twinkeee

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > Don't you remember what you said about the pre-code Maltese Falcon verses what you called the sanitized Bogie version? > Mary Astor looked like a little old maid school teacher. No one took their clothes off in the first version. But in the first, the three dames looked a lot better than the three in the Bogart version. > > Lana Turner looked really good in the Code film THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE, but she didn't have to take her clothes off for us to get the idea about how good she looks. True, Lana Turner Did not have to take her clothes off ! ...And most women get that, we look better with them on then totally naked !

Twinkee my dear, it appears you completely misunderstood my joke... monsieur Dargou, obviously, the joke 'went over my head'. I had an instant visual of the last time I saw Jerry Lewis, which was not very good. Thanks for setting the record straight. Twink

Unfortunately, Jerry Lewis' overwieght problem was due to medication that he was taking for some type of illness he had. Clearly, you could see that he was not well, as he seemed very bloaded and looked different from someone who is overweight due to over eating, so I would have to say, felt sorry for him.

For someone to insinuate that you Only talk about naked women is not Only ridiculous and certainly not believable, but down right Ignorant !

Monsieur Dargou !...that was 'Hilarious' ! :^0 Twink PS I bet you have a 'lot' more naughty jokes ! Edited by: twinkeee on Jul 29, 2013 7:41 PM

They had to make time for their dumb DVD ad's between movies. ...at least they weren't dumb ads for sexual dysfunction disorders ! Right Dargou ?

274 "CARNEGIE HALL" ?! ?!......You. WISH !!

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}*GREAT EXPECTATIONS* > > What a great film this is! And a great English cast. > > Pay attention to Mr. Jaggers' maid and see if you can tell who is playing her role. IMDB does not say, but I know. > > David Lean was the director, and the film had 6 dialogue writers: > > Writing credits > > Charles Dickens (by) > David Lean adapted for the screen by & > Ronald Neame adapted for the screen by & > Anthony Havelock-Allan adapted for the screen by and > Kay Walsh adapted for the screen with & > Cecil McGivern adapted for the screen with > > ----- > Whats the difference between an English cast and a British cast? Well, an Englishman once told me that the Royal family of England is mostly German and not English, but they are British. He said the Queen's husband is not English either, he is Greek. > > See this on Wiki: > > "The House of Windsor is the royal house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. It was founded by King George V by royal proclamation on 17 July 1917, when he changed the name of his family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (a branch of the House of Wettin) to the English Windsor, due to the anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I." > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor Yes, it certainly is a great film and I am So glad you mentioned it ! Twink

Actually, it was SWITHIN who was the FIRST PERSON to mention the 1934 version of GREAT EXPECTAIONS, posted at 11:00 PM. July 28th. !!! Twink

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}Swithin, > > I think TCM should be showing both the 1946 and 1934 versions of GREAT EXPECTATIONS, like they show two of the versions of LITTLE WOMEN. > > Both of these films are far more Classic than Ice Station Zebra and Major Dundee. I agree babes' It would certainly be great to see the 1934 version of GREAT EXPECTATIONS and by far more Classic then Ice Station Zebra Twink

273 "Don't you . WISH. you were sitting in My seat ?! (all smug) But .I'M. the One sitting next to Cooper.....so THERE ! Twink

LANNY ROSS..........Stage Door Canteen, COLLEGE RHYTHM (1934) with Helen Mack Twinks

LOUISE NYE........He made numerous TV appearances including the Jack Benny Show as well as the Steve Allen show where he did a weekly skit, "The Man In The Street" with Don Knotts & Tom Postum Twinks

> {quote:title=LonesomePolecat wrote:}{quote}Sepiatone-- > Sorry I didn't explain it very well. I love movies from every era, from A TRIP TO THE MOON to IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT to THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES to THE APARTMENT to THE STING to THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER to THE KING'S SPEECH. Love every era. Not what I was trying to say. Sorry you don't think I have any taste. > > I was trying to say, yes, we all love movies from all over the place, but if you given a choice between an unknown movie from 1926 vs 1937 vs 1949 vs 1958 vs 1969 vs 1977 vs 1988, which one would you pick? I've just found that for me the 1937 would win. And it's pretty cool that a lot of you agree. There's something about that era between when Hollywood started figuring out how to make sound movies til WWII-- love it. But, like I said, my favorite movies spread all over the place. > > Edited by: LonesomePolecat on Jul 28, 2013 5:25 PM > Lonesome, If I were give a choice of an unknown movie, I too would pick 1937. It would be a Sure bet compared to the other decades. I too like THE APARTMENT very much, love Jack Lemmon in that movie. It seems like a movie that has a 'good fit' where everything just comes together. Twink

I would not say we are becoming obsolete. swithin just remarked that he preferred the 1934 version over the 1946 version which is obviously even older ! Certainly, the movies from the 30s-50s were before my time and I much prefer them over anything that is out there today. It's all about one's taste And appreciation ! When my son was a teenager, he loved King Kong (1933) as well as Bela Lugosi movies. He would even tell me how much better those movies were. I have never seen King Kong , nor had I ever heard of Bela Lugosi. Kids have a way of finding their own tastes and can make own decisions. Twink Edited by: twinkeee on Jul 28, 2013 11:33 PM

No, the 1998 version will Never become a classic as it does not come anyway Near the 1946 version. Really, by the sounds of it, it seems like an entirely different movie altoghter,' What did you think about Bill Hader's comment about that he thought the best part of the movie was the "Photography" ? Twink

OMG, babes' ...Did you just hear Bill Hader, the host, say, that to him the best part of the movie was the "PHOTOGRAPY" ! Go Figure ! Of course I was thinking the same thing throughout the movie !! Twink

I wondered why I saw Estelle as well as Molly after Valerie Hobson's name in the list of characters..However, when I read it, I did not know that 'Molly" was the name of the maid. I missed the first part of the movie. It's quite a Love Story ! Twink

I saw her...the actress who plays Estelle is the same actress who plays Molly, the maid ?

:| Twink Edited by: twinkeee on Jul 28, 2013 8:51 PM

...an UNMARRIED WOMAN..... Can you really compare an UNMARRIED WOMAN with ...Oh, let's say THE WOMEN (1939) ? How many of us have watched THE WOMEN over and over again and enjoyed it each and ever time ? Imagine,... watching an UNMARRIED WOMAN (1970s) , heaven forbid more than twice ! Twink

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > Every decade has good and great films. TCM recognizes that and celebrates that. > That's what I mean by TCM changing from a classic movie channel showing old classic movies mainly from the 30s and 40s, so that now it is the all-decade movie channel, and it is no longer obligated to concentrate on "classic" movies from the 30s and 40s. Just any movies will do, from the '10s through the 2010s, such as Ice Station Zebra. I agree 100% Twink

Yes I know that Not every movie had Gregg Toland as a cinematographer back then, however, every b&w from that era certainly had better special lighting effects then post 1960s movies. Twink

Well at least you didn't say ALL post 50s movies are a joke. No, not ALL post 1950s movies are a joke,... But the movie DINER certainly was a joke ! Twink

The B&W movies post 1960 that you mention do not compare to the 30s/40s B&W Movies. i.e. CITIZEN KANE, where Orson Welles had the forsight to engage cinematographer, Gregg Toland. In nearly every scene, the foreground and background are in sharp focus. This is due to a special lense that he used. Also, an optical printer was used to layer one piece of film over another. This is what gives us that unque look to the movie as well as the lighting they used back then, neither of which is used in post 1960s b&w movies. So you see, there just is No comparison ! Twink Edited by: twinkeee on Jul 28, 2013 2:48 PM