casablancalover2

Thanks, Tiki , I will look it up after the coffee kicks in. My caveat was meant for the MP fans. I also hate "It's a Small World" at the theme parks, but love the send up in Shrek- "Welcome to Duloc". Thank you, Himelstein and Darnell. I haven't even thought of Murphy's Romance in years. Shows you where it is in my taste meter.

Thank you for your perspective. I think I am looking for the person who sees a old b&w movie on the TV and instead of channel surfing through it, stops and watches. Extra points if they recognize it. Hum, maybe a test, and an easy one at that. If they ask, "Where's the game?" on the channel line up, they may not be up for film discussions.

h3. Happy New Year

Amen, everybody! Sorry, about the uber usage. But I wonder why baseball minutiae of countless seasons and World Series past is such a venerated topic of knowledge and movies with men is not. I know more women interested in baseball enough to discuss it than men and movies. Our present company excepted, of course.

I love *White Christmas* too. For fantasy froth, it all works for me. I love this part: and this one:

Has anyone mentioned the Super-cali-fr-ing.. song? I humbly apologize now if it is one of your favorites, but I had always imagined a parody skit of Merry Zoppins being choked by the kid's socks and beaten with her umbrella during it. And I am a big fan of Julie Andrews in Sound of Music.

Thanks, Tiki, but I have gone that route already. I am sort of in a backwater around here. I don't have the time or inclination right now to start a group. The colleges here are not so liberal arts but business degree oriented. There is an art colony about, but very much of the craft and folk art variety. Thank you for your input and suggestions. I will be checking out the film festival venues more closely. I hadn't thought of that; my son sure does plenty out in LA., and he gets out to the Sundance and Austin too.

Maybe someone could supply the real story, but I had heard it was the release of *Dances With Wolves* that started the move away from intermissions. Edited by: casablancalover2 on Jan 1, 2013 7:44 PM

Point taken, thank you. I knew what I meant, but I was quicker with the statement than the thought behind it. Let me edit to correct it. But, even as just entertainment, classic films just are not on their radar, even after my coaxing. they enjoy them once they watch them, but they seem no more inclined to suggest we watch a classic together at another time, usually its a new release . I am mystified, but everyone's taste is different.

HAPPY NEW YEAR http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLwkT5vAzCE

How far is a friend suppose to embrace another's love of cinema? I have had more relationships founder because I like movies for entertainment and for discussion afterward about the writing, acting, cinematography, but friends just don't share the same interests in watching them. Not for the type of movies I like, but movies in general. I don't expect them to love the same types, just appreciate the art form. Most of my friends like a recent feature, but even then can't recall anything to discuss about it afterwards. Most people love movies, but ask a fella about what they like, and they can only come up with one or two, and never a classic, unless it's The Godfather, --not that there's anything wrong with that, but that is their limit of knowledge. I can discuss Downton Abbey or Big Bang Theory with the best of them, but I cannot get a discussion started about John Ford or Frank Capra without uber backstory or history. Thank you my fellow posters for being here. I am so grateful. Edited by: casablancalover2 on Jan 1, 2013 7:36 PM

Sorry not to get back sooner.. It's been quite the weekend. For New Year's Eve. I had dinner at a nice little place where they wished my current beau and I a Felice Anno Nuovo! Now, we are back at my place. enjoying a little dessert, and watching *Summertime*. Champagne is chilled and ready for our enjoyment. I do not know what 2013 will bring. My life is filled with adventure now and yet I do feel more change is coming. 2012 is a closed book, and 2013 is the chapter not yet written. I hope all of us have our wishes and dreams fulfilled this New Year. *Cheers!*

First movie commandment: *1. There shall be no other god than the Producer.*

LOL... well, I am glad mother could set you straight.

It is pretty interesting to take a walking tour (strictly on the q.t.) in old Beverly Hills and the hear how relatively normal the stars were back then. Sigh.. Nothing like the Lindsay Lohans and the Kardashians of today. Yup, they had pizza and deli deliveries like anyone else, it' still exists with some.. but of course they're normal so there will not be a reality series about them now. It's funny when you think about it. Ozzie and Harriett was a reality series... about as "real life" as anything now.

I am *Stunned* you made that remark .. You must be too young to remember Richard Speck and the horrible crime with the eight student nurses in Chicago. Yes, young nurses housed together was not uncommon, as late as 1966. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Speck

Always happy to hear your choices, Scottman! You've been away too much. I hope you keep posting your selections. I want to post another, and since my faith heritage is of the Reformation churches, we have two more Sundays of Christmas carols anyway.. and my Minnesota family is suffering through their annual polar freeze. Keep warm up there. *In the Bleak Midwinter:*

I loved Colm Wilkinson as the Priest, No one made notice in the theater I was in, either. But in spite of my feelings about it, I was happy to hear applause at the end of the movie. It means something. Don't get me wrong here; I am stating my opinion only, and mine is not the final word on Les Miserables. Your mileage may vary. This particular camera view just wasn't my cup of tea. >filmlover wrote: I saw Les Miserables yesterday and I am still digesting how I feel about it. It was an unusual film, seeing as all the singing was captured live during shooting, and it certainly made some fondly remembered songs a lot grittier than ever done before (and while it was honest, may have taken away some of the pleasure - "Master of the House," for one). I am still trying to decide that too. The sound in the theater was just lackluster, which really surprises me.. this is a musical. The sound was not sensational at all. I liked Crowe's interpretation, and while it was ions apart from the singing abilities of Phillip Quast, I felt this flawed Javert turning more compelling. I do agree with you on Master of the House. With Sascha Baron Cohen It felt like an homage to *South Park*. Can't we keep Helena out of range of Panavision? Haven't cared for her since *Howard's End.*

Saw Les Miz, love the stage production and music. I really wanted to say the same thing about the movie and cannot. I found the opening scene incredible and terrific, given the epic scope of the story. But the director, Tom Hooper, abandons this perspective almost immediately for profound personal angst without the weighing in of other characters, and he uses the closeup to hamstring the individual's performance with no reaction on screen of other characters. While Hooper succeeded in bringing out great performances from the characters, I thought the staging and photography was abysmal. Number of true ensemble shots within a song could be counted on the fingers of one hand (4). For over two hours, to watch a singer in closeup singing to the sight of tonsils and nose-dripping realism can be effective only once or twice. Sigh.. The performance take that sells the song is the singers in reaction, not just the endless Closeup 1. Closeup 2, Closeup 1. Closeup 2. Ad nasuem, without an actor's chance to react in the moment of the shot of two faces.. It just didn't happen. I don't remember any medium shots with establishing background of significance. You don't realize how important these are until they are missed. Hooper did this intentionally, and I think he ruined many more potentially great scenes than he created with it. Long shots would have been so helpful to break the minutia or to establish mood of the cast. Again too few of count, and the beauty in the hope and the redemption in the story is muddled by all the dirty thoughtless masses. Victor Hugo wanted the reader to identify with the characters; watching this movie, you start to wonder Hooper's vision of the suffering, He has wallowing in dirt cynically. The camera jitter was absolutely not necessary. Why Hooper felt this need to optical realism to a already dark and somber movie is redundant to me. With a film of this length, it does become very distracting, and strikes me as indulgent, and not in a "cut the artiste some slack" way. Sorry if you don't agree, but I thought Hooper delivered us poor telling of the musical masterpiece. And if Cameron Macintosh thought this was a good vision, shame on him too.

THANK YOU! I do love the Emerson, Lake and Palmer.. It was wonderful to hear again.

I love the Charlie Brown Christmas music.. *The Holly and the Ivy:*

*Little Drummer Boy*

For at home movies, my friend likes the TCM offerings very much, but has never done more than watch them. We've been discussing them. So he's looking forward to *Shop Around the Corner.* We both love *Les Miserables*, so we are going out seeing that on Tues.

And, the happiest of Holiday seasons with you and yours, mw! Thank you for starting this thread. I don't mind at all if it seems food-oriented or not! I haven't heard of Poutine in ages, and while I may not have it directly, I will make cheesy potato hotdish for Christmas day, after the movie. I have to laugh how all my favorite foods seem to break all the rules at the Holiday.. even my healthy carrots need onion dip. Food, movies, King's College Choir on the radio and loved ones close by.. I am content.

*Once in Royal David's City:* Edited by: casablancalover2 on Dec 23, 2012 10:34 AM