slaytonf

I think you gotta soft spot for Hallie.

Didn't see any U. N. mea culpa plea last night. Don't remember any from previous viewings. But those were from--oh, how many years ago? MovieCollector's invaluable list puts it down indeed as a premiere.

Not to justify it, but perhaps the thinking was it was another world, so it had to look different. In that case, I could agree with the intent, but not the result.

"You know I can't refuse. Build it!"

Robert Montgomery starred with Rosalind Russell and Dame May Witty in Night Must Fall (1937), in which he plays a psychopath toting around the head of one of his victims in a hatbox. But because it is not alive, it dissuaded TCemmers from suggesting it ohwaybackwhen. It was remade in 1964 with Albert Finney. TCM has shown both, but I much prefer Mr. Montgomery's adapation. Oops! LawrenceA beat me to it!

Acute observations, as always, Dargo. Cha·cun à son goût, as it is said. I prefer different dogs and ponies, though.

A rather high bar to clear, and to my mind, if you will excuse me for saying it, more designed to perpetuate the status quo, rather than assure a more equitable representation of talent in the awards competition. Oops! This was in response to speedracer5. I was too slow on the post.

I find it lots of fun. I hope you like it, too.

I like both the American and British versions. But I was talking about Antiques Road Trip, a show where two antiques experts roam around Britain buying antiques and then auctioning them in competition to see who earns the most money. You can find it on YouTube.

A sentiment I have not doubt shared by all women directors.

I've never seen better examples of begging the question than posters here justifying the selection of movies in the academy awards. They argue that because there is underrepresentation of certain classes of people due to discrimination, there must be no value to their work, and that efforts to reverse that discrimination and recognize their worth would imply selection based on criteria other than merit.

For some reason I like that show. If it had been described to me, I would have thought there would be no way I would spend my precious time here on Earth watching it. Same with Antiques Road Trip.

You can trash them. You can sniff at them. You can run them down. But you still talk about em. You can rage at their paanty-waist pinko-liberalism. You can turn somersaults over their inanities, their excesses, their obliviousness, obsolescence, and incoherence. But you still talk about em. You can gloat over their decline, their irrelevance. You can celebrate the disdain in which they are held. But you still talk about em. You fixate on them, obsess over them. And the more you do, the more you prove they are still the focus of the movie-going consciousness. And the more you prove how important they are to you. To me, they are not important, one way or another. You can't measure movies, so you can't say which one is the best this or that. You can't even say which is better than another.

Life's tough.

Color? Black and white? Western? Modern era?

There are three kinds of John Wayne movie. One where he is acting as John Wayne, which are his worst. One where he is acting, which are most of his best. And one where he wasn't acting, which is his very best, and that is In Harm's Way (1965). As good as he could be in other movies by John Ford, Howard Hawks, or others, his performance in this movie was unlike any other. His relaxed demeanor and dialog delivery has a subtlety and nuance absent from his other movies--surprising as it's a war movie. I don't know if it's the material, or Otto Preminger's influence, but it's great. Of course, it doesn't hurt to have Burgess Meredith, Patricia Neal, Dana Andrews, and Kirk Douglass to play against, either. And there's plenty of the standard Wayne movie elements like war, Wayne as commander, Wayne as military nomad with a broken marriage and estranged son to satisfy the mainline Wayne fan.

Now I know there's at least one poster here besides me who will be jazzed about this movie. Here's some good science fiction moviemaking, of the vein labeled among aficionados as hard science fiction. Meaning an emphasis on technology, hardware, engineering, interstellar logistics and such. Not lacking in high-minded philosophizing, either, or hard-nosed decision-making in the face of harder-nosed realities. Also, lots of allegorical embellishments relating to the Garden of Eden, Noah's ark, the colonization of America, and Manifest Destiny. The story: Earth is doomed. A star and its planet are headed toward it. First the star will cause catastrophic devastation, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, and the like. Then the planet will collide and obliterate Earth. But a chance exists to escape to the new planet after the collision, and a ship is planned and built with a mega-wealthy man's money, who purchases a place on it for his aged, sickly body. Will it succeed? You guess. Many will like it for its validation of the American mythos and ethos. I like it because the goddamned one-percenter gets screwed out of his seat to the moral satisfaction of all. It's not a premiere, but a very rare showing, so don't miss it. Thursday, February, 13, 5 pm, Pacific time.

So I've been spending all this time as a vegan for nothing!? Damn!

Can't say as I've ever noticed. Next time I watchit I'll pay attention.

That would be something to look forward to.

There is a fundamental flaw in your rationale. You have taken my comment seriously.

This would greatly simplify the election process. The movie with the most viewers wins all the awards.

So, like, now the world has become totally unhinged?

According to IMDB, it's Marilyn singing. About the dress, I dunno.

It was a wry comic quip, not meant as a slight. Here again, as all too often in the past, the absence of an emoticon with a tongue in its cheek leads to tragic misunderstanding.