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

Bethluvsfilms

Members
  • Posts

    4,734
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Bethluvsfilms

  1. 31 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

    Have you seen these classic films (hopefully I have the numbering right today!):

    1101. 

    Screen Shot 2020-06-26 at 3.04.49 PM.jpeg

    1102. 

    Screen Shot 2020-03-16 at 6.59.04 AM.jpeg

    1103.

    Screen Shot 2020-03-21 at 2.49.18 PM.jpeg

    1104. 

    Screen Shot 2020-03-21 at 10.42.47 AM.jpeg

    1105.

    SCREEN.jpeg

    1106. 

    Screen Shot 2020-03-20 at 6.05.28 PM.jpeg

    1107.

    Screen Shot 2020-06-26 at 2.55.21 PM.jpeg

    1108.

    Screen Shot 2020-03-25 at 9.28.58 AM.jpeg

    1109.

    Screen Shot 2020-06-26 at 2.52.28 PM

    1110.

    Screen Shot 2020-06-26 at 3.41.32 PM

    Seen them all except 1110. 1102 is my absolute favorite out of all of these here, 1103, 1105 and 1107 I quite enjoy.

    Can't stand 1109 however.

    • Like 1
  2. Debbie was likable in just about every role she did, how could one not like her?

    Of course she'll always be remembered for SINGIN' IN THE RAIN or THE UNSINKABLE MOLLY BROWN, but she also turned in a really great performance in her later years as Albert Brooks' ma in 1997's MOTHER.

    • Like 1
  3. I suppose it depends on two things: how one's attention span can extend itself and the quality of the movie also plays an important part of it.

    I myself can sit through GONE WITH THE WIND, SPARTACUS, THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES, A STAR IS BORN (1954), to name a few, time and time again. The stories are so enthralling it makes me lose track of the time.

    On the other hand, I would never want to sit through the Elizabeth Taylor/Richard Burton/Fox fiasco that was1963'S  CLEOPARTRA ever again because I felt every second of that drag of a movie.

    Certainly small children wouldn't be able to sit still through a 3 hour movie or longer (and I am doubtful of 2 hour movies as well), but pre-teens might be a bit more willing to give them a chance.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  4. 58 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

    Have you seen these classic films?

    1081. 

    Screen Shot 2020-05-02 at 5.28.14 PM.jpeg

    1082. 

    Screen Shot 2020-04-11 at 9.10.20 AM.jpeg

    1083. 

    SheWolfOfLondon.jpg

    1084. 

    Screen Shot 2020-05-30 at 5.45.47 PM

    1085. 

    SCREEN.jpeg

    1086. 

    Screen shot 2017-09-12 at 4.34.10 PM.png

    1087. 

    Screen Shot 2020-03-27 at 2.21.27 PM.jpeg

    1088. 

    Screen Shot 2020-05-31 at 7.03.18 PM

    1089.

    Screen Shot 2020-03-24 at 6.56.02 AM.jpeg

    1090. 

    SCREEN.jpeg

    1084 I do not like (but then I've never been a big Bob Hope fan anyway). 1088 is my dad's favorite (he loves Charles Bronson).  1087 is watchable, even if it does have white Olivier performing in blackface.

    1082 I really really like. The rest I am not so sure I've seen.

    • Like 1
  5. 9 hours ago, EricJ said:

    Dan Aykroyd had a talent for directing his OWN worst films, and they didn't get much lower than Nothing But Trouble (1991) - One of those movies-from-Mars Chevy Chase shows up in*, that you can't remember whether you actually watched, or fell asleep and had a nightmare watching.

    However, even if you're Bob Clark, if you have Dan Aykroyd in "Loose Cannons" playing a nut who does imitations, how about letting him do his own, like Broderick Crawford or Joe Friday?  Let somebody else imitate the Cowardly Lion or the Lone Ranger.

    (* - Worst Chevy Chase? - That, friend, is a challenge.  I'll throw out the truly drug-laced fever-dream of Modern Problems (1981) for a start.)

    Yikes, NOTHING BUT TROUBLE was another grotesque, waste of a film that I had the misfortune of ever having seen (but at least have had sense enough never to have seen it again, once was one time too many).

    Have to agree MODERN PROBLEMS ranks up there with one of Chevy's worse, though I wasn't too keen on FUNNY FARM, which was just dull for me.

  6. 1 hour ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

    6/26

    AIRING RIGHT NOW  (and hopefully ON DEMAND later) YOU'LL FIND OUT (1941?) , a predecessor of sorts to HOLD THAT GHOST/ABBOTT AND COSTELLO MEET FRANKENSTEIN- KAY KAISER (who is the squarest white man who ever lived, sorry LAWRENCE WELK) and his band play a birthday party for the heiress to a fortune in an isolated haunted mansion. SHENANIGANS ENSUE.

    The special effects are, surprisingly, OUTSTANDING.

    It cosTARS PETER LORRE, BELA LUGOSI (in a TURBAN as PRINCE SALIANO) and KARLOFF: THE UNCANNY. Sadly, the three do not have much screen time together, but this is a fun film.

    MALTIN gives it TWO STARS, which nearly always is a sign that it is a film worth watching. (MALTIN HUFFS KEYBOARD CLEANER)

    10671-21751-0.jpg

    "vould you eggsplain to our costume designer whose name I am unfamiliar with..."

    "It's Tawny Miller."

    "Hello Tawny, how do you do? Zat I do not feel quite right in A TURBAN? Vhat I feel like IS GLORIA ******** SVANSON!!!!!!"

    You've sold me on it.

    ANYTHING Matlin gives 2 stars or less makes it a must-see for me!

    • Like 1
  7. 1990'S LOOSE CANNONS was definitely a low point for Gene Hackman.  That movie was just reeking with bad taste.

    His co-star Dan Aykroyd has never had the best taste in scripts (exceptions being the GHOSTBUSTERS films, DRIVING MISS DAISY and TRADING PLACES) so I wasn't surprised of this atrocious misfire from him.

    • Like 2
© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...