brackenhe

deleted due to stupid answer. Edited by: helenbaby on Nov 29, 2011 10:34 AM

Movie Professor--I wouldn't say I dislike the film entirely. It's obvious that no expense was spared to make it a top notch production, and Merman really is the best thing about the film. It's just that everyone else seemed uninterested. Ray was a quite popular star in the 1950's (I'm old enough to remember that so I'm no whippersnapper) but he wasn't very good. He's hardly in the film so it's easy enough to ignore him for the most part. MM looked fabulous, probably the best she ever looked in a film. I just prefer O'Connor & Merman in Call Me Madam.

SansFin--I'm not the type to try to convince anyone to like a film, but I find that the film resonates with me because I've known women who are like Fran Dodsworth and men like Sam who try to salvage their marriages until it's obvious it can't go on. Like my older sister, who drank herself to death at age 39. She just could not stand getting older & loved attention from men, even though she was married. Nothing that drastic happens to Fran, but I could see her going home and jumping into the bottle out of regret. I'm just glad Sam finally realizes happiness, even though he is somewhat to blame for the failure of their marriage. Sorry to get morbid.

Is this the film where I read that behind the scenes Ethel caught Dan in her costume in her dressing room? Because all I could think of was that I bet that Dan Dailey wishes he was wearing some of the ladies' costumes. Also, Johnny Ray was a lousy actor.

> {quote:title=clore wrote:}{quote}I have to give the award to David Edelstein as the best pinch hitter. He had the knowledge and enthusiasm necessary and he did appear to be enjoying himself. I forgot about him. I agree--he was very good as well.

I think just about everyone in this film is perfect. It's a 10 in my book. However, I find it hard to sympathize with Fran, because she keeps Sam on a yo-yo. Go Away! No Come Back, I Need You! Go Away again, A Younger Man wants to marry me! You're such a bore and so provincial and you're spying on me! Let's let bygones be bygones! It's so frustrating. And Mary Astor is so good.

I thought Rita did a fantastic job as well. She was lovely and so enthusiastic. As far as others who were guest hosts during this time, I thought Chris Isaak, Peter Travers & Donald Bogle were pretty good too. Kenneth Turan was okay but his constant hand gesturing was distracting. I missed a couple of them when I went on vacation for a couple of weeks in Sept. The old timers were pretty good especially Eva Marie Saint--it's hard to believe she's in her late 80's.

To quote Fran Dodsworth (which is The Essential tonight) "I can't seem to strike the congenial note." Why was Grace Boyd so weird about withholding the rights to the Hoppy films? I've read that in other places as well, but I know she's passed away in the last couple of years. I would love for those films to be shown on Saturday mornings like the Lone Wolf & Bowery Boys films. I love Hoppy.

A lot of the usual suspects, but there are 3 films I'm excited to see--State Fair, which was on the old AMC back in the late 90's but I had to leave for work and didn't get to see anything beyond the family packing up to go to the fair. Adventures of Robinson Crusoe--a film I've run across in Maltin's book and it sounds intriguing, and Broadway Hostess, which is the kind of B picture that I most enjoy watching plus it has Genevieve Tobin, who I always like.

Can you please explain the link? I don't like to click on links because of viruses.

Just trying to be helpful. I apologize.

Isn't Robin Hood called Robin of Locksley or Robin of Locksley Hall in more than one film? I know in the Mel Brooks spoof Men in Tights he is, and I think Richard Greene who played him in the TV show refers to his confiscated home Locksley Hall. I haven't seen many of the films besides the Errol Flynn version, but I think Locksley is mentioned in that film as well.

I got this through Netflix when I had that service a few years ago. If you're just dying to see it and you have that service, you may want to go that route. Where there's a will there's a way.

All the people he mentioned are alive. And if he was going to name all Australian actors, we'd still be here listening to his list. That isn't to denegrate Ledger's memory--I've seen a couple of his films and he was talented.

> {quote:title=lzcutter wrote:}{quote} > As for the "cruisers" asking him questions about his hiatus, if they are anything like the attendees of the Film Festival, they are very respectful of him, his privacy and when they do encounter him, are likely to keep the conversation about how thrilled they are to finally meet him and have their picture taken with him. > > At least I hope they do. He is entitled to his privacy and it should be his decision to share that information with us *if he chooses to*. Just because we are fans of the channel and of him, doesn't mean we are entitled to any explanations. I'm going on the cruise & got a robo-call from Robert last week (or maybe earlier this week--Thanksgiving is throwing me off) saying that he was excited about the cruise & how much fun we're going to have, etc. So I'm assuming everything is going to happen as scheduled. I agree with Lynn that I doubt if anyone will ask what was wrong and will be respectful of his privacy. It's none of our business.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote}You are the person who accuses me of ignoring you. So you post nasty things to me just so you will get a response. What's so nasty about what I said? You were singing the praises of AMC at the expense of TCM. I pointed that out. You ask me to prove it and I said I wouldn't go through your 11,000 (now 16,000) posts because I don't feel like it. You refused to answer a specific question I asked you a couple of years ago (and the thing about the Bob Hope film about which I had a misunderstanding.) You may continue to ignore me. Don't care.

I'm going but there isn't as much enthusiasm about the cruise as there is about the Hollywood film festival--or at least no one who posts here regularly is going besides me. I wasn't that excited and had a discussion with the people from Sixthman and TCM where they offered me a way out. I just couldn't back out when given the choice. I didn't want to skip it just in case. I'm going to be out of the country when the big one in California is going to be held, so I was going to miss it again. I will go there eventually. I am more excited now. I look forward to meeting other fans as well.

> {quote:title=FredCDobbs wrote:}{quote} > > I knew Dobbs would deny ever posting that AMC was better than TCM. He's conveniently forgotten. > Show us a quote, a thread, and a date. > > You're not going to deny robbing all those banks, are you? I'm not going to go through your 11, 000 posts just to prove you wrong. And anyway, what makes you think that posts from 2006 are still on here. I just know that you were strongly pumping up AMC when you first got here and that it was one of my first of many arguments with you.

I really don't care one way or another, frankly. I'm not watching it anyway. I was just surprised, that's all. I don't have a film library because it's a waste of money (in my opinion) and I lack space. I do have a few films, but I haven't used my DVD player in a long time. I do have the DVR service with my cable and occasionally DVR films I haven't seen. I do, however, consider myself a film buff. It's just that I'm that film buff who doesn't have a large film collection.

Some points: 1--Sorry I mispelled privilege. I was in a hurry & didn't use spell check. (I used spell check & it didn't change mispelled--is it one S or two?) 2--I knew GWTW had previously been shown on commercial television. I just wasn't aware that it had been since the TCM startup. 3--I also stated that many, many people do not care one way or another whether it's actually shown on TCM ever again. 4--I knew Dobbs would deny ever posting that AMC was better than TCM. He's conveniently forgotten. Edited by: helenbaby on Nov 23, 2011 3:53 PM

So, I guess they are showing this film for 24 hours, plus an additional airing on Saturday morning. I know a lot of people don't remember this, but when Fred C Dobbs first started posting here, he was all about how much better AMC was than TCM. Of course, he'd probably deny that now, but I remember very well.

I never thought I'd see the day the Gone with the Wind would be on any other channel but TCM. Wonder how much they had to pay for that priviledge? I know many, many people around here would rather see 2 different films, rather than another showing of GWTW, but it's TCM signature film--the one with which they started the channel.

They are listed on my guide on my digital cable through Comcast/Infinity. I left one off--tomorrow at 11:02 pm Glimpses of Argentina. However, even though I have the listings through 12/4 there aren't any shorts other than the ones I previously listed. That's not unusual though. Often the on screen guide is updated closer to the dates of the actual programming. ETA: So there was an explanation of sorts, but Perlman I guess did choose the film. He just didn't get a chance to discuss it with Robert months ago. Edited by: helenbaby on Nov 22, 2011 7:02 PM

Shorts scheduled for Tomorrow--EST 7:44 am Night on Treasure Island 9:51 am Cavalcade of Archery 11:51 am Colorful Bombay 3:49 pm Jungle Safari 5:44 pm Land of the Zuider Zee Thursday 2:42 am Ice Climbers 7:40 pm Let's Talk Turkey Friday 11:39 am Penelope Featurette 1:48 pm The Singing Nun Featurette 11:49 pm Merry Wives of Windsor Saturday 5:19 am We Learn About the Telephone 5:50 am Madeira Isle of Romance That's all I can find Tonight on both the daily schedule & the Guest Programmer page have Sweet Smell of Success showing at 8 pm.

I'm pretty sure the wraparounds & any original programming in the last 3 or 4 years are filmed in HD, but since the films are all made before HD cameras, they aren't. Although I'll have to say that the films are more vivid, for the lack of a better word, on the HD feed.