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

Sepiatone

Members
  • Content Count

    19,286
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by Sepiatone

  1. 1 hour ago, txfilmfan said:

        WGN became WGN America, and will soon transition into an all-news network (NewsNation)

    Well, on my cable service(WOW) WGN is still presented, and NewsNation is one of many programs on it's roster.  

    Sepiatone

  2. 36 minutes ago, MrMagoo said:

    I watched THE BLACKBOARD JUNGLE last night.

    I read Glenn Ford's son's biography of his dad and he wrote that he was playing "Rock Around the Clock" at home the day director Richard Brooks was visiting his dad to discuss the movie, heard the song for the first time  and decided that it was the song he would use to open and close the movie. Apparently this lit a fire under the song and led to it becoming the first rock and roll song to make it to #1 on the Billboard charts. The rest was history. OK...I guess. 

    Honestly, to me, it was the only reason to watch the movie. 

    For 1954, this was suppose to be a gritty, urban drama of high school delinquency. Ha!

    If they were such hooligans why did they go to school every day?  

    I did like Richard Kiley's role as a put upon, passive teacher. It was a little different from the roles I usually associate with him.

    Jamie Farr, famous for playing Klinger in MASH played one of the students and he was the biggest kid in the class. All I could think was that Vic Morrow must have been a small guy as Farr dwarfed him in size. So did Poitier. 

    Almost all the students looked way too old to be high schoolers.....sort of James Deanish in REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE. 

    Glenn Ford was way too earnest and the relationship with Sidney Poitier's student character seemed exceptionally contrived to me. The ending was slam, bam, thank you ma'am over. 

    I guess I'd recommend it only for it's historical perspective. That's about it.

     

    One of the few(IMO) movies that stayed pretty close to the book.    And to be sure, both Poitier and Morrow were two of the older "kids" in the class.  Poitier two years older than Morrow, and Farr(Farah)  just over 21 when this movie was made.('55, not '54)  And personally, Farr didn't look that big to me.  Poitier was much larger in physical stature.    But no matter.  Of course those "hooligans" went to school every day.  Otherwise, there'd be no movie;)   And several other familiar faces wound up at Manual Trades.  You already mentioned Jameel Farah(Jamie Farr),  Morrow and Poitier, but also  Future director Paul Mazursky, and Horace McMahon( Naked City).   And the tragic Rafael Campos, who I've long thought deserved a better career. 

    But, judge this movie as you should most others.  By how it presents the story and the quality of the acting by the cast, and not the niggling little details that nobody really cares about anyway.  

    Sepiaton

  3. 1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

    I see see Harrigan, and Travers,  but where is lead actor Claude Rains!!!!  This poster is all messed up!!!  Who can I call to make a complaint!!

    Oh, wait,,,,  never mind.

     

    Why James......

    I had no idea your last name was LITELLA  :D

     

    Sepiatone

  4. 19 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

    Well at least he it wasn't Uncle Tom!    Hey,  the changes are all related to marketing.    The marketers hope that whites continue to purchase the product,  new label and all,  and that sales increase in the non-white community due to the change.    Of course some whites may decide to no longer support the company and their products,  but to me that would be silly and immature.  

    As for myself;  I wouldn't buy any of these products.   E.g. any fool should be able to make their own pancake mix (and I would use whole wheat flour, and add some ground flax seed),    use actual maple syrup (not their sugar water crap),    and buy generic labeled brown rice (which is way cheaper and much healthier).

     

    Well, pancake batter is such an easy recipe and many personal touches can be added.  Your alternate sound OK James, but my only sway from the ordinary is adding some malt and vanilla extract to the batter.  The malt works too for waffle batter.  And I've always had, for some reason, poor luck with making rice.  I mostly use Minute Rice( or the Aldi alternative)  and sometimes make a pot of cream of mushroom soup and cook that rice in IT for a nice side.    And now I wonder.....

    Will Betty Crocker and Chef Boyardee  get any changes? (and yes, there WAS a real Chef  ETTORE  BOIARDI  so I don't see anyone messing with that brand.

    Sepiatone

  5. On 2/9/2021 at 11:59 PM, HoldenIsHere said:

    Was the original poster even referring to programming on TCM?

    By their "All I see is movies from 80s being shown"  comment I think not.

    Possibly (likely?)  they are talking about the MOVIES! TV network.  The title of the thread after all is "Movies."

    Not too long ago someone posted a complaint on the  TCM boards about a movie being scheduled in "parts"  and they were actually talking about something scheduled on MOVIES! *

     

    *The exclamation point is part of the network's name; it's not my emphasis.

    Heh.  I often watch something on MOVIES! too, and they often show films made in the mid to late '40's( the station having their own "Noir" presentations) to early-mid '50's.   And I also brought up movies made in the '80's  approaching 40 years of age.  Seems to fit the TCM criteria to me.  So, what's the real complaint here?

    Age denial?  Hates the thought that movies that were "current" when they were kids now thought of as "classic" in the "old movie" sense?  ;)  Well, welcome to the CLUB, POPS!  :D

    Sepiatone

  6. 22 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

    I see characters in movies that are supposedly the same age as I am and they look like they're at least 20-25 years older, I look like I could be their kid sister.  I blame the cigarettes and booze for that.  For the women, I just figure it's a difference with their makeup, hairstyle and clothing.  

    People that are my parents age (late 50s) are made out to be elderly with one foot in the grave. 

    I think it's funny in classic films, especially for women, girls start out looking like Shirley Temple, age into someone like Barbara Stanwyck, then 50 hits and they look like Marjorie Main or May Robson.  There is no elegant, sexy older woman in classic cinema. 

    But then, maybe they WERE 20-25 years older than the character they portrayed that was supposedly your age.  Y'know, I used to think  I was older than child actor STANLEY LIVINGSTON, who was CHIP Douglas on the MY THREE SONS show, because the character was given as  and looked a few years younger than the "kid" who is actually a year older than me.  And too( and I've mentioned this before)  I'm now pushing 70(this July) and STILL look half as old as SPENCER TRACY did when he made GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER at age 67.   And in his case, you probably could blame it on the smoking and booze ;) .  But in the matter of TV kids, both JOHNNY CRAWFORD (The Rifleman) and JERRY MATHERS( the "Beave")  played characters younger than they really were, and maybe due to them being "small for their age".  I long thought I was older than them too, but it turns out they beat me by a few years.   

    Sepiatone

  7. It's been many years(maybe too many) since I've read Mr. Baum's time honored book.  And that was after years of watching the Garland movie yearly on TV.  

    But I know really nothing about this supposed remake.  As we do know, the '39 "classic" bears little resemblance(save for pertinent characters) to the source material(book).  So, is the proposed "remake" to be an attempt to be a truer adaptation of the book, or a remake of the "classic" MGM musical?   And some ask "What's the point?"  Well....

    In alignment with the "Hamlet" example mentioned earlier, I suppose the same could have been said about a stage musical and subsequent film of basically a Shakespeare play that's also been done before(West Side Story) .  How many "Romeo and Juliets" do we need as well?  No matter WHICH form they take?  ;) 

    Sepiatone

  8. 1 hour ago, TopBilled said:

    Sorry I am not buying your first sentence. You don't know how renowned it was or not in 1939. I am sure people had seen the 1925 version and remembered it fondly. 

    Also you are trying to say people are ignorant about the 1925 film, but I would suspect that there are plenty of little kids today who have never seen the 1939 version or tried watching it and couldn't get into it. A new version with the kind of digital effects they crave might be more to their enjoyment.

    The real point is that the story can be re-interpreted and enjoyed by a new generation of viewers. 

    And nobody is saying don't watch the 1925 version and don't watch the 1939 version. It is possible to watch and enjoy each one (or to dislike each one).

    Again I think there is an overinflated bias towards the 1939 version. I love the '39 version but I do not think it should be the only one people watch.  Who are we to dictate that..?

    From a financial point of view if a new remake is a hit, then the studio can do a series of sequels since L. Frank Baum wrote many books featuring these beloved characters. 

    Well, from anything I've found out about the '25 version, it really wasn't as well received by audiences as it was to some critics.  And likely long before the '39 remake was mostly forgotten, not "beloved".  TCM had shown it before, and I sadly missed it then, interested in seeing OLIVER HARDY as the Tin Man.  :D  Hopefully, they'll show it again.   And I've yet to know of any kid from any generation so far, that hasn't been enchanted by the '39 classic.  Sure, some might be a bit bored until the color comes in, but at that point their eyes are glued.   I have a grandnephew, now 28 who always loved the movie (funny tale about that I'll relate sometime) and now has his own little boy( now 5) who since first seeing it a year ago watches it while sitting cross-legged on the floor and will bounce up and down with excitement and yell and cheer at certain spots.  Plus I suspect there'll always be little kids whose parents, also initiated to the '39 version at an early age and still like it, will insist on showing it to there kids as well, and on and on....  Plus, I'm unaware of ANY kids who "crave" any specific special effects.  ;) 

    Sepiatone

    • Thanks 1
  9. I think of that stuff on occasion.  Like, I'll see a baby in a movie made in the early 30's and think, "If that kid's still living he's probably in his mid 80's by now".   Or, that baby Ginger Rogers thinks is her husband in MONKEY BUSINESS('52) and looks to be about a year old, well when I watch that movie I keep thinking that kid is MY age now(if still with us)  ;) 

    If that sort of thing is unusual, well then , looks like WE'RE unusual too,  ;) 

    Sepiatone

    • Like 2
  10. Sure, movie titles(like LP cover art) can sometimes be so compelling it's what draws people to see the movie(or buy the LP) kinda like...

    DEAD HEAT ON A MERRY-GO-ROUND('66)  or--

    THE NAKED PREY(also '66)

    No real merry-go-round in one, no one really naked in the other.

    But they both did pretty good business.  ;) 

    Sepiatone

     

    • Like 1
  11. I do too, and usually get away with cleaning them with one of those alcohol swabs my wife used to use before giving herself her insulin shots( then later I gave them to her).  Works fine.

    Oh, and I had a whole regimen of LP cleaning devices back in the "day", the DISCWASHER brush, that little bottle of solution, and that odd looking ION neutralizing gun.  Kinda looked like this gizmo, only mine was red.  ;) 

    Sepiatone

  12. Y'know Magoo, it wasn't until 50 years after I first saw "The Boy With Green Hair" that I finally saw it in color and SAW the green hair.  That was in 2009!  :wacko:

    And me and some friends first saw the Dr. T movie in the early '80's while under the influence of some powerful South American smoking preparations.  ;)  Quite an impression!  :D 

    But seen it plenty since while sober and it didn't disappoint.  

    Another movie title(memorable) could be I DIED A THOUSAND TIMES, which I first saw because the title gave me the impression it was a horror flick of some kind.  But no, it was a crime drama.  And it wasn't until TCM came along some 20 years after that when I discovered it was a remake of a Bogart movie!( HIGH SIERRA).  ;) 

    Sepiatone

    • Like 1
  13. 23 hours ago, Millenniumman said:

    In my opinion a movie should at least be 30 years old to be considered a classic I've been watching tcm for 15 years the problem is competing with streaming 1920s to 1950s movies want cut it with main stream audiences who seem to only care about blockbusters these days.

    I quoted this post and "bolded" that part to help me point out that "30 years old"  means 1991!  So I'm not sure if this guy agrees with the OP or not.  Due to movies from the '80's being older than 30 years old now. 

    Plus, I'm not sure when the OP limits his viewing times, but I've noticed, in recent weeks, I've seen MANY movies from the '30's and '40's being shown.  But then possibly, this person's problem could have been admitted in his screen name.  ;) 

    Sepiatone

  14. Ach!   

    Could have done without all the DIANA ROSS and The Supremes  clips.   I've long thought it should have been either MARY or FLO as the lead singer of that trio, not the whiny nasal sounding Ross.  And too, I thought both Mary and Flo were MUCH better looking than Ross anyway, 

    Regardless, I liked them in spite of it all, and probably because of the strong songwriting pool at Motown.  Smokey, Marvin, Holland, Dozier and Holland  and even Gordy himself  gave us a lot of great tunes to listen to and love for years later.  :)  As for the girls....

    I liked many of their tunes, and one in particular(for reasons I can't pinpoint)----

     

    Rest In Peace, Dear lady

    Sepiatone

    • Like 2
  15. "Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia!"  

    and----

    "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest"   This came out before I got around to hearing of then reading the book, and many went to see it 1.  Because it stars Jack Nicholson, and he was the hottest thing on toast at the time, and..

    2.  The odd title did pique a lot of curiosities.  ;) 

    Sepiatone

    • Like 1
  16. Actually proves nothing.  The kid looks uncertain of his comments and his stilted delivery seems poorly rehearsed.  Plus it's easy to take footage of someone possibly quoting someone else and make it seem as if it's them making an original statement.  "Not Necessarily The News" used to do it with Reagan footage often.  But anyway.....

    That kid's Mom has a nice looking basement.  ;)

    Sepiatone

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