johnnyweekes70
-
Posts
775 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by johnnyweekes70
-
-
I, too, enjoyed The Life of Jimmy Dolan. I'd wanted to see the film for years and it's always fun to see John Wayne in his early bit roles in major productions while starring in the B pictures. If George Brent was taken seriously at the time, it's a wonder why Wayne wasn't offered more substantial parts in the bigger pictures. I recorded Week-end Marriage but it won't play back so maybe I'm not missing much. As a Canadian, I always love to watch Hollywood films set up here and The Right of Way didn't let me down for the kitsch-factor. I expected Frenchmen wearing loud, plaid parkas and speaking with awful, phoney accents and wasn't let down. Aside from that, Conrad Nagel had a good voice and Young looked gorgeous. I love it when TCM shows a day of these films.
-
Boy Meets Girl will be aired on March 16 at 3:15 am.
-
Do you tune into to watch BM or the film? Isn't the main draw of TCM the films? Are the intros really that important or am I missing some aspect of appreciating this channel that I'm not aware of?
-
I entirely agree with you on your first paragraph. Absolutely. And I wish I'd written your final sentence. Well put.
-
Wow, Dabney Coleman is 74? Where are the days going?
-
DeMille remade his first feature, The Squaw Man, five years later. When his career was on the skids at MGM in 1931, he remade it as a talkie because he thought he might have a sure-fire winner; he didn't (though I like it). I agree with you about the remakes of today. My wife saw the new Yours, Mine and Ours, the original being one of her favorite films, and wasn't that impressed. It's amazing how the new versions devalue humour and resort to the kind of jokes evident in the recent remake of Cheaper by the Dozen: intelligent humour has given way to barf and poop slapstick to make kids laugh. Is that what's funny these days?
(And, by the way, I think any Joe E. Brown film is a darn sight funnier than any 'comedy' these days.)
-
"Why don't they take a rotten film and make it into a better one instead of taking a classic picture and make it into a bad film???"
Good point, but I've no doubt that there's an idea at work along the lines of believing that if a classic picture made a lot of money than this surely suggests to the creativity impotent that lightning could strike twice. That's the way Hollywood's worked since the beginning. Even DeMille thought like that.
-
"I think your categorizing people who think Dr. Phil is annoying would be more apt if you put them in the category of those who disagree with you on the subject."
I'd like to see that list and a list of reasons why psychologists don't agree with McGraw's tactics versus what he's, in fact, really saying. His effectiveness is not up to him; it's up to people who don't think they've got a problem when, if they didn't, they wouldn't be on his show. I agree with your final comment, but I'd prefer John and Mary or even Bedtime for Bonzo over practically everything on the air these days, aside from the various Law and Order programs.
-
In the early hours of Monday morning, Feb 13, at 5.45 am, according to the schedule.
-
Hi Larry,
I found it very interesting to learn, way back when, that George Sanders had put himself through two marriages with the Gabors, to Magda and to Zsa Zsa, the latter of which he spent the better part of his days in a separate residence in his workshop! Either a cunning cad or an idiot but probably the former.
And why don't I see anything wrong with Hilton playing ZZ?
Johnny
-
I think the only people who find Dr. Phil annoying and irritating are people who can't admit their faults and fail to realize that he's generally, if not always, got a point. What inappropriate conduct did he get up to that I'm not aware about that warrants his inclusion in a list that features such blatantly silly folks like Michael Jackson, Tom Cruise (there's an entire thread devoted to his silliness), Jessica Simpson and Anna Nicole Smith?
I always liked Ronald Reagan's double-talk scene with Raymond Massey in Desperate Journey. He should have remembered that one years down the road. It might have got him out of some messes.
-
Yeah, Rusty, he was quite a guy! I think I first saw him in The Strawberry Blonde or The Fighting 69th or Gentleman Jim and he made me laugh so much and so hard I just had to repeat the exercise. A true original. I was probably being facetious when I wrote what I wrote---Hale just popped into my head to use as an example---but I entirely agree with you that he postively contributed to any film he was in, and an exercise to mention Hale always promotes a worthwhile discussion, however brief. Good point, and good that you noticed.
Johnny
-
Hi Helen, you're so absolutely right about Ryan. He was superb in everything I've seen him in---perfectly natural, unmannered and believable, whether he's a villain or not. I saw Crossfire for the first time when I got it with the Film Noir 2 set and it changed my opinion of Young. I always thought he was a bit of bore and not much to my taste. I was very impressed with his intelligent handling of the part.
Other great Ryan performances, I think, include Lawman, The Set-Up, The Professionals, Odds Against Tomorrow, Flying Leathernecks and a whole bunch more but, now that I think about it, there is one Ryan film I don't like: The Canadians. I'm a Canadian and the film, like most of Hollywood's forays into 'God's Country' (!), is misleading and stupid beyond words but, I suppose Ryan was as good as he could've been in it.
-
In the novel version of Jaws, there a beautiful description of what's left of Quint's body cascading through the waters while Hooper's still down in the cage. I always loved Shaw's demise but---Spoiler---as Hooper dies in the book (my memory might be failing, but I do seem to remember the shark getting to him), I'd love to have added Hooper to my list of favorite deaths, coz I always found Hooper much more annoying than Quint, but I suppose Spielberg couldn't bear to see his buddy croak! Too bad.
The funniest death, I think, was James Mason's in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Again, my recollection might be confused with so many other films, but I do remember it taking FOREVER for him to finally collapse. I saw it when I was a kid and thought, What gives here?
Hard to think of a favorite death but practically one in Leone's trilogy with Eastwood is amazing, particularly the big guy who's handcuffed and in charge of Tuco in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Little Eli takes him down, jumps off a train with him, smashes his head against the tracks then positions his body in the middle of the tracks to sever the cuffs. Very original.
-
I can take him or leave him too, but I noticed my personal film collection is scattered with Montgomery pictures because of who he worked with and one of the great things about the movies is developing an appreciation for one through watching the works of another. I can't really say I like Night Must Fall and I find his performance very mannered, obvious and without depth. In fact, all of his later, serious work that I've seen I do have a hard time disgesting, They Were Expendable aside. I much prefer his light comedies and early work, wherein one finds, as you put it, his "glib, devil-may-care personas" and I do think he's quite good in The Big House, War Nurse, Sins of the Children, The Mystery of Mr X, and I even like Jack Conway's Untamed, one of the most ridiculous films I've seen outside of Golden Dawn. I'm looking forward to catching more of his teamings with Madge Evans later in the month. An interesting fellow, and a terrific example of just how much a personality can be shaped by a studio. Nice to know he came to his senses and turned his back on it all.
-
You're absolutely right. Took the words right out of my mouth.
-
I used to have The Nostalgia Merchant print; it's awful. The Turner release, part of the second RKO Collection---those tapes with the red covers and spines (as opposed to the red, gold and black covers and spines)---is far superior. It's the UCLA restoration that TCM occasionally shows.
-
Welcome susanb and MissRandi! And a very Happy New Year to you, path40a, and to the rest of you. It's reassuring to know there are some people onboard who really do care about films and not silly technical glitches. In this era of immediacy, I think there's still some people who remember a time when if you wanted a something inane like a complete filmography of Alan Hale Sr, like I did twenty years ago, I had to visit a big library and scour a bunch of thick books to get one or when I wanted to watch Aggie Appleby Maker of Men, I had to search high and low for a dealer who stocked it. We didn't have the imdb or TCM then. I really do think more of us should be appreciating what we have and not how much better it could be when, for me at least, what I can get is good enough for me---and that's a day with Loretta Young later in the week and a day with Kay Francis next week and so and so on...
-
Everybody needs to let loose some time. I really liked that someone was brave enough to approve of RS's New Year's presentation and say so. I had a flash this morning reading a reply to one my posts that really got me riled. I was long without TCM and envied anyone who had the opportunity to get it. Thanks to the fine powers-that-be at StarChoice in Canada, I can now watch something as lackluster as Dancing Sweeties, which I did this morning, and love it. When the first changes on this website took place awhile back, I don't think I had too much negativity to contribute, but I do know that the only criticism I had this time around was the absence of the running times on the schedule. A valid, constructive criticism that was addressed and corrected. I can't speak for others, but I'm SO tired of logging on and seeing constant criticism of TCM more and more frequently on these forums because, as at least one member here can attest, some people still can't watch what some of us take for granted. What really counts are the films, is that not so? It would be redundant to state that the world isn't exactly a perfect place but, obviously, I guess it's a necessary reminder. Complaining about the TCM logo when you're lucky enough to be watching the films at all is ridiculous. Complaining about a link that isn't one-hundred percent operational after one day of the changes is downright petty. Most of all, complaining about the schedule itself fails to consider those people who tune into TCM and didn't catch Now, Voyager or whatever else TCM frequently airs and are appreciating these gems for the first time. We are grateful for TCM in a world of world of intense, visually hyperactive crap and the constant reminders here of genius, intelligence, films that were entertaining even when considered a 'programmer' (unlike the 'B's of today) are super for anyone channel-surfing to hit upon for the first time. I'm sure some people can remember a time when the probability of Death Takes a Holiday airing on the same station as the superb Wings of Desire (regardless of the picture quality) was slim. I applaud TCM every day for what this station allows me to see, even if I don't particularly like Gene Kelly or Judy Garland, I'm not going to post a thread complaining about the frequency of their films over more obscure titles I've yet to see air. I'll take it as it comes and love it when it does. Maybe I'm just as guilty of complaining, that I'm complaining about complaining but I just think it's inappropriate (unless someone's been offensive, or had a geniune problem with a poster's content---I can certainly relate to that) but, geez, some days when I read these threads I can't believe how many people are just plain petty.
-
That's crummy. What's up with TCM Latin? And what's the point of having Turner Classic Movies as the name if the majority of the schedule is, as you've mentioned, television shows?!? A darned shame.
-
Ugh, that should read, "...the chance to catch any of the..."
I'm making more and more mistakes these days. I must be dementing earlier than I'd hoped for.
-
In light of one your previous comments, I hope you've got the chance any of the multitude of terrific (and maybe not-so-terrific) pre-codes airing throughout the month. And I've noticed in March, The Phantom of Paris is getting another airing, along with Desert Nights. Can't wait.
-
His face was kind of rubbery. I'm always surprised when I see him in the early '30s Warner Bros. films, like Picture Snatcher (in which he's hilarious) and Wild Boys of the Road (in which he's not); I always expect Allen Jenkins or Robert McWade or Arthur Hohl to be around but Holloway wasn't one I ever associated with the Warner stock company until I watched more of the films. Fascinating, and giving life to Pooh certainly immortalized an otherwise average character actor. Don't you just love the way the world works?
-
My friend and I watched it too. It was a very strange, unique short and your comparison between it and The Twilight Zone is interesting. I wish I'd recorded it over Dream Wife but them's the breaks I guess.
April schedule up
in General Discussions
Posted
I'm perfectly happy with April's schedule. Love is a Racket, Arsene Lupin, Guilty Hands, Kongo, Sweepings, Looking Forward, The Strange Love of Molly Louvain, Star Witness, West of Zanzibar, Welcome Danger, Track of the Cat, 6000 Enemies, a Dreyer silent, Beauty for Sale, As You Desire Me, Piccadily, Prizefighter and the Lady, Whipsaw, Clear All Wires, Railroaded!, the full version of Cinema Paradiso, and so on. I guess the quality of content depends upon what you're interested in, or aware of.