Dargo2

Well, you DO realize that all these movies mentioned here would be an EXCELLENT choice for a "DATE" night, doncha?! (...go ahead...your turn)

Sorry QuadSix, but I'm pretty sure Larry Harmon died a few years ago.

James, the following passage is on the Wikipedia page for Martin Sheen: Born and raised in the United States from immigrant parents, he adopted the stage name Martin Sheen to help him gain acting parts. ...and which I always pretty much had heard was the reason for his anglicizing his name...that at the time of his breaking into The Biz in the 1960s, he thought using his Hispanic name might limit his being considered for some parts. And, I would guess that Charlie might've also thought so when he began his acting career. (...I suppose it would pretty much be akin to why we know Jacob Garfinkle, Bernard Schwartz and Issur Danielovitch as, John Garfield, Tony Curtis and Kirk Douglas today)

So then, I suppose he'll have his "sangre del tigre" on show in THIS one then, eh TB?! (...told ya not to worry and that I'd be goin' back to my usual "levity" again, didn't I, dude?!) LOL

Yep, and I always thought THIS actor was much more interesting than his name was TOO!... (...this would be "William Smith"...a fairly "blah" name too, wouldn't ya say?!)

>Evelyn Keyes, after her years with John Huston, said that the best thing about being married to the quixotic director was having Walter as her father-in-law. I can imagine that, Tom. Years ago I read John Huston's autobiography, "On Open Book", and I recall him admitting that his relationships with most of his five wives were often rather "prickly", and especially as I recall, his marriage to Keyes.

LOL Yeah, it kinda looks that way, doesn't it Twink! (...sort of a "Cagney/O'Brien" thing, eh?!) Edited by: Dargo2 on Jul 7, 2013 12:25 PM

Then we have even MORE to talk about while you'll be here, eh James?! (...looks like I better plan on gettin' an extra 6-pack of Fat Tire or 1554 Porter for us, 'cause now I'm gettin' the feelin' that THOSE might be YOUR favorite brews TOO, huh?!)

Beautiful song alright, willbe. This one and Hoagy's "Stardust" maybe being two of my favorite old standards. (...though as well as Walter did the song there, I always preferred the version "The Schnozzola" did in the early '60s...yeah, I know Jimmy really couldn't ever "carry a tune in a bucket", but somehow he brought so much "pathos" to it in his recording)

Eeh! Don't waste your time here, finance. Any list which would say "the best film made about Texas" would be "The Texas Chain-Saw Massacre" instead of "Giant" isn't exactly the most reliable resource one could hope to find, ya know! (..though I gotta say its pick of "Chinatown" for California isn't half-bad)

>I find Walter Huston's performance in the movie is the one that mesmerizes me more than any other. Well OF COURSE you would Tom! Didn't you pretty much base your whole earlier stated "Cagney preference" on the fact that he could also DANCE?! And thus, because Walter wasn't half bad in that department TOO... ...THIS is probably why your attention was drawn away from Bogie and Tim Holt so much in that flick...RIGHT?!

>I'd be interested in reading the book if there are a lot of photos of Ava, in various states of undress. Yeah, I'll GLADLY second finance's motion HERE, alright!!! (...pant...pant...pant)

LOL Yeah, maybe finance, but as that old Show Biz question went: "But will it play in Peoria?", I would have to say the answer would've probably been a resounding "No".

>For example, my favorite movie is the 1936 version of The Petrified Forest. But I have seen multiple performance of the play, the TV special (with Fonda) and the 2 or more remakes (one being a western with Joel McCrea). While I didn't enjoy any of these as much as the 36 movie I welcomed them just the same. Wow James! When you make it to Sedona in the Fall, we're gonna have LOTS to talk about here, and I'll tell ya why. As much as I also love "The Petrified Forest", I've been sayin' for YEARS that I think an updated film version of it is long overdue. Maybe something such as some inner-city gangbanger type taking on Bogie's Duke Mantee role, for instance. Just thinkin' out loud here, but I've thought for years that Sherwood's script which brings about issues such as "The Privileged vs the Have Nots of the world and how they cope or fail to cope with their lot in life" is an evergreen scenario to explore. You may have even read some similar remarks of mine a few times around here in the past and after someone has started one of those "What movies would be ripe for a remake or redo?" kinds of threads which occasionally pop up at this website.

Yep, Michael. It's kinda sorta lookin' like ya might wanna consider addin' the topic of "Spielberg" and/or maybe that of "Remakes" to that list of verboten topics we can't discuss around here TOO, huh! LOL (...which reminds me...I seem to have been SO busy in THIS thread today that I've PLUMB forgot to check out mongo's VERY non-controversial and fun "Candids" thread today to see who's birthdays it is...and so, see ya later folks...though I DO have to say I just can't wait to read of the "bombshell new angle" that's comin' in THIS one...who knows, maybe it WILL change my opinion about this whole remake thing and I'll start to believe that it's somehow "sacrilegious" too ...stranger things HAVE happened, ya know!)

ROFL now!!! Yep, almost LITERALLY! (...great reply, ol boy.."GODZILLA'S FEET", I LOVE it...oh you Canadians, you!!!)

Hey, btw Tom, while I was immodesty re-reading my razor sharp witty replies to TB just a few minutes ago, I ran across this earlier post that I had overlooked he made to Twinkee here: >I have a really good "argument" I am waiting to introduce later in the thread. I want things to continue running their course as they are now, then when we exhaust this angle, I am going to post the next angle. Let us allow the Spielberg fans to dance around the campfire for awhile, not understanding they are over a barrel. And so, seein' as how he's now stated he's "even less inclined" to read my stuff around here 'cause evidently I kinda sorta hurt his feelings somehow, I was just wonderin' if YOU are prepared to answer to this dramatically-timed "bombshell" of a new "angle" he has comin' up for us "Spielberg Apologists" around here??? LOL (...well, that IS unless YOU are ALSO presently on that "you-what-what" List of his TOO of course!, and then I suppose it really wouldn't matter much at all anyway, huh..err..EH?!) ****

> Spielberg already has a lot of bucks, I understand. Yep! And which I HOPE he uses some of it to find himself an excellent screenwriter who will utilize Steinbeck's masterpiece to it furthest and highest sense of purpose. (...ya see, I may NOT be a "prayin' man", but I DO still "hope" for things to turn out well, and unlike those poor folks venturing toward that sign near the opening to Dante's little netherworld which supposedly doesn't feature air-conditioning)

>There has been some reference earlier to close mindedness on the subject, and that certainly seems to be the case with some. We movie lovers can be a passionate lot, not all that different, I suppose, to those who practice religious intolerance, also alluded to earlier in the thread. Thank you for mentioning this, Tom! Yep, I DID think that that was a rather perceptive analogy which I introduced into this baby a few pages back. (...aaah, but then again I always knew most of you folks up there north of the 49th were a perceptive lot, ya know!)

>But to base on opinion on total speculation? I find that very odd. Yep, the use of "odd" as a adjective to describe a mindset I suppose is as accurate as any other, James...though maybe a bit "ineffectual" in its own right. and... >But I'm glad I went to jam and avoided what unfolded here. Eeh! This really wasn't that much of an "ugly exchange" of ideas and opinions here, if THAT was what you were thinkin'. (...trust me, I've been involved in some REAL "knock-down-drag-out" affairs over this here "Inter-Web" since its inception, and THIS little kerfuffle HERE was NOTHIN' compared to THOSE!!!) LOL

Btw TB, don't worry, once I get you to "see the light" here, I shall return to being my usual "humorous" and ineffectual and light-weight self around here! (...oh, and btw, and before you might claim that I'm now being "presumptuous" and "putting words into your mouth", PLEASE notice that I ONLY encapsulated the word "humorous" up there, as I certainly wouldn't want you to think that I think YOU think I could ever be correctly described by those latter two additional adjectives, as I REALLY DO appreciated that you at least appreciate my sense of humor around here...yep, I really do!)

Now c'mon TB, sorry, you pretty much admitted it yourself in one of those replies to Lavender, didn't YA?! Im mean, I hate to use people's "own words against 'em", but I think you might wish to re-read your OWN earlier words to her here: They will have the bulk of the scenes lit as if they take place in the warm glow of afternoon. That is how cinematography works today. Warm soft lighting for everything. This new version will not look as hard and gritty as the original. Their idea of depicting poverty will be using wardrobe from Walmart. They will get it all wrong. The entire production will be botched. I wish it were already in theatres so I could do a scene by scene analysis of how bad the thing will be. Then we can get back to the business of real classic film. YA see, I don't know about you here, but the way I read that it seems you're pretty closed-minded already about what "Spielberg intends to do in his film". wouldn't ya say?! And ah, I KNOW you are an intelligent man and thus I'm sure can see that when people are being "presumptuous" such as this, they USUALLY have already "closed their minds" to most of the possibilities which can come about in the future, both "good" AND "bad". Now look, I'm sorry if you now think I'm "picking on you" here, but IF ya don't want people to think things about you, then it's really very simple isn't it? Specifically in MY case, just supply me with a rational response to my "uncharacteristically serous" comment I made earlier. (...oh and one MORE thing here, my friend...WHY does it seem that when "some people" fail to supply sufficient evidence to support some opinion of theirs, OR to supply a continuance of evidence to support a rebuttal to their initial opinion, they often seem to resort to the hackneyed line of such as "Hey, that's just how I feel about it, and so please don't insult me and hurt my feelings for my now being unable to further debate the issue by use of some more corroborating evidence!"...yep, I WONDER why that is, EH?!...'cause I suuuuure seem to be reading a whole of that THIS kinda cryin' in this thread TOO!)

Soooo, TB! Would you NOW care to attempt to debunk my earlier supposition in which I attempted to correlate the idea that to immediately dismiss this possible Spielberg film sight-unseen would be akin to how those two "religious" themed films I mentioned earlier were also dismissed by people with "closed minds" sight-unseen? Or would you rather just stick with your initial assessment that I was bein' "preachy" earlier??? (...MAN, I'm lovin' this...yep, there's NOTHIN' in all the world I love MORE than to debunk the idea that I'm some kind of "lightweight" in the I.Q. department by use of my razor sharp wit!!!) **** some more here now!

>I don't know what amuses me more...Dargo's levity or TopBilled's pretentions. Well then Sepia ol' buddy, I certainly hope that you were even MORE than USUALLY amused by my most recent attempt at levity(which contained just a sprinkling of some "uncharacteristic" "seriousness" of course) in my most recent reply to the usually insightful Mr.TopBilled here! (...and who I've just discovered might not possess as much as that "insightfulness" as I have been led to believe after all this time around here!) ****

>Dargo, Your over-use of levity in many replies makes it hard for me to take anything you say seriously. I know you mean well, but you are starting to get a bit preachy in my opinion. Please send old Dargo back out to play. Thanks. Now ya see TB, and no offense intended here ol' buddy, BUT this very inability of yours to appreciate the more serious aspect to my personally is yet ANOTHER example of that "close-mindedness" you admitted you possess to Lavender while I was gone most of yesterday...and something of which I'm NOT so sure I personally would be all that "proud" to boast about if I were afflicted with more than my share of it too! smirk And so I must conclude that you DID actually read my admittedly "uncharacteristically" serious, thoughtful and very rationally presented rebuttal(which of course also contained my "characteristic" overuse of the uppercase type in order emphasize certain key words in my text in order to give it more of a "conversational feel" to 'em) to all this "Spielberg will be desecrating the very memory of the great John Ford if he goes forward with this project", BUT you decided INSTEAD to just "shoot the messenger" and his known image of being a smartazz around here, and instead of specifically replying to my supposition I presented in it and then possibly attempting to rationally debunk what I wrote. Yep, you COULD have even overused the uppercase type in efforts to mock my style while doing that IF you wanted to, 'cause I certainly wouldn't have minded. (...well, so much for me thinking that YOU are one of the more intelligent, insightful and knowledgeable folks around these here parts, anyway...I AM always very much appreciative of gettin' these little sorta "heads ups", ya know!!!) smirk...again