CaveGirl

Kind of a serendipitous and wonderful possibility to combine two movies of uncertain value into one which is more pleasing. I do this in my mind sometimes, while waiting in line places or right before I conk out and go to sleep. Try it, you may like it!

Did he really limp or was that an acting style?

My favorite "smart-aleck" has always been Eddie Haskell!

"Hail the Conquering Hero" as directed by Preston Sturges is a film about deception and its reception by the public, and in this case the American public. This film is also a biting satire delineating ideals about patriotism, hero worship of the military, politicians, the gullibility of the public and even mother love. Starring many of the Sturges travelling road company like Eddie Bracken, Raymond Walburn, and William Demarest among others, the story of Woodrow Lafayette Pershing Truesmith details why a man who is rejected by the Marines for chronic hay fever comes to be a hero in spite of these limitations. When Woodrow meets up with his father's former military buddy, as played by Demarest a deception and fraud follows that begins a chain of events that include the house mortgage to be handled, a statue of Woody and paterfamilias to be erected and Woodrow to be nominated for mayor of the town. The fact that the sharp and biting wit of Preston Sturges was willing to take on such giants of sentiment and satirize them, shows what a relentless observer of mankind he was. Being that he had changed his own real name from Edmond Biden, perhaps the idea of changing identities was appealing to him also. The fact that the societal norms purveyed here have not changed much in the years since it was produced in 1944 tell a lot about the American public's ability to forgive any story or fraud or crime, if the story and tale behind it are exciting or interesting enough. That ostensibly is the real story here in all its raw and fetid truth. The public's need to see the good in a crook, the honor in a liar and brains in a fool, are still extant in our current society. Deception in movies or in real life is often applauded and is a thematic constant in both. Name other movies which showcase such qualities and where the perpetrators are rewarded.

Hopefully he was more mature than when he was in the restaurant and put the ladies sanitary napkin around his head and was annoying the waitress! I think he was still in the Beatles then, so that must explain it. I think as I recall he said to the waitress "Don't you know who I am" and she said something like "I know you are an a__hole."

I think some examples of qualifed "film critics" of your liking would be instructive, Tiki Soo. Please elucidate five or six of the best according to your standards. According to your theory below, James Agee would not be considered a bonafide "film critic" which is an interesting aspect of the nomenclature of film reviewing: "But you have to put yourself in the place of the average person viewing the movie- people of all ages & all walks of life." Thanks in advance. P.S. Personally, I find the other term "film historian" bandied about a bit too much these days, and think few deserve the title and many seem to auto-ascribe it to themselves with no real justification. That might seem to imply that I think the title is about anything of worth, which I really don't, since Leonard Maltin supposedly is one.

Vautrin, you forgot the conspiracy theory about Oswald being a low level operative for the CIA. In his Fairplay for Cuba guise, he did have alternate identification passes. There's also the question of the doctored photos of him with the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle but that's another story for another message board, since I would not want to go off-topic here at a movie board and incur the wrath of the thought police.

As for "faked autopsy photos" one need only look at some of the ones released years later and do a little comparison checking. There are some might funny head shots that don't seem to match up. I sure hope I'm still alive in 2025 for the exhumation!

Oh, that was that silly Patricia Cornwell theory, which of course had been in existence as mostly a joke for eons. Though she may know police work she obviously knew nothing about the Jack case, and just wanted to make some money knowing that any books on topics like the Ripper or JFK always make moola. Anyone who had even a cursory knowledge of the Whitechapel case would have been laughing as they read her "expose" of the crime. I know I did, but I was smart enough to not give her money for the book but I got it at the library. Thanks, Vautrin!

I forgot to say that my favorite revenge movie is "One-Eyed Jacks" with Marlon and Malden at odds for the whole film.

OMG, Sepia! I love Weegee too, but I am not a photographer so shall defer to you in that area of expertise. I just like his work as an amateur, and my favorite is the the photo of the two dowager queen women who I think are leaving a DAR meeting or something, which has the poor, street woman staring at them as they emerge in their evening wear. I have seen the TZ episode you mention, but mostly because I watch all the marathons even though I own the complete boxed set that I've never opened though I've owned it for five years.

I really appreciate another one of your fine retrospectives, Jlewis. Thanks for the time you spend compiling all this information and sharing it!

His intellectual takes blended with tongue in cheek humor, were more entertaining than some of the films he reviewed. I don't think he would be lionized now for his commentary, since anti-intellectualism rears its head a bit too often in many circles. Thanks so much for posting those, TB!

Hey, Sepia we can start the Rafael Campos Fan Club since I too always would watch anything that he was in. He seemed to be in more television shows than movies, after ****, but he was great in another Ted V. Mikels' masterpiece called "The Doll Squad" from 1973. If you haven't seen it you don't know what you are missing: The Doll Squad (1973)PG | 1h 41min | Action, Adventure | 19 September 1973 (USA) Squad of beautiful government agents tries to catch saboteurs. Director: Ted V. Mikels

Remember the episode where Jethro could hit a golf ball a mile, so they put him on the course like he's a pro, but everytime he has to putt like a foot, he also hits the golf ball a mile down the fairway? Loved him as Jethrine too. Thanks for the visual, Ham even though you went off-topic!

Alan Ladd had that voice! I mean he was awfully pretty too with that blonde hair and nice Nordic features and who cares if he was not as tall as John Wayne. He sure looked good with Veronica, but again he had that beautifully modulated and deep voice that one can even catch during the scenes in "Citizen Kane", when he is one of the reporters in the dark.

Wow, someone who digs Lee J. Cobb! He is kind of a boiler room ****. I think that his category would be with guys like Paul Douglas, and Broderick Crawford who had some kind of masculine appeal, but I'm just not sure how to classify it with a title. I will say I find all three more appealing than that boring Paul Newman, Dargo!

I'm working this thread backwards, James and I really love your categories. I am wondering a bit, why George Brent always get the stick though. I do agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts, but think maybe George was an in-type at the time he was in movies, but now is just not seen that way. He's a bit boring, but in the 1930's that was probably looked upon as a good trait, at least that's why my granny says. She says Errol Flynn would be good for a couple dates but then you know he would cheat on you, so you'd move on to Georgie-Porgie types.

Better watch out, Down! Though some might think that movies in general are about off-topic subjects which can lead to interesting conversation, others are more restrictive in their approach. The Movie Police might pick you up for an illegal topic land change felony, if you are not way more cautious in your postings.

He is rather a pathetic, whiny creature, James. Even if one thinks Rachel is duplicitous, she would be a lot more fun to be around than the naive Philip. Might be worth drinking some of that tisane.

I think your comments about William Atherton being one of the best things in the film is so true, Lorna. Thanks for reminding me of "The Day of the Locust" since it is one of the great films that really gets forgotten. As an expose of Hollywood it is outstanding and it is also one of the most depressing films of all time. Black comedy in parts, and though I've not seen it for years, I can still in my mind see the scene with the change purse on the string, that would be pulled away when anyone went to pick it up! Nathanael West may not have been prolific, but just the writing of that and his story "Miss Lonelyhearts" would make him an icon. I think he was also related to S.J. Perelman but I forget how.

Sadly before I had noticed that TCM was showing “My Cousin Rachel” this month I had ordered the dvd which arrived yesterday. Not wanting to wait, I immediately watched it, hoping it would be as pleasing as I had remembered. It did not disappoint. Somewhat akin to the unresolved questions in “The Turn of the Screw” by Henry James, “My Cousin Rachel” probes these same dilemmas and though falling in line with many Gothic exercises there are also some touches with noirish connections, like voiceover narration, deceptions, moody black and white cinematography, a femme fatale, a duped male, the desire for acquisitions and questionable circumstances surrounding the femme’s husband’s death and her motivations at romancing his ward. Written by Daphne du Maurier, daughter of the great, Gerald du Maurier, the book was a huge success before 20th Century Fox decided to have Henry Koster at the helm for filming this masterpiece. For those who have never been privy to the pleasure of seeing this fine film, let me digress and give a not abbreviated synopsis. Warning: Spoilers Ahead! Curtain opens on the Cornish countryside, with a man hanging at the crossroads. Philip Ashley [Richard Burton] is told by his guardian, Ambrose [John Sutton] that “This is what one moment of passion can do to a man. Death is the price of murder.” Residing in a palatial country estate on the banks of the cliffs in Cornwall, Philip is raised by his loving cousin ever since the unfortunate demise of both his parents at an early age. Before his twenty-fifth birthday, Philip is informed by his erstwhile avuncular ally that Ambrose is planning a trip alone to Italy, to somewhat improve his recently waning health. A time period ensues with no communications being that this is set in the 1820’s, until the announcement of the marriage of Ambrose to a cousin of the Coryn family named Rachel [Olivia de Havilland], also known as Countess Sangalletti. Shortly thereafter, two frightening missives arrive composed by an apparently distressed Ambrose, alleging an evil plot to do away with him by his wife, Rachel which so alarms Philip that he departs immediately for Italy. On his arrival Philip finds that Ambrose has left this earthly vale of tears and that coincidentally Rachel too has vacated the villa premises. Thinking something is terribly askew, Philip inquires as to Ambrose’s will and his possible inheritance, only to be told by Rachel’s friend and solicitor, Rainaldi that he, Philip is still the sole heir to his cousin’s home and fortune. Wanting no social intercourse with his newly installed “cousin” Rachel, Philip is chastised by her attorney and his godfather in Cornwall, for not being more circumspect about giving Rachel some small part of the estate, pointing out that normally she would have been the logical choice to inherit, as the wife of Ambrose. Philip being still convinced that Ambrose met his ghastly end due to some machinations by the femme fatale, refuses to meet with her, when she travels to his environs. He is informed by his godfather, that a tumor on the brain could be the culprit, and such things might have influenced the somewhat erratic letters sent home, accusing Rachel of wrongdoing. When Philip finally encounters the older, but most beauteous and charming Rachel, he is immediately smitten and begins to doubt the veracity of the previous letters. After confronting her with them, to prove his love he rips them into pieces and frantically throws them in the fireplace, to prove his allegiance. A romance ensues during which Philip presents Rachel with the family jewels, a symbolic gesture which needs no further explanation. He also decides to give her an annuity, which is quite generous, which she manages to overdraw twice in a three month period, leading to a suspicion that Rachel might be sending the money abroad to Rainaldi. Reports of her former libidinous life as Countess Sangalletti, as one of unbridled spending and flagrant disregard of the moral standards of the time, assail Philip but to naught, as he now directs his attorney that on his twenty-fifth birthday, he intends to turn over the entire estate to Rachel, who he assumes will be his wife. As Philip’s godfather and attorney point out as a warning “Some women impel disaster and whatever they touch turns to tragedy” but such attempts do not dissuade the forfeiture of the inheritance by Philip. At his birthday celebration, when Philip announces his engagement to Rachel, she soundly rebukes him and tells him later that he may take her answer to the offer of marriage to be “No, and you may take that to be final and forever.” When quizzed as to the bestowing of the new will and all the heirlooms on Rachel the night before in a romantic scene reminiscent of the Romeo and Juliet balcony one, when Philip was seemingly assured of her reciprocal love, Rachel’s simple answer is “That was last night…and you’d given me the jewels.” I will go no further, for the striking and conflicting denouement which has many possible interpretations. I can only say, beware of any countess bearing cups of tisane, which I assume in most innocent instances is comprised only of something like tea with herbs and spices, concocted for health, pleasure and hopefully not other modes of operation which involve homicide. If you’ve already seen this film, whose side are you on?

I never got the idea that they were aiming at him at all, Lorna. The club car windows were getting shot out, because they were having him heave up the target things and then they would shoot at them and unfortunately the windows were behind the flying items. Now t'is true the Ale and Quail Club group are pretty raucous and act like drunken fools but I don't think they had intent for a lynching or murder, other than to murder a few dozen bottles of liquor. Claudette was in more danger from them than that poor bartender methinks.

The behaviour of the Secret Service in usurping the laws in Dallas, did not seem to be due to Jackie's desires from what has been reported by many bystanders, as they seemed to be on their own personal trajectory of retaining the body, come hell or high water. But whatever the case, just as Deep Throat said to follow the money in Watergate, I would say follow the O'Neal Funeral Home connections if one wants the truth as to what went down in Dallas in 1963. I'm off now to solve Jack the Ripper's murders in Whitechapel. Wish me luck!

The fault lies not with the post, but with the libation you are swilling, Dargo! No more rotgut with sassafras while posting. I totally understood the point of the original post. It is most certainly not a movie which will be going to eleven, or has anyone in it who died due to a bizarre gardening accident.