurgence during the 50s, the years of her art education, she does what looks to me a passable emulation of a mural from that period: Jesus on a rainbow is unusual, however. It's usually a throne. Here's more: The style, influenced by Byzantine art, seemingly crude, unadorned with later Renaissance refinements, is well suited to the stark church militant, with Jesus as the retributive monarch of Heaven. But, some of the figures are really crude: This isn't a fault of the artist. In the story, the muralist is discovered to have fallen to his death before finishing his work.

That'll freeze your beach blanket bingo chips.

Wheeeeeeeeeeeewwwwww! I can breathe again!

Wow! That was only three years ago? Seems like it was much longer.

Dag! You beat me to it!

Ah, a conspiracy. But I don't see what they get out of it. TCMers are so baitable, they'll bite at anything. Can't seem like such an accomplishment to get a rise out of us.

The mistake made here is taking the o-posters seriously. They are hit-and-run agitators. Like dropping a cat into a dog show.

Another one-poster?

An episode of Robert Montgomery Presents may be it: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0687360/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2

I know it isn't from the movies, but, gosh, it's such a nice car! And I've never heard of it before. It's a-----but first, I'll tell you where I saw it. There's a series some generous soul it good enough to upload regularly to YT which I like about as much as anything that's not a movie. It's called Antiques Road Trip, not to be confused with the more venerable and known Roadshow. In it, two antiques experts set off across different parts of the British countryside to find items to purchase and then sell later at auctions. The one who gets the most money wins. It's all cheery, energetic, and bouncy, and a lot of fun. Different pairs of experts set off in different classic autos, usually British, Triumph, MG, Jaguar. But for the segment that's being uploaded now, they're driving a 1968 TVR Tuscan. And its a beauty! Lookit:

So I guess it was another hit/run poster. Or someone posing. I don't think these posters' aims are as they state. They're not really upset at how TCM has changed. They want it to change from what it has always been. Think of the illogic of this OP. Just because TCM shows movies they don't want to see, they will stop watching the ones TCM shows that they do.

Has longtimer already left?

There's your next thread topic.

Well, at least you are not one of those hit-and-run critics that start a thread like this with one initial post and are never heard from again. You still do, however, fail to acknowledge the many attempts of posters to disabuse you of your misconceptions. The best of these, of course, is MovieCollector's brobdingnaginan efforts at compiling a list demonstrating TCM's continuity. But to paraphrase Paul Simon, people hear what they want to hear, and disregard the rest. I'm afraid if you want to maintain your position, you will be the only loser by not watching TCM anymore.

I'm getting that Twilight Zone feeling. . . . Am I mistaken, or did some posts disappear? And have some posters been disappeared?

Aw, what the hell, let's just have one thread for everything. At the least, it would make discussion here a lot more lively.

TCM wasn't created only to show studio-era movies. As has been repeatedly stated, and which you may have not seen here, being new to the Messageboards, in the very first introduction made by Robert Osborne, he said the channel was to highlight stars and movies from the past as well as those from today. And as has been repeatedly demonstrated, the percentage of movies from different eras has remained constant over the years, with a preponderance of studio era movies. Of course, as time has passed, newer and newer movies have been shown.

I have commented before on the absurd contradiction of having non-production code movies to discuss with language still subject to production code restrictions.

Thanks, sagebrush, for that clip. Perhaps I should retitle the thread: Fred Astaire__spins into--something. That's from Three Little Words (1950)?