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

Sepiatone

Members
  • Posts

    23,768
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by Sepiatone

  1.  

    This is all so ridiculous. The story takes place in the early-mid 1930's. The rise and growth of Nazi Germany. So it was FILMED in '72. So what? The costumes and settings looked period correct. It seems what set some off was the CONTENT. You really haven't been misled by watching too many Hollywood movies made back then that homosexuality and cussing DIDN'T EXIST, have you? Almost sounds like my ex mother-in-law who was convinced that MARIJUANA was INVENTED in the late '60's by HIPPIES.

     

     

    No NAZI'S in the '70's? Surely you jest. There are STILL Nazi's here in the 21st century!

     

     

    Oh, and not only were ther a lot of WOMEN who wore hair and make-up like in *Cabaret* around Frisco in the '70's, but a lot of MEN, too!

     

     

    Sepiatone

     

     

  2. Not to beat a dead hose too much further, but wouldn't that be much of what the Devil is about? How successful would he BE if he could be seen as evil incarnate right off the bat? All artist's conceptions of Satan as being hideous, repulsive and monsterous are largely images of his character rather than his appearance to man. That Scratch in this movie, played by Huston, comes OFF as "down to Earth and likeable" is what makes Scratch APPEAL to his victims. "He doesn't seem like that bad of a fellow.", one might think, "I'll take his deal". That Huston's Scratch seems to take such GLEE in his victim's misfortunes is indicative enough of his evil. That his portrayal WASN'T cliched is what I found appealing.

     

     

     

    Sepiatone

     

    Edited by: Sepiatone on Feb 6, 2013 9:30 PM

  3.  

    I was surprised to see this thread on my screen today. The fact that I wasn't familiar with the title made me at first think it was a NEW thread. THEN I saw it already had 14 pages! I have since discovered that somebody bumped it up from several months ago, so I guess the title WAS right!

     

     

    Boring is relative. What I find boring might be compelling to others, and vice-versa. The late, great Lori3 could have been considered boring with her constant knack for finding ways to insert JOHN GARFIELD into just about ANY thread about ANYTHING else, save for the fact her writing was impeccible. Hell, some might even consider THIS post to be boring. 'Nuff said.

     

     

    For me(whom others might think is boring), the most boring threads are those that start off mentioning an upcoming movie, then go on to FULLY DESCRIBE the entire content of said movie, and finish up with a personal critique. Just let US watch the movie and come to our own conclusions. We often provide our own opinions in opposition of the "status quo" and it often proves to be fodder for lively discussion. There is NOBODY HERE who's threads are "authored" more importantly than anyone else's. Such superior allusions (or disillusions) only serve to incite rude or snippy commentary from other members. YOUR( by which I mean the COLLECTIVE "your", not YOU specifically, MissW.) likes and dislikes NEED NOT be everyone else's. Too often in here I notice some who take a dislike to some movie or actor and postulate self righteously of their disdain as if DARING anyone to just TRY and say they're wrong. Just recently in one thread, after several other members posted scathing remarks about how pizz-poor they all thought some movie was, one member simply posted "______ is a very good movie". HATS OFF! Not that I agree. Indeed, I've never seen the movie they were mentioning. But the simple reply seemed to illustrate all that I'm going on too long about.

     

     

    I also, as I've mentioned a few times before, don't mind "off topic" threads in a page listed as "General Discussions". The name of the room alone indicates there's really NO specific topic. So other members chirping up occaisionally complaining that some thread has nothing to do with what THEY think we SHOULD be discussing puts my nose a bit out of joint. I've found from my experience from being in other message boards that leaving a thread is as easy as entering. Just do THAT if it bothers you that much.

     

     

    I'm also grateful for DARGO2, who doesn't seem to take anything seriously, and often cracks me up with his off-beat sense of humor. HE'S the reminder that we're not REALLY doing God's work here.

     

     

    Sepiatone

     

     

  4.  

    And it looks so dumb, you wonder WHY they use it?

     

     

    I've seen, over the years, and in both TV shows AND movies, a technique used that would have a scene go so far, THEN reverse, go forward again, the REVERSE again and go over and over for about four or five times.

     

     

    If you have ANY IDEA what the hell I'm referring to( I found it hard to accurately describe), PLEASE tell me what it's called. I KNOW there must be some name for it so someone wouldn't tell the editor, "Do that 'reverse' thingy on this part."

     

     

    Sepiatone

     

     

  5.  

    HEY! I DO notice one of my posts from this thread missing. A post that had ABSOLUTELY no offensive content. Now I'm REALLY confused as to what THAT motive may have been.

     

     

    Sepiatone

     

     

  6.  

    Detroit area's famed movie host, BILL KENEDY made the claim once that Alfred Hitchcock only made one try at making a comedy, *Mr. and Mrs. Smith* . He had to mean "mainstream" comedy, as "HARRY" is a superb DARK comedy, in my opinion. As I LIKE dark comedy, I found myself giggling several times throughout this movie the first time I saw it. Still do, truth be told.

     

     

    But I've never paid much attention to either the song in question, nor bothered with who supposedly sang it. Something else for me to pay attention to whenever I see it again.

     

     

    Sepiatone

     

     

  7.  

    I don't know the answer to that, twinkee. But I HAVE had this discussion with a brother-in-law who's a "gadget junkie". HE'S the one who suggested getting a LAPTOP to watch streamed movies on the comfort of my couch. Picture this(actually SEEN):

     

     

    Here's my brother-in-law, laptop on lap, watching *Avatar* (which he ALREADY owns the DVD of) while three feet away, the VISIO 55" monitor he has in his front room sits idle!

     

     

    W! T! F!

     

     

    Sepiatone

     

     

  8. Someone by the handle of Jessikka posted a thread about their "First trip abroad". It contained an uncensored "F" word, and I replied to it wondering how she got it past the "autocensor".

     

     

     

    Five seconds later, it was GONE! NO warning. NO reprimand. NO request to curb the language. Simply ELIMINATED!

     

     

     

    Sieg HEIL!

     

     

     

    Sepiatone

     

    Edited by: Sepiatone on Feb 4, 2013 5:32 AM

  9.  

    I didn't go through the trouble of finding a good price on my 50" large screen, shuttle it home and buy pizza for the guys who helped carry it into my house and set it up only to watch movies on my 15" PC MONITOR! And I'll not pay the cost for some DEVICE that will allow me to stream movies from my PC to the large screen, thank you. Same with my PHONE! I would find it hard to nestle down on my couch with a LAPTOP, and all the GREAT SOUND one of those might supply(NOT!) to watch some of my favorite movies.

     

     

    What the FU** is WRONG with some people?

     

     

    Sepiatone

     

     

  10.  

    Character actor Lee Wallace played the mayor of New York in a couple of movies, most notably the 1974 version of *The Taking of Pelham 123* . But if he's still alive, he's got to be in his 80's and likely retired.

     

     

    He DID have a good resemblance to Koch.

     

     

    Sepiatone

     

     

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