Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About AlbertInTucson

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. "Of course they should see the film they are dealing with. DUH!" You would think but, have you checked some of the other comments I've elicited? Actually having seen the film doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for a lot of folks who seem more upset that I voiced a complaint than they are about being fed misinformation.
  2. As a child I fell asleep during some great films at the Drive-In Theatre.
  3. I just think that SOMEBODY in the Host Segments production chain, host, writer, producer, editor, ought to have seen the film they are dealing with. Recently, Dave Karger introduced The Enemy Below as being about a Battleship vs. a submarine. Another obvious gaffe that, in my opinion, points to never having seen the film.
  4. If you need to be on mind-altering drugs to "appreciate" a film, I pass. I think Yellow Submarine falls in that category as well.
  5. Ground-breaking special effects, to be sure, but the producers' fascination with those effects results in the pace of the story being reduced to an absolute crawl. First saw it as a teen and was disappointed. Unlike many other films I saw, and didn't appreciate until I was older (Bridge On The River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia to name two), the ensuing years have only confirmed my initial reaction to 2001, A Space Odyssey.
  6. "Slamming TCM"? I pointed out some obvious misinformation. If that's "slamming TCM" so be it. My "attitude" is "Mistakes happen. That's acceptable. Failing to correct the ones you can correct is not acceptable." Bottom line: I don't think asking whomever is writing the prologues and epilogues to these films to have actually VIEWED said film is asking too much. And if MY comments warrant action by moderators, then there are bunch of replies posted here that are in a lot of trouble.
  7. "I don't think aggressive/snarky comments are needed." Well, neither do I. Speaking of "Snarky' just how was I supposed to take your "Does that make you happy?" comment? It certainly didn't strike me as "friendly" on your part. I don't think I'm being unfair to TCM to expect that they do a better job when it comes to passing out information about these films and to make corrections when errors are brought to their attention.
  8. "Film Writing and Selected Journalism"? Really? Do you play fast and loose with the facts, too?
  9. I reported it to TCM several times and it goes un-corrected. Un-corrected for YEARS.
  10. I have mentioned this to TCM several times and they don't seem to give a damn. I find that disconcerting. ral times since it
  11. Sorry, TCM can't claim to be the the bastion/savior of classic films and then allow this gaffe to continue. It's disinformation.
  12. It's obvious Feinstein had never viewed the film. You think that is OK? Fine. I do not think it is. I think the fact that TCM doesn't seem to care that they have run an inaccurate intro for years is worth mentioning. BTW, it didn't take much energy, less that it took for your attempt at sarcasm worthy of a 12 year old.
  13. It is still on the App. Go to OUR VINES HAVE TENDER GRAPES and click on "Host Intro". What you will see is the years old, inaccurate introduction by Michael Feinstein in which he identifies Edward G. Robinson's character, Martinius Jacobson, as "A Widower". That would come as a shock to Agnes Moorehead who played his wife and the mother of their daughter played by Margaret O'Brien. That this intro slipped past editors in the first place is bad. That it is still in use today is awful. It also shows that Mr. Feinstein had never even seen the film. That's an
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...