Dargo2
-
Posts
5,606 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Dargo2
-
-
>Can any of you provide anything?
Tell ya what, Sepia. I'm a little too busy right now to help ya find out anything about this movie, but I'll tell my wife to get right on this project for ya and report back to me anything she might come across.
And don't worry, I told her I wanted this info on-the-double, and so it shouldn't take much time at all to get back to ya with what she's found out.
(...yep, she's usually pretty good about doin' what I tell her to do!)
LOL
-
Yep, another good point here, Sepia. Alvy as a biker IS probably a bigger stretch of the imagination than even Jerry is, huh! And maybe I'd add the diminutive Gil Stratton as a biker to this list too!
Though Gil, who for many years was our local Los Angeles CBS affiliate's sportscaster after his film career ended, was a jockey in his youth, and thus making the transition from horse to motorcycle isn't that much of a leap, I suppose.
-
>Dargo, I hope you are awake now so you can watch Another Bad Day at Black Rock. Why does Spencer Tracy keep going back to that bad little town over and over again?
Yeah, good point Fred. THOUGH ironically, I guess you haven't heard the latest news from Tinseltown, eh?!
Word is Bill Murray is going to reprise this Tracy role in sort of a remake of that film.
(...yep, filming is set to begin outside Barstow California next month with the working title Bad Groundhog Day at Black Rock!!!)
-
Ya know RM, I'm not so sure that this was necessarily a case of his fellow air travelers not knowing of or appreciating that Rob Reiner directed movie, as it might have been more the idea that many air travelers today wouldn't want to hear or see the word "die" among many other words and phrases being mentioned whenever stepping into an airliner.
Nope, I'd say this incident's notoriety was most likely spurred by something this cartoon below might best represent....
-
Yep ham! I always love seein' those old Triumph, Matchless and Harley motorcycles in that film, alright!
Though I've ALSO always thought the movie could've used a little more Lee Marvin, and a little less Brando.
(...and Jerry "Helper the dentist" Paris as a BIKER?!!...gimme a break!)
-
Oh...yeah..sorry. I guess I forgot to mention that this was a period piece.
(...all the extras are ridin' around on bicycles built for two...and those vacuum cleaners were a very new invention, and WAY before that Brit dude Dyson with his serious sibilant "s" pronunciation problem made his recent innovative breakthroughs in the vacuum cleaner field!)
-
Well, in THAT case ham ol' buddy, maybe you've never caught the 1938 version of Billy Jack EITHER then, eh?!
Now this one ya see isn't some low-budget number about some martial arts dude who singlehandedly fights injustice perpetrated against the native population in some small out-of-the-way Arizona town. Nope, THIS one stars Edward Everett Horton as a door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesman who stumbles across a nefarious plot to kidnap Nipper, the RCA dog! Yeah, you remember him, don't ya?! Yep, you've got it! "His Master's Voice", THAT dog!
Yep, be sure to keep your eyes peeled for the next TCM showing of THIS classic starring not ONLY Mr. Horton, but co-starring the likes of Guy KIbbee, Ruby Vallee(yep, I said Ruby...that was Rudy's younger half-sister, and this was her only movie), AND the always unforgetable Maria Ouspenskaya.
(...btw, and in case you're wonderin', I have NO idea why they called this one "Billy Jack", 'cause NOBODY in this baby is named Billy OR Jack...go figure, huh?!)
-
>People who love the English language for its power and beauty can rest assured in the fact that this word, which shall remain unwritten, has knocked around odd corners and dusty alleys for some hundred and fifty years, continually gaining acceptance, Dan Quayle-like, and still remains non-standard, as it shall always.
So, in essence here, slayton ol' buddy, you're sayin' that while some might spell the word "potato" and add an "e" at the end, you have doubts that the learned lexicographers at Oxford OR their American counterparts at Merriam-Webster will ever recognize that spelling as being correct...RIGHT?!!!
(...well, THAT'S certaining a big relief to know, anyway!)
-
Btw MissW, and speaking of the word "plethora", and because you stated your studies were in the realm of the proper use of our language, I have a question for you here regarding that word AND the word "modicum".
I'm wondering if you might have the definitive answer to the proper usage of these two words in a sentence. In this I mean I've always been of the understanding that because the definitions of both these nouns are "a certain measure of", then wouldn't the use of these words in a sentence such as, "They had a plethora(or a modicum) of options." be redundant in the use of the words "a" and "of"? And thus, wouldn't the more correct manner of stating that sentence be, "They had plethora(or modicum) options."?
Like I said, I've never been sure about this, but I thought you might have some idea.
Thanks in advance for any insights you might be able to offer in this..ahem.."regard".
(signed)
Too Much Time On My Hands Dargo
LOL
-
Yep Bild. That's what I meant earlier when I said people (mis-)use the word "irregardless" because it sounds "highfalutin", or I suppose, if you will, "snappier". However, this still doesn't make it correct, because it's still and always will be a double negative, and as such and as I mentioned earlier about the phrase "ain't no", will or should always also be considered "incorrect usage". Though conversely, the latter of course has a decidedly "backwater" sound to it, and thus doesn't sound "highfalutin" at ALL!
(...hey dude, look at it THIS way...SOMEBODY has to occasionally take SprocketMan's place around here since he's been away, RIGHT?!...so why not ME???!!!)
LOL
-
LOL
I "absolutely, positively" loved that joke, VX!
(...and I don't mean that in "no negative" manner, "neither"!)
-
While I have to admit I didn't catch TCM's latest showing of one of my favorite WWII films, and thus also missed Ben's comments on the matter, I'm sorry but somehow I just don't quite understand your "complaint" here.
From the little you've quoted him of saying, I don't see where the inference was that Italian-Americans of the time "were somehow too uninformed or too propagandized to understand the implications of Fascism". Though of course, IF his exact words were "all Italian Americans "just loved" the fact that the Italian soldier in the film was depicted as anti-Fascist", then using an absolute term such as "all" in almost any summation of thought can be a "tricky thing". If those were his exact words, then the most I think Ben could be "guilty" of might be a SLIGHT case of presumptuousness...and emphasis on the word "slight" there.
And thus, and as I've stated above, I'm sorry but I'm having a little difficulty understanding why you've apparently felt "slighted" by the thought that a Hollywood movie made during WWII and with a pro-Allied point of view would feature an Italian soldier who obviously understood why he hated his country's politics of the time but nevertheless at least at one time felt obliged to serve his country in war, and up until he was captured.
You see, I've always loved the scene in which he(J.Carrol Naish) and the captured German soldier battle over their conflicting ideas of Fascism when left alone. I've always thought the Italian soldier character was written more as an "ode" to how many Italian nationals during WWII and most Italian-Americans loved and honored the idea of, let us say, "freedom", and that it was never presented in any condescending manner in the film. And from what you've said Ben said, I don't get the idea that he was being condescending, either.
And so, as it's been a few days since you've made your one and only contribution to the TCM boards here(and btw, welcome), if you're still around to see my response here, would you please supply us a little more insight into why you feel the way you do.
Thanks!
-
Yep, dark ol' buddy. And I'll bet you've also noticed the occasional use of the phrase "should of" instead of the correct "should have, haven't ya?!
(...saaaaay, this reminds me...where the hell has SprocketMan been lately???...now THERE was a REAL "Nitpicker" for ya in THIS regard!!!)
-
By the way twinkeee, the primary reason I attempted to correct RM's syntax was because I wanted to once again kid you Canucks up there for still usin' that "British superfluous letter "u" in certain words.
But tell ya what. The next time I'm up in beautiful Kelowna BC visiting my "Ma"(that would be my biological mother with whom I had a great reunion some 5 years ago...she's a wonderful lady and it's been a great experience gettin' to know my new "Canadian family") and when I step into a Tim Horton's up there, I'll be sure to tell first advise the clerk before I ask for an apple fritter and cup o' Joe, that I can occasionally be the "Ugly American Nitpicker" when it comes to our mutual language.
-
>It's a colloquialism.
Yep, I suppose so. "Kinda like"(there's another one right there
) using the phrase, "Ain't no". It's just that many people use the word "irregardless" apparently thinking that it somehow "sounds" more "highfalutin", when in fact and because just as using the double negative phrase of "Ain't no" would in essence mean for something to actually exist, such a conceivable word as "irregardless" with its prefix ir- and its suffix -less both meaning a negative and thus cancelling each other, the word would in fact mean "regard", not "regardless"(...and as you apparently knew)
-
>The CBC TV show "Hockey Night in Canada" is for English-language audiences in the Great White North, irregardless of where the games are played.
Please excuse me for bringing the following to your attention here RM, but in the English language no such word as "irregardless" presently exists. I believe you actually meant to use either the word "regardless" or "irrespective" in your sentence.
The only reason I brought this to your attention is that I'm almost always impressed with syntax and overall excellent command of our language.
(...and even though you as a Canadian still spell certain words usin' that "British superfluous letter "u")
-
Okay slay my ol' friend, thanks. I think I've now have the etymology of the "F-word" understood.
So, NOW please tell us when it's somewhat acceptable alternatives, i.e. "freakin'" and/or "friggin'" (though some I suppose prefer to spell those without the apostrophe) came into the lexicon of cinema?
(...'cause I've been freakin' DYIN' to know this TOO!!!)
-
Well R'48, while yes, I'll grant you the point that in the section of film where McQueen's GT390 pulls up next to the two bad guys in the Charger on that straight section of road outside the city and McQueen's windshield get blasted for his trouble (btw, here's ANOTHER little bit of "movie magic" for ya regarding this...that was actually Vasoline petroleum jelly being shot/sprayed on the "King of Cool"'s windshield there in order to simulate it being shattered...ah, but I digress) that on a STRAIGHT section of road like that, it MIGHT have been tough for that Mustang to catch the bigger displacement Charger, BUT...and here it comes my MOPAR aficionado...don't forget that the Charger mid-size muscle car probably weighs a good 300lbs or more than does the Pony car.
PLUS, please don't forget that during the chase scene where both cars are maneuvering all around the streets of San Francisco, there is NO way that those old MOPAR mid-size muscle cars (WHICH I might add while being GREAT at goin' REAL fast in a STRAIGHT line, handled like a piece of you-know-what in turns...ah, but I digress yet again, didn't I), could EVER have pulled away from that Mustang in THAT kind of driving situation.
Yep, you're talkin' to a Gearhead here TOO, my new friend.
(...btw, welcome to the boards...we can ALWAYS use more Gearheads around here, ya know)
-
>When I was little I thought the misguided general's name was "Custard", and imagined him consuming prodigious amounts of the creamy treat.
"Hmmmm...you know Sherman, I THINK I remember us using that very line ourselves once. But then again, I think WE also worked some sort of reference about a "last stand" into it too!"
-
RM68, your Butch and Sundance "dynamite" scene IS a good one alright, but MY favorite still has to be....
Sundance: "Any ideas?"
Butch: "Yeah. We'll jump."
Sundance: "No."
Butch: "Alright. I'll jump first."
Sundance: "No."
Butch: "Then you jump first."
Sundance: "No, I said."
Butch: "What's the matter with you?"
Sundance: "I can't swim."
Butch: "Are you crazy?! The fall will probably kill ya!"
Sundance: "Oh, shiiiiiiiiiitttt........................."
-
Sorry Dothery, but like James and Andy here were sayin', Raft just looks and sounds stiff whenever he's delivering his lines there(and in almost every OTHER film I've ever seen him in for that matter), and while I suppose his little Bolero dance there wasn't half bad, I got me a feelin' if he were still alive and kickin' his heels around today, he'd probably only make it halfway through the next season of "Dancing With The Stars"!!!
LOL
(...but hey, as they say, "whatever floats your boat"...if the guy does somethin' for ya, it's no skin off MY nose!)
Edited by: Dargo2 on Jan 12, 2013 11:55 PM
-
Sorry for the sidetracking here folks, but...
Andy, speaking of that time in our history, and our national pastime's history, here's something coming our way in April of this year(2013) that looks like a winner...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQMuyuPpXJI
Yep, seems a higher production value remake of the 1950 movie The Jackie Robinson Story, titled 42.
(...and yep, that's ol' Indiana Jones himself playin' Branch Rickey there)
-
(with great aplomb, THAT'S how!)
-
Victor Jory ?
Edited by: Dargo2 on Jan 11, 2013 12:08 AM
"Point Blank" (1967) Remake "Parker" (2013)
in General Discussions
Posted
Wow Hibi. And here I always thought of this film as Lee Marvin's greatest starring role. Yep, I always thought he was not only perfectly cast in it, but that the "flow" and "feel" of this film in general was near perfect in how it captured the world of people with scant moral convictions.