johnm001
-
Posts
2,980 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by johnm001
-
-
I can't think of a statement with which I could possibly disagree, more! We've seen Jezebel, and we've seen the screen tests; and... well... no!.
-
> {quote:title=AprilH wrote:}{quote}
>
> Are there any other popular movies that air on TCM that have a short and a long version? "Darling Lili" with Julie Andrews and Rock Hudson is one, right? (Although I don't know if it could quite be classified as "popular" but anyway...)
Technically speaking, Darling Lili was very popular. The problem with the film was that Paramount never released it in any sort of wide market. Many believe (Blake Edwards for one, and me, for another), that Paramount was having creative accounting issues, and needed a bomb for their, cooked books. If someone cared to dig, they would realize that the marketing expense tagged to Darling Lili, couldn't possibly be true. In the scant few markets the film did play, it did very well. It remains the biggest attraction to ever play Radio City Music Hall. TCM always shows the long version, as far as I know. I've never seen the edited version shown on TCM.
-
I think it is Pixar's best film, ever. Even though I found the silly dogs and bird a distraction from an otherwise perfect story, they didn't ruin it for me. A wonderful film. And while it isn't a gimmicky 3-D film, the process does add nicely to the overall experience.
-
This has been a favorite of mine for, well, pretty much my entire life. However, the first time I watched it, after having a child of my own (I had seen it countless times prior), it was like watching a whole new movie. Things I had laughed at (much of Hortense Daigle's business), tugged at my heart! Even Christine's dilemma took on new meaning. That was over 30 years ago, and I can remember how surprised I was at my reaction to it, like it was yesterday. The film is in a class by itself. There's something utterly appealing about the theatrics of the acting, too! It adds to its uniqueness.
-
S.O.B. contains my favorite William Holden performance. I love the cast of that film, and much of it is laugh-out-loud funny! As for Panther films, I don't agree that the first two are all there is. I like them, very much, but the funniest one of the lot, to me, is *The Pink Panther Strikes Again*. Starting with *He Laughed Last*, I saw all of Edwards' films in a theater, including *The Carey Treatment,* which, as I remember it, was very good. As I recall Coburn's character, he was way ahead of his time. Many doctors, today, are portrayed with his demeanor, but not back then. It had a fine cast of solid character actors, too. His most underrated work is his independently made That's Life!. Many critics at the time, predicted an Oscar nod for Julie. However, there was nothing in the way of promotion to get anyone interested in nominating her. Columbia distributed the film, but was unwilling to spend anything for Oscar consideration. It still managed to get one nomination. Mancini, because he was always nominated The Foreign Press nominated both she and Lemmon, for Golden Globes, but in acting categories for comedy/musical. It may have a funny moment or two, but a comedy would be a stretch, and a musical is certainly isn't. Regardless of its lack of recognition, by the industry, it's a fine film.
-
Right, Fred. We had multiple neighborhood theaters, within walking distance. The Howard, The Midway, The Iris, The Belgrade, The Wishart and the one I frequented the most, The Kent. I'm a bit younger than you, but The Midway was the most expensive, at .50 cents. The Kent was a quarter admission. On Saturdays, we'd get a double feature, cartoon, a short; and, in between features, the manager would invite those of us who had the words Lucky Buck, printed on our stubs, to come up to the stage and get a crisp, new dollar bill. Considering the admission and concession prices, that was a lot of money You could buy a hundred pieces of candy! On Sundays, the same theater showed a triple feature, consisting of three completely different films from the Saturday show. Many times I would collect soda bottles, return them, get the deposit, and go to the movies, on both days, seeing 5 films for 50 cents! And what theaters! The Kent was a palace. All the neighborhood theaters had their own style and charm. Of course, we had first-run and roadshow theaters, as well, but they involved either a bus and elevated train, or a taxi cab, making it a bit more expensive. I would reserve the first-run theater experience, for those films done in a widescreen process and stereophonic sound.
-
I'd want to walk right into here:
-
Well, I'm much older than you, so I do remember those machines. In fact, while all the movie theaters I attended growing up (lots of them), had concessions, none of them allowed soda in the theater. You could only get soda from the aforementioned machine, in a cup, and you could only drink it in the lobby!
-
> {quote:title=Ascotrudgeracer wrote:}{quote}
> I used to hear it a lot years ago, but not so much now. Theater owners declared they made NO money on tickets, that the only profit they could make was at the concession stand. Can this possibly be true?
The profit made by the studios (producers) wanes as the weeks go on. The problem is that most films don't remain in theaters, all that long. But a film that keeps an audience for many weeks, returns a fairly good profit to the theater. Otherwise, it's concessions and ads.
-
> {quote:title=Scottman wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=johnm_001 wrote:}{quote}
> > The movie is a thriller!
> What? AIRPLANE?!?
> Looks like I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue! ;-)
Ah, no, *Zero Hour*, which is the subject of the original post.
Technically speaking, *Airplane!* is a spoof of both *Zero Hour* and *Airport 1975*.
-
The movie is a good representation of the Broadway show, but as a film, it's pretty much a failure, imo. Not that it isn't entertaining, because it is. It's just that it really never knows it's a film!
-
> {quote:title=timothy17 wrote:}{quote}
> Have you seen A Streetcar Named Desire?
> he looked pretty amazing!
>
> Message was edited by: timothy17
His face looked dopey, to me. Not a handsome face, to my way of thinking.
-
The movie is a thriller!
-
> {quote:title=timothy17 wrote:}{quote}
> I like the Marlon Brando and Paul Newman part.............but I don't see the William Holden part..
I don't see Marlon Brando. He always looked dopey, to me. Then fat and dopey..
-
> {quote:title=lavenderblue19 wrote:}{quote}
> and I've never seen *Under Capricorn*
You can consider yourself, lucky!
-
> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote}
> I'm a straight guy, so speaking objectively by reputation---it was supposed to be Power, Taylor, and Flynn when they were young.
I'm a straight guy, too, but I have eyes. Just because I think someone is handsome, doesn't mean I want to have sex with them. Who do you think is most handsome, regardless of reputation?
-
Home Sweet Homicide. Yes, I know it's a Fox title, but so what? NOBODY shows it.
-
I've seen the original theatrical film enough. I would like to see the television film with Ann-Margret and Treat Williams, again.
-
Gregory Peck is handsome in any film, wearing anything. He would be my wife's Number 1 choice!
However, there have only been two men that I would have traded my face for. Neither was a major star, but both were very handsome.
John Gavin
Guy Madison
-
He is the greatest director, as far as I'm concerned, by a mile! He is always dissed, Even TCM is dissing him by only giving him part of a day, and the non-prime-time scheduled at that! Still, only TCM would salute him at all. It seems if a director doesn't have a signature, people can't get their heads around the greatness. It's his utter versatility, and good taste (his only signature) that makes him so great.
-
-
> {quote:title=Poinciana wrote:}{quote}
> John, you were a talented kid! I'd love it if you would post a picture of yourself during those years. However, I understand if you're wary of doing it.
> PS Any regrets? I'm sure you're grateful for having had your theatrical experiences, must have been an education in itself and fun.
>
>
You know, I actually have very little of those days. I have a few photos that my parents kept, but even some of those have been lost over the years. And, I only have one really bad sound recording from a rehearsal of *The Fantasticks.* I discovered it while cleaning out a closet. My profile picture over at CFU is the photo that hung in the theater lobbies of the tour of *No No Nanette* I did. I played Nanette's boyfriend, Tom. In fact, it's the show where I met my wife. She played Nanette. Throughout that tour's run, the cast included Penny Singleton, Arthur Lake, Patsy Kelly, Judy Canova and Bobby Van, among others!
-
I think *UP* is the best Pixar film, ever. Just wonderful.
-
> {quote:title=Poinciana wrote:}{quote}
> .
>
> And John I had no idea you were an actor, how wonderful! Were the shows you did in NYC or LA?
> What was Jerry like? I dare say he couldn't have been anything but nice
As I said, I only met him, twice, and didn't get to spend any major time directly with him, but he was very nice, professional and very unassuming. Especially for someone who had so much talent. I have found that the more talented they are, the nicer they are. I think it has something to do with not being insecure about their abilities. I worked with a lot of nice people, but he was not one of them. I wish I had!
As for me, I was a professional actor from the age of 9, when I did a production of *The King and I*, until I "retired" at the age of 33. I "retired" over 25 years ago! I did regional theater, mostly in the Philadelphia area, and tours. The very first show I did was a regional tour (Northeast US), and my parents put an end to that. I didn't tour again, until after my 18th birthday. I missed out on being in the film, *The Lord of the Flies* (and the opportunity to audition for any other film of the era that involved kids), because my parents didn't want me to travel.
The films and career of Vincente Minnelli
in Films and Filmmakers
Posted
Not sure about the ahead of their time spin on it. Seen today, they both stink, imo. I'm pretty sure I would have felt the same way in the 40s. Still, I know people who love them both. I'm just not one of them. By the same token, I don't see what his sexuality has to do with anything??? Although, I do think there are certain films that are appreciated more by men who are gay. Both films may be among those. I know two films that I detest, Cukor's A Star is Born and Donen's Funny Face seem to be beloved by gay men.