Sepiatone

Sending Doris best wishes today. Thanks for the heads up. Sepiatone

I did say it was all for comic effect. Make of it what you will. Sepiatone

THERE'S an idea for a thread! Some humorous scheduling of movies... DINNER AT EIGHT GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DIINNER? HANNIBAL EATING RAOUL WHAT MAKES SAMMY RUN? MYSTIC PIZZA You get the drift... Sepiatone

Brynner had the right HAIR( or lack thereof) for the part! What's puzzled me is this: Moses supposedly had his brother Aaron do most of the talking because Moses was believed to be somewhat poor at public speaking. Which makes sense to have the marvelous sounding JOHN CARRADINE play the part of Aaron. But HESTON had a wonderful speaking voice, too, which makes me wonder why he landed the role of Moses. IF "historical" fact is your goal, that is. And wasn't it tragic that Moses, after wandering the desert for 40 years, would settle the Israelites in the only spot in the Middle East WITHOUT any OIL? Getting back to *King Of Kings,* I suppose after seeing the '61 version, followed by *The Greatest Story Ever Told* and later viewing HISTORY CANNEL'S last segment of *The Bible,* I was probably "Jesused out", and couldn't view the silent "Kings" with any sense of seriousness. Of all the "Life of Jesus" movies I've seen, the television mini-series *Jesus of Nazareth* is the one that makes more sense to me. Especially the crucifiction, which showed Jesus bearing a crossbar rather than a gigantic cross that's usually seen in classical artists renditions. Director Franco Zeffirelli felt this was more accurate, as that even though the crucifiction of Christ has more significance to modern day Christians, the crucifiction had NO significance to the Romans, and the sentence would have been carried out just like any other. Since the crossbars were used over and over due to the scarcity of wood in the region, the cross that's shown in most other Life of Christ movies would have been used over and over too, and Jesus wouldn't have been the only unlucky one to have been crucified on it. Plus I've been told that the nails wouldn't have gone through the palms of the hands, as they couldn't handle the weight and would have torn through the sides. the nails, instead, went through the wrists of the condemmed. It is THIS little known fact that the Vatican uses to debunk false claims of stigmata. Most of the Testament movies show the victim's arms supported by ropes, which would give the nail-through-the-palms display credence, but I doubt even THAT insignificant consideration would have been given by the Romans. DeMille's Jesus didn't even HAVE ropes, and HE was the only one of the three who was nailed. Another misstep by C.B. Sepiatone Edited by: Sepiatone on Apr 2, 2013 12:25 PM

A slight digression: My wife, who usually sits quietly through most movies, piped up after a scene in *Demitrius and The Gladiators* (you'll know which one in a second) with the comment, "Wow...those RICHARD EGAN kisses were to DIE for!" Sorry. just had to get that out! Sepiatone

Years ago, I could never stand Pallette. I don't know why. Over the years I've come to look forward for his appearance in movies. He never disappoints. Sepiatone Edited by: Sepiatone on Apr 1, 2013 9:32 PM

Movies are art ? Since when? There's a famous work of art called "Leda and The Swan" that I consider a fine work of art despite my disgust for beastiality. And I wouldn't really consider *Teladega Nights* as being "art". Sepiatone

For a DeMille picture, it holds up much better for me than *King Of Kings*, his silent "masterpiece". Watched a bit of "King" early this morning, and was eye-rolling at the over emoting done by most of the cast. Yeah, I know in silents the eggagerated facial and body movements are required to get the parts across. But it really wouldn't have hurt to make Jesus NOT look like he's ready to burst into tears in almost every scene. Plus, some of the biblical accuracy didn't seem to be all that accurate. But I WILL not say anything bad about it's cinematography! Outstanding doesn't even begin to do it justice. As far as *The Ten Commandments*, well, I've said all I could about it in another thread. In spite of all the flaws I could point out, effects, plot or performances, I still think it's a wonderful movie. Sepiatone

Euthanize the puppies first? Why? What's "good" for the LOBSTER is good for the LAB! Sepiatone

And now we're nearly back to square one! I wouldn't categorize *the Ten Commandments* as a "reverent" movie. It's simply a movie made about a story in the Old Testament. Sure, the story is reverent, but that's as far as it goes. And the movie, despite all of the flaws and quaintness in comparison to today's special effects that were brought up here, is still a good movie. All of the "extra" stuff that one here found objectionable usually comes in the form of ambient activity that's glossed over in scripture. Not a whole lot of dialouge in that book, for sure. But in the realm of talking pictures, most feel dialouge is an integral part of the proccess. Plus, more goes on in the course of a day or year or so than ever mentioned in the Holy Writ. If DeMille stuck stricky to the pages, he'd have given us a 45 minute "epic". So of course some "license" had to be taken. Many people might not have liked the license that was taken, but it seems, over all this time, that most viewers of the movie didn't retain it, and just let the main crux of the story register. THAT'S what's important. Whether you consider yourself a "true believer" or even if you don't believe in any of it, you cannot deny it is most excellent storytelling. Furthermore, MARK TWAIN once said, "Man is the only animal with the TRUE RELIGION. HUNDREDS of them!" Which tells me there are millions of "true believers" in disagreement with each other. Sepiatone

Oh, so THAT'S his name! Yeah, the pics helped, otherwise I wouldn't know who the hell you were talking(?) about. His birthday is July 28? Well, it seems me and him have SOMEthing in common! Sepiatone

Well, when I first joined, I never had any of the difficulties I mentioned. UNTIL I got a new tower loaded with WINDOWS 7 Business. THAT'S when it all started. I couldn't say if any of it was due to THAT, or something to do with the website. Logic tells me if it WAS the site, we'd ALL be experiencing the same trouble. But I'm as technically savvy about PCs as I am about helecoptors, so I couldn't say for sure. Sepiatone

OW!

You know, Jake, in spite of our differences about the movie, I can't disagree much about the SCORE. And even though the theme is oft repeated in *The King of Kings* (NOT the silent), I find that one, too, is pretty rousing. Sepiatone

Wow...the power of suggestion must have had real power in those days! I don't like to sound like a new-age sensitive dweeb, but I can't see boiling puppies for some kind of ointment that probably didn't have any real medicinal value. Of course, this doesn't diminish the desire, in the wee hours of the morning, to boil the puppies my neighbor lets bark their heads off all night long! Sepiatone

Both Dargo and I were poking fun of the movie, hlywdkjk, NOT religious beliefs. You need to peddle that "criticize *the Robe* but not those that enjoy the movie" stuff to JAKE! Sepiatone

(Gasp!) I'm only *5 steps* away from my BATHROOM! :0 Sepiatone

I had some minor issues with this site. Technical issues. For one, whenever I wanted to post a thread or reply to one, I had to click on "plain text" to be able to get a blinking cursor that would enable me to do so. Whenever I hit "enter", it would "double-space". The emoticons wouldn't work, and I had to figure out how to type them in ( only mastering the much needed wink). Had to hit CTRLB to get bold. Couldn't italicize because hitting CTRLI only got my IM page. Stuff like that. I had learned to live with it, as getting around these things weren't much of a problem. But today, I came on here and all of a sudden, they were GONE! I went to reply to a thread, and the cursor was blinking in th RICH TEXT page, which I'm using now. I click on "B" for bold and I get BOLD! Plus, I can now italicize. And the emoticons even work! :^0 :x (!) Have to double "enter" to double space. No big deal to the rest of you, I'm sure. But *I* *don't know what happened!* Did little PC sprites, like "shoe elves" come in last night and do something? I couldn't say. I DO remember last night before signing off from something else to click on an UPDATE alert from MS. But that wouldn't mean anything, would it? Or not? Sepiatone

*The Robe* is a "Biblical-based" movie? I thought it was based on Lloyd C. Douglas' *novel*! Which book opf the Bible does this story come from? Sepiatone Edited by: Sepiatone on Mar 29, 2013 12:34 PM

Did Hayward die of lung cancer? And yes, cigarette packs always had 20 to a pack. I think Wayne's usage has been eggagerated over the years. A smoke every three minutes? Since it takes FIVE for a cigarette to burn down, that would be a mean trick! Sepiatone

Is that "accordian" crack some kind of Polish joke, darkblue? X-( Sepiatone

Oh, well EXCUUUUUSE me! The ACADEMY nominated him for it. And, as we ALL know, the ACADEMY always gets it right! So, Jake, do you think Burton's performance in this flack-er-flick was actually good? Or do you think so because the ACADEMY said so? Sepiatone

I'm gonna make a few enemies here and state that the score for *Out of Africa* is a bowl of schmaltz covered in thick syrup. Sweeping, slow sawed violins are way too much of a cliche` for me in what are supposed to be romantic movies. Sometimes a score can be good accompaniment for particular scenes. Either augmenting the emotion or building anticipation. Other times it seems they're used in an attempt to cue the audience as to how they're supposed to react. I prefer the former. And in *Superman*, The scene in which the "Man of steel" flies Lois over Metropolis and that sappy John Williams song starts to play is made ridiculous by having Kidder recite the lyrics. Anyway, I never liked that song very much. Sepiatone Edited by: Sepiatone on Mar 29, 2013 11:53 AM

As far as *The Robe* goes, it was kind of an institution in our house when growing up. My Mom thought it kinda stunk, too, but she didn't care...VICTOR MATURE was in it! I gotta agree with Mom. If NOT for Mature and Jay Robinson, it would be unbearable. Back in the '90's, I found an old hardcover copy of the book at a book fair. I was reading it during a break at work when a co-worker asked me, "Is the book as BORING as the MOVIE?" I had to admit that the book was quite compelling. "You know, " I told him, "If they tried to remake the movie based more on this book, it would make for a FABULOUS mini-series." The main problem with the old movie is RICHARD BURTON. The expression "phone it in" doesn't even work here. Burton seemed as if he sent HIS performance in by carrier pidgeon! Sepiatone

Y'know, there are some good parts as well as laughable parts in *The Ten Commandments*. Yeah, I too, wait in vain for Eddie to lie on the ground asking, "Could this be happening to NIMROD?" And considering the times it was made during, we are forced to accept the now antiquated and cheezy looking special effects. I mean, C.B. could have hired a voice actor who didn't sound like a taped voice played on slow speed. And to the one who's Mom didn't appreciate the movie being made fun of, well, don't we all get our hackles up a bit when our favorites get mocked? Sepiatone