coolrob1955
-
Posts
639 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by coolrob1955
-
-
"All right! Who did it?"
Regards
-
Didn't somebody say once that Victor Mature had bigger boobs than his leading lady ?
I thought he had a very manly chest.
I liked him a lot. He was always embarrassed by what he thought was his lack of talent, and admitted his career and image was simply the product of the Hollywood studio publicity **** machine.
Regards
-
'A Matter of Life and Death' was filmed in both 'Black and White' and 'Technicolor'.
Tell your Hubby to look at these pictures, and see if he recognises any (don't worry, it's a classic movie site not a girlie site).
And it's 'Powdered Wigs', not 'Powered Wigs'
http://www.powell-pressburger.org/Images/46_AMOLAD/index.html
Regards
-
I've always found it hilarious that in 1930's Hollywood musicals about Broadway shows, all the male parts were played by actors who looked and talked like leftovers from bad gangster movies.
Frank McHugh as a choreographer. Wonderful casting !
I hear they are going to remake '42nd Street' starring Sylvester Stallone as the dance director (dance, or I'll kick your ****).
Regards.
-
You can use any connections you like, so long as you make your conditions clear when you post your puzzle.
If you have a restriction, state it in a footnote to your puzzle.
ie. Connect through credited actors and movies only.
If no restrictions are stated, then anything goes.
Regards
-
Had the rate of development of the technology for the space program, that was experienced during the 1960's, continued into and beyond the 1970's, I believe that our present day capabilities would have pretty much paralleled the predictions about technology in the movie 2001.
But Kubrick and Clark were not trying to predict the future, only a possible future brought about by a specific set of (fictional) conditions. If Neil Armstrong and company had really discovered a giant artificial monolith on the moon, emitting high frequency radio signals, and another had been detected on a moon of one of the outer planets, I doubt that our space program would be dead in the water (or ether), or sidetracked into freighting communication and spy satellites, as it is today.
But technological development (like evolution) has to be forced, and the only driving force at the moment is economics. To get the 'space program' back up to speed, it will take some impending disaster (like an asteroid on a collision course with earth), or some great discovery (like contact with an alien civilization), or (back to economics again) the discovery of some extra-terrestrial natural resource that can be exploited.
Had Kubrick and Clark really been trying to predict the future then they would have had to factor in various socio-economic scenarios. They could (possibly) have predicted that space exploration would fizzle out due to lack of will and necessity (and imagination).
War and conflict are great driving forces for technological development. We can't send a man to Jupiter right now, but we know a million interesting ways to kill him.
You?ve opened a can of worms. But its your fault, you started it
Regards
Message was edited by:
Metry Road
Message was edited by:
Metry Road
-
The closing credits
Regards
-
A theatrical producer is in conflict with an egotistical prize fighter and a drunk, and want's to get away. He gets sympathetic support from the man who shot his balls off.
Regards
-
Dear maufrais
I enjoyed reading your article, and would like to make some comments.
I think your use of the word 'Confusion' is wrong in this context, although I can understand how some viewers would be confused by the movie. Arthur C. Clark and Kubrick deliberately made the ending 'Mysterious' and open to the interpretation and imagination of the viewer. They wanted to give the impression of some vast mystery that we cannot even begin to understand. A writer or a filmmaker should not be required to explain every damn thing. Especially if it's, er... unexplainable. They were simply telling us that there is something out there, but we don't know what it is.
Like death. We know it's there, but what's on the other side ? If you're a religious person, then you have your own beliefs on that subject.
Any good scientist or Sci-Fi writer with a background in any of the sciences can see, within certain limitations, and barring any radical changes in direction, about thirty years into the future. The fact that Kubrick and Clark could extrapolate existing technology thirty years into the future is not visionary, it's just common sense. All the technology envisioned in 2001 (1969) has either come to pass, or is at least feasible today. The only exception is human hibernation, which was assumed for the purposes of the movie, and not based on any known technology (it was a work of fiction after all).
Regards
-
?
Seven Days in May (1964)
Burt Lancaster - The Island of Dr. Moreau (1977)
Fredric March - The Iceman Cometh (1973)
Kirk Douglas - Scalawag (1973)
Ava Gardner - Ghosts on the Loose (1943)
Edmond O'Brien - White Heat (1949)
Regards
-
Connect
Mabel and Fatty's Wash Day (1915)
to
Pearl Harbor (2001)
Regards
-
The Ten Commandments (1923) She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949)
She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949) The Pride of St. Louis (1952)
The Pride of St. Louis (1952) Wrongfully Accused (1998)
Regards
-
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Carousel (1956)
Shirley Jones - Elmer Gantry (1960)
Gordon MacRae - By the Light of the Silvery Moon (1953)
Barbara Ruick - I Love Melvin (1953)
Jacques d'Amboise - Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954)
Mary Orozco - 3 Ring Circus (1954)
Regards
-
Didn't somebody once tell Garbo that American men don't like fat women ?
Regards
Message was edited by:
Metry Road
-
Dear CineSage_jr ,
In a strictly legal sense, the Disney company may be right in contesting this situation. The irony is that Disney also want's to shift the boundries of copyright law to suit themselves.
The vast majority of the 'classic' Disney movies were drawn from the world of literature, 'Peter Pan', 'Alice In Wonderland' etc. etc. They have become a money-mill for the Disney corporation, and they don't like forking over royalties to third parties.
What the Disney company wants is quite simple to understand - Extend their own copyrights indefinately, and at the same time remove or reduce their liabilty to copyrights they don't own. This will take some fancy legal footwork. and twisting the law into strange shapes. It would be interesting to see if they pull it off.
It's a case of 'be careful what you ask for'. It turned around and bit them in the **** this time, and they don't like it. I have no sympathy for them.
Regards
Message was edited by:
Metry Road
-
ps
Kwaidan is a lovely movie to watch if you like Japanese tradition. And the Sundowners was a good movie. The other two were pretty awful unless you are a fan of cheesy horror movies.
Regards
-
Well done JackBurley,
I doubt that anyone will do better than 3 steps, so go ahead.
I had figured on 4 moves.
Kwaidan (1964) < Takashi Shimura > Godzilla, King of the Monsters! (1956)
Godzilla, King of the Monsters! (1956) < Raymond Burr > His Kind of Woman
His Kind of Woman < Robert Mitchum > The Sundowners (1960)
The Sundowners (1960) < John Meillon > The Cars That Ate Paris (1974).
Regards
-
This is in response to another post in another thread. But it?s a rant, so I?ll post it here.
The mention of the name Lawrence Welk always gets me started on a rant. Not because I have anything in particular against Lawrence Welk, but simply because his show replaced the Nat King Cole show which was cancelled after only one year by NBC.
NBC in the 1950's could not get enough sponsors and advertisers to support a TV show starring a black performer.
A TRUE movie bio of this man (Cole not Welk), is crying out to be made. Personally I don't think anyone in Hollywood has the testicular fortitude to produce such a movie. One reason may be that he was not a junkie or a philanderer (he was a heavy smoker though, which got him in the end). And another reason may be that he was constantly criticized by the Civil Rights Movement at the time for performing before segregated audiences.
Like Bill Cosby, he chose to lead by being a gentleman and a good example (to blacks and whites). And he was.
And thanks to BET Jazz for airing the Nat King Cole shows.
Regards
-
ps
Via the actors.
-
Connect
Kwaidan (1964)
to
The Cars That Ate Paris (1974)
Regards
-
Hold it Buster !
Radar Men from the Moon (1952) < George Wallace > Diggstown (1992)
Diggstown (1992) < James Woods > The Choirboys (1977)
The Choirboys (1977) < Randy Quaid > Paper Moon (1973).
Regards
-
Fred C. Dobbs: Any more lip out of you and I'll haul off and let you have it. If you know what's good for you, you won't monkey around with Metry C. Road.
How far is Winnipeg from Montreal?
Regards
-
The Nicholas brothers,
They were the high (energy) point of any movie they were in.
Regards
-
Have you noticed that AMC (and Movieplex/Retroplex) show their commercials in letterboxed format, but not their movies. Figure that one out !
Regards
TCM's New Osborne - Mankiewicz Odd Couple Promo
in General Discussions
Posted
I personally think Robert Osborne and Ben Mankiewicz make a perfect couple. It would be nice to hear contrasting opinions from these gentlemen.
In an area as subjective as film (or any other art), there are no right or wrong opinions, just badly written ones (I think Oscar Wilde said something to that effect but I can't remember his exact words).
I'm perfectly satisfied with their presentation and manner. It's refreshing to see TV hosts who are knowledgeable and enthusiastic and care about what they are doing, instead of decorating the set with a couple of twenty-something narcissists who's total knowledge of anything is what they read from a Teleprompter.
Will Molly Haskell join the fray, and make it a threesome, or will she just do the cooking and housework (very sexist but I couldn't resist it).
Regards