FredCDobbs

Before: http://dothejanefonda.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/barbarella-24.jpg After: http://www.parstimes.com/gallery/jane_fonda/jane_fonda_02.jpg

Her first movie (1945) was a nightclub movie: http://www.archive.org/movies/thumbnails.php?identifier=big_show-off http://www.archive.org/details/big_show-off

Go to Google, type in any actress's or actor's name, and then click on "Images", and you'll get a lot of pictures of them. This is the way Dale looked in her earliest movies.

>Obviously you don't know much about the process of checks and balances any kind of artistic project goes through before it sees the light of day...beginning with seeking the artist who can best deliver what the client is looking for. In the first place, the owners didn?t know it would be a wacky Roark design. If the owners who PAY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING say it ?needs balconies?, then it needs balconies. A building is not primarily ?an artistic project?. It is a large box that houses people for work or for living quarters. Roark should go to prison for life for blowing up some one else?s property. Roark was a crazy crackpot anarchist. Anyway, no building is ever built with out some modifications as required by the owners. Do you understand that the loss of individual human rights is, to a great extent, due to government people insisting that all Americans do everything their way (the government people?s way)? There are so many laws, rules, and regulations now, we can?t do much of anything completely our way any more. A federal campground owner told me I would be fined $250 if I left a piece of bread on a picnic table over night, because it might attract bears. I told him the feds should put up a 15 foot fence around the campground to keep the bears out. I didn?t go camping to be killed and eaten by bears. But now I?ve got to follow all sorts of rules and regulations when I go camping. I can still do a lot of things in my own house, and in my yard, that people don?t tell me what to do, but the government is sticking its nose in our rural property more and more. If I hire an architect or house painter, and if I pay him, then I say he must do WHAT I WANT DONE, not what he wants done. Roark designed that building by FRAUD, in an attempt to deceive the guys who were paying to have the building built. He should have been arrested for fraud and sent to prison for blowing up the building.

Yep, it's her. We are all doomed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Swedish_actors

>Do I Look Like I"m Joking????...Huh?, Huh?. Huh? Yes you do. I?m sure you would agree that if a person wants to design something ugly FOR HIMSELF, he certainly can do that. But if he wants to design something ugly FOR SOMEONE ELSE, and force it on someone else, then he is an idiot and he is ignoring the other person?s rights as an individual independent human. For example, if you design, pay for, and put an ugly building on your own property, then you can do that, and that is your business. But if I pay for it, and tell you what kind of design that I want, and if it goes on my property, then I must approve the design, and if I don?t like your design, I?ve got the absolute right to get rid of you and your design because I?m an individual independent human. You can?t force your ugly design on me and expect me to approve it and pay for it. Any person who would try to do that is commonly known as an ?idiot?.

Dale Evans

Anita Ekberg:

Nobody has been able to tell me who played Floyd Thursby in "The Maltese Falcon" or Rebecca in the film "Rebecca."

>Roark represents the artistic temperament. That-annoying-to-many force that has taken us as a society from the swamps to the glories of Frank LLoyd Wright, Louis Sullivan, I.M. Pei...His fight was, and is a constant for the creative mind to forge ahead rather than recycle what's already been done, The Committee rule is the death knell for the creative process, and unfortunately, your missive proves that the fight certainly isn't over. You are joking, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Micheaux http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2006-01-23-dvd-black-history_x.htm

Seems like the people who made up this list haven't seen very many old classic films.

>I have no sympathy for Gary whose acts like a spoiled child when people don't want to do things his way. Can you imagine going to a house painter to paint your house inside and out. You show him your list of colors for the outside and for each room, and he says, ?NO! If you hire me, I will decide what colors to use because I am an individual free man!? You go to a car dealer to buy a car, and the salesman says, ?NO, I make cars in my spare time and I will decide what kind of car you will drive. You pay for it, but I will design it, and you have no choice in the matter!? You send your son to a new school, and the teacher says, ?NO, I will not teach your son reading, math, and science. I will teach him how to make momogoogoo, the national food of the Yohoho tribe of Borneo. I will teach him how to make grass skirts. I will teach him how to hunt water buffalo. Because I AM AN INDIVIDUAL, a free human being, and I WILL DECIDE what your son is taught!?

What keeps bumping my name up to the top of the index list on some threads? I haven't posted anything or changed anything on this thread since Aug. 9.

>THE LOCKET deserves a much better reputation than it seems to have and hopefully it will find a place in one of Warner Home Video's upcoming film noir box sets. It far surpasses many of the films already included. Don't miss it! I agree. This is a great noir movie! It's very unusual, has a good unusual plot. Everyone movie buff should see this film!

I finally forced myself to sit through the second half of ?The Fountainhead?. This is undoubtedly the most stupid movie I?ve ever seen. All the actors in it were just great, but the script was idiotic. The lady loves the stubborn egotistical architect, but for some unknown and unexplained reason she marries a guy she hates. The egotistical architect tells her he loves her too but he tells her to go ahead and leave him for many years just so she can understand why he?s so danged egotistical and stubborn. The older guy hates the modern designs of the architect, but he hires him to design an ugly modern house for him and his new wife, and the wife can?t stand living with the old guy in the building the guy she loves designed. All the modern buildings in the movie were the ugliest buildings I?ve ever seen. No wonder everyone on the planet hated the egotistical guy. He was no artist at all. Some other architect who can?t design ugly buildings asked the egotistical guy to design a building for him, secretly, and the guy does it, then the owners of the buildings want to add a few balconies, so the designer (the crazy guy) blows up the building. Then during his court trial he gives some kind of weird lecture about how everyone belongs to himself and should be stubborn, stupid, and design ugly buildings, the jury likes the speech and finds him ?not guilty? of blowing up the building that everyone knows he blew up. The old guy, who has always hated the designs of the egotistical guy, gives him a contract to design another building, and when the egotistical guy accepts, the old guy drops dead on the spot, freeing up the woman to marry the crazy egotistical building bomber. What a stupid movie. I think it is the most stupid movie I?ve ever seen.

Nevermind.

There were a lot that were supposed to take place there but that weren't shot there. See this list: http://www.imdb.com/keyword/san-francisco/ I think "The Sniper" was shot there. Also see: http://www.imdb.com/keyword/san-francisco-california/ The color verson of ?Invasion of the Body Snatchers? was shot there. Don?t forget the chase scene in ?Bullit?, and some of the Dirty Harry movies. "The Case of the Curious Bride" has some good downtown scenes from 1935. http://www.imdb.com/List?locations=SanFrancisco,California,+USA

Sounds like one of those three or four-episode movies, based on three or four short stories. TCM aired one last summer that had a guy and a girl staying at some kind of large old house health clinic, along with older people. The young couple got married and left the place. I?m thinking of Michael Rennie and Jean Simmons, in the movie ?Trio? 1950, in the ?Sanitorium? segment.

?Shaaaaane! Come back Shane! Come back! Shaaaaaaane! Come back!?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,300499,00.html

We've had this "tribute to baseball" series about 5 times this year.

See if this is it:

More Darby:

>I am just curious as to whether I am the only one who feels that TCM has lost some of its attraction by highlighting movie stars or subect matter back-to-back-to-back, as opposed to offering a variety of movie themes to appeal to all watchers. I have a difficult time watching Gary Coooper being Sargeant York, followed by Gary Cooper being Lou Gehrig. I keep waiting for Cooper to either hit a home run on the battlefield, or take out his rifle and shoot down the opposing team on the baseball diamond. I agree. It's difficult to watch so many films in a row, especially when they go over into the early morning hours when they play all night long. And when there is a series I don't like, I can't watch TCM for a day or two. They should spread them out over a month. Even one a day wouldn't be bad.