LornaHansonForbes

( this was in response to Hibi's post which I thought I quoted ) Yeah, but I'm sure it's no walk in the park. And for your average person, it's very expensive to deal with- there was just recently this case of the AIDS drug manufacturer the jacked up the price of their medicine to $800 a pill. I think the real thing that's going to blow up about this story is all the people who he knowingly exposed to it.

Radaronline.com has details from the explosive National Enquirer story which is going to hit the stands tomorrow. A woman who was engaged to Sheen for a year and a half was interviewed by the magazine and told them he never told her he had it and they had unprotected sex for about 11 months.

This is a story that is going to explode. First of all there are going to be civil lawsuits from women which in all likelihood they will win. Second of all, apparently not in California, but in other states it is actually against the law to not knowingly disclose your HIV status and knowingly infect someone. There is a real chance he could be bankrupted and/or imprisoned on top of this.

TMZ and The Daily Mail are also running the story.

I KNOW RIGHT?!?!

I am posting with my phone so cannot link the story, but again www.gawker.com has it in full. ( also using voice transcription to post this, so if every other word makes no sense that's why.)

The story is on gawker and I have been reading about it in blind items on several blogs. Apparently there's going to be an ensuing drama because he has known he's had it for years and has possibly infected scores of women knowingly. This is big news. He has been in movies for almost 30 years, among them the oscar-winning "Platoon" and "Wall Street," ( so I think this post belongs very much in the general discussion forum.) BIG news.

WOW! BIG thanks for that backstory! I did not know all that! Much appreciated.

I have to admit to not being as big a fan of Arthur Kennedy of some of you. I don't think he's a bad actor, but I think he's a somewhat loud actor who always lets you know he's acting and to some degree makes all the stitches a bit obvious....PEYTON PLACE comes to mind as a performance of his that doesn't really come off in the end. And yes I know he got nominated for an Oscarfor it. He also kind of reminds me of a leaner, far less low key Van Heflin, an actor who won an Oscar one time for just the kind of showy role Kennedy specialized in, but matured to give much more subtle performances than Kennedy

...not meaning to freak any of you out on a Sunday morning, but there is an even more interesting chapter in the saga of Crawford and Monroe. A few years back, recordings made of Monroe meeting with her psychiatrist were made public (no I don't know why), wherein she tells her therapist that she and Joan Crawford had a steamy one night stand. Whether this is true or not, I have no idea. Please don't send me the bills for all of you who read this and ended up spitting coffee out all over your computer screen or keyboards.

867. among the quips "I PITY THE FOOL who trust that girl with a diamond tiara"; "I PITY THE FOOL who think Travilla won't the best costumer in movies" and "I PITY THE FOOL standin' behind Jane Russell when she decide to turn around too fast."

Marlene seems to be going for some sort of Industrial Glam Cafeteria Lady here. "Whaddayouwant, macawoni and cheese or bwussewspwouts?"

I have only seen WANCHO NATAWIOUS one time, and that was maybe two years ago- but I recall really liking it a lot. The two things I recall being impressed by were the non-linear(?) story development (I'm trying to recall the specifics, but it's craftily plotted and the way the story unfolds is slightly Tarantino-esque) and the fact that it did not shy away from touching on some violent issues (I think it deserves more credit than it gets for being a film that tested The Code.) I keep missing it each time it has rerun, which is a bummer. I'm not a huge western fan, but I really like "non-western westerns"- stories that use the easily identifiable framework of the old west, and tell familiar narratives that parallel the moral issues of life today and have universal truths at heart. Westerns are a lot like Shakespeare in that sense- pretty much every story that can be told- good, good or bad, funny or sad, can be told in the framework of a western.

I think the sad fact of the matter is that NO film version of DRACULA has ever been fully satisfactory. The shortcomings of the 1931 version are well-noted; The Spanish version has Carlos Villarias stinking it up; HORROR OF DRACULA (1958) is solid, but could've been better and takes such liberties with the story it's close to a total retelling; all the subsequent Hammer sequels have interesting facets but overall don't succeed, the Dan Curtis version is tacky and silly, not a fan of the Jourdan version (all apologies though), The 1979 version has its moments, but OMG the puffy shirts with the cravats and those lasers!, the Coppola version bears the distinction of being the worst, as well as the most faithful to the novel while ironically missing the spirit and crux of the book altogether), a 2006 BBC version took some interesting liberties with the story- but some AWFUL acting and slow direction ultimately ruin it. The only fully satisfying version of the tale was done by THE MERCURY THEATER on the Radio ca. 1938. In about 45 minutes, Orson Welles, Agnes Moorehead, and company do the absolute best version of the tale that has ever been. Highly recommended:

Not sure if you've seen BERKELY SQUARE (1933), PYGMALION (1938) and/or THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL (1935), but those are some titles where Leslie got to step out of the "milksop" roles he was often stuck in. PYGMALION is his best performance, a real revelation- but THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL is also great because he pokes fun at his foppish persona.

Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. To me, the most unforgiveable thing the Glass score does is replace the delightfully anachronistic SWAN LAKE during the opening credits...which, FYI Universal also "fixed" during their restoration so that it no longer warbles out of tune (which, again, is something I find endearing about the original.) I readily admit to having no musical talent, and if you asked me to score DRACULA, the result would likely be exactly what Glass does: "Dramatic move-ment...violin dithering...same dramatic move-ment...same violin dithering...same DRAMATIC move-ment (butinalowerkey)...violin dithering...same dramatic MOVE-MENT, butinalowerkey....violin dithering...SAME DRAMATIC MOVE-MENT....SAME DRAMATIC MOVE-MENT....SAME DRAMATIC MOVE-MENT (butinalowerky)...violin dithering (but in a lower key)..." ** "Great. Now put that on loop for an hour and nineteen minutes and let's snort this wad of dough Universal paid me." seriously, listen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxiy0W-8Ecs&list=PLJW3ugxcbijGpkV9vMOEIRW1iJ8S0UJOx **you can even sing along.

Watching EVELYN PRENTICE right now, I am struck by how much Loy resembles Gene Tierney, she was wearing a scoop-necked blouse like the one Tierney has on for much of LAURA, and the resemblance was uncanny. Scoop n e c k e d blouse that is .

I see the Joan Rivers version of SORRY WRONG NUMBER being called CAN WE TALK? and in the end it's revealed Johnny Carson has hired Ed McMahon to go upstairs and kill her, but in this version she manages to get away by ripping open her blouse and McMahon jumps out the window in horror. Hey yo!

my eyes for some reason skipped over the first sentence of the second paragraph and I almost said out loud: "wait a minute, Joan Rivers was in SORRY, WRONG NUMBER ?!?!"

found this clip on youtube that is from the DVD doc on DRACULA that pertains to the SPANISH VERSION. A pretty good summation of the differences between the two, plus you can see the glorious exterior shot of Carfax Abbey that appears in the Spanish version at 2:10.

slow day at work, so i was reading up on DRACULA (1931) on wikipedia and found this entry on the (unfortunate) Phillip Glass score: (copy and pasted): In 1998 composer Philip Glass was commissioned to compose a musical score for the classic film. The score was performed by the Kronos Quartet under direction of Michael Reisman, Glass's usual conductor. Of the project, Glass said: The film is considered a classic. I felt the score needed to evoke the feeling of the world of the 19th century — for that reason I decided a string quartet would be the most evocative and effective. I wanted to stay away from the obvious effects associated with horror films. With [the Kronos Quartet] we were able to add depth to the emotional layers of the film. (end quote) The 1931 version of DRACULA IS NOT SET IN THE 19TH CENTURY. THERE ARE CARS AND MODERN FASHIONS. IT IS SET IN (what was at the time) THE PRESENT DAY, YOU COMPLETE KNOB.

i've always thought it was a little strange that BLOSSOMS IN THE DUST was filmed in such glorious technicolor- likely Mayer's wanting the world to look at his newest protegee Garson in the best light possible- because it doesn't really fit the story, which is kind of gritty and loaded with tragedy. spoilers spoiler spoilers other than that, it's fine...although its weird that Garson and Pidgeon went on to become such a hot team since his character dies at the halfway mark.

The director of PARNELL was JOHN M. STAHL. I don't mean to be rude, but it really seemed as if he did not have the slightest clue what the hell he was doing. Here is a partial filmography of his for the sound era: Oh, You Beautiful Doll 1949 Father Was a Fullback 1948 The Walls of Jericho 1947 Forever Amber (uncredited) 1947 The Foxes of Harrow 1947 The Shocking Miss Pilgrim (uncredited) 1945 Leave Her to Heaven 1944 The Keys of the Kingdom 1944 The Eve of St. Mark 1943 Holy Matrimony 1943 Immortal Sergeant 1941 Our Wife 1939 When Tomorrow Comes 1938 Letter of Introduction 1937 Parnell 1935 Magnificent Obsession 1934 Imitation of Life 1933 Only Yesterday 1932 Back Street I've seen quite a few of these- BACK STREET, IMITATION OF LIFE, MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION, HOLY MATRIMONY, THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM and (of course) LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN- which was a Box Office BLOCKBUSTER in 1945. Not one of those titles is a "bad" movie, but each one has a lethargic quality to it- slow pacing, too long, bland dialogue, HOLY MATRIMONY is a comedy that's not terribly funny in spite of the presence of Wooley and Gracie Fields. I think this guy just didn't know how to make a LIVELY film.

PARNELL was about as much of an Irish movie as NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA was a Russian movie. Ostensibly and thats about it.