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

twinkeee

Members
  • Posts

    4,216
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by twinkeee

  1. Dargou, Yes I do see your point !

     

     

    The point I have been trying to make all along is that Most post 60s movies are not worth watching more then once or twice as oposed to 30'/40s movies.

     

     

    i.e. Today I watched THE WOMEN for maybe the 20th time and I Never get bored watching it. Someone mentioned that an UNMARRIED WOMAN (1970s) is a classic, imagine watching THAT 20 times and I am sure you would be ready to throw up (pardon my French).

     

    Bogart is on all day today , how many of us will be watching his movies AGAIN and have already seen them , How many times ? and still take great pleasure in watching them !

     

    How many movies can we Honestly name , post 60s', that we enjoy watching over and over again like Bogart's movies or so many many others (of course there are too many to name) from the 30's/40s era ?

     

    Twink

     

    PS I know Dargou, that in 'your heart of hearts' that you agree.....maybe you just don't want to admit it :)

     

    Edited by: twinkeee on Aug 1, 2013 1:17 AM

  2. > {quote:title=Dargo2 wrote:}{quote}

    > > I said classics from the 60s-00s would be ok, but just random films from that era are mostly not very good. :)

    > WOW!!! I THINK we might have a BREAKTHROGH here, FOLKS!!!

    >

    >

    >

    > BUT of course in the meantime, we are all still welcomed to watch all those "not very good" films from the bygone era, 'cause THOSE are "fondly remembered".

    >

    >

    >

    > (...but hey, at least we got a LITTLE "concession" from Mr.Dobbs here anyway, RIGHT???!!!)

    >

    >

    >

    > LOLDargou, it is not so much the movies shown post 60's as the 'Type' of movies i.e DINER ???, REALLY ?? and ICE ZERO whatever. Would you not agree that those movies and the like do Not belong on TCM ? There are many other channels were movies like that are shown. Why pay extra for TCM where we expect Quality Movies when they start showing low budget?

     

    I am sure you can see my point, right ? :)

     

    PS I feel Fred has a very valid point and I am Sure many feel the same way !

     

     

     

    Twink

     

    Edited by: twinkeee on Aug 1, 2013 12:16 AM

  3. > {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote}

    > > {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}Now if Fred C. Dobbs recommended an '80s film, I'd definitely want to see it. It would HAVE to be good.

    > I remember that he loves the movie Missing that came out in 1982 with Jack Lemmon. I was as stunned as you are. And he was right. It is a good movie.

    .....which proves Fred knows his movies, right finaceu and Dargou ?! :)

     

    Twink

  4. > {quote:title=rewrite wrote:}{quote}My guess is that negative comments on these boards do very little to drive people away from TCM, but might do a lot to drive people away from these boards.

     

    I agree rewrite, and its always the same people leaving negative comments. I often wonder what their sad lives must be like .

  5. Some films made in the 1970s where the cinamatography is on par with films shot during the "golden age of Hollywood"...

     

    Hi Izcutter

     

    Originally I posted about 'HOLLYWOOD'S GOLDEN ERA" - Not

    the "golden age of Hollywood" which was grossly misquoted by another poster and has since been greatly misconstrued.

     

    "Hollywood's Golden Era" is a refererance taken from a book about Hollywood Movies and their Stars in the "1930's ONLY'"!

     

    Of course the movies in the 1930s were mostly in b&w and so therefore cannot be compared to the list you posted since most are in colour (some b&w) but again, the b&w cannot be compared to the 30s movies i.e CITIZEN KANE as well as many others of the 30s.

     

    As well, the book states HOLLYWOOD'S GOLDEN ERA was in the 1930s when it was at its peak, for not any OTHER decade produced so many great films in one short period. This "ERA" stopped when War gathered over Europe, (according to the book)

     

    That is not to say that there were Not many other great movies made after that, of course there were but just not Anything like the 30s, the Glamour of the 30s and it's many glamorous Stars i.e Jean Harlow, Greta Garbo, Carole Lombard, etc. as well as that elegant Art Deco Decor that many of the movies were noted for in that era, certainly more so then the 40s/50s.

     

    And again, the b&w movies were better in the 30s because of the extraordinary camera skills and the lighting techniques that were used at that time ! Even the Film Noir's in the 30s are known to be better then the 40s for the Same reasons !

     

    Two of the 'Top Ten Movies of All Time'- were made in the 1930s,

    GONE WITH THE WIND and THE WIZARD OF OZ

     

    It is Not that difficult to understand and it is unfortunate that people have 'twisted' this Completely around and have lost sight of the original post !

     

    Twink

  6. > {quote:title=Dargo2 wrote:}{quote}

    > > The points you make about the camera work and the care early film makers took are valid...

    > True, but NOT when in service to further imply that more modern cinematographers haven't been imaginative and sometimes even innovative in their craft...and as Fred here seems to have been implying recently.

    >

    > In fact, and as just one example in this regard of "more modern" cinematographers' style and craft, Frederick Elmes, who worked with director David Lynch to film the innovative "Eraserhead" and "Blue Velvet" films come first to my mind.

    >

    > (...aaah, but Five'll getcha Ten, Fred has never watched those films in his life!!!)

    "more modern cinematographers haven't been imaginative and sometimes even innovative in their craft"

     

     

    ......just because they are imaginative and innovative does Not mean that they are better !

     

    In the same way that Classic Cars are revered, is it therefore not possible that 30s/40s/50s movies are also revered and just maybe because they were better made.

     

    Ask any guy who worked on the assembly line in the 1950s and I am Sure he is going to say that cars were better made back then !.......if not, then why else the interest in them ??

     

    Twink

     

     

  7. > {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 !

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  10. > {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

     

     

  11. > {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

     

     

     

     

     

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...