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

David Proulx

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About David Proulx

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I've always thought of this as a standard plot line in whodunnit shows. I bet I've seen on at least a half dozen different shows in my lifetime. I just saw it on a Monk repeat recently, although, in that case, the prop was a knife.
  2. Not an old classic, but 2003's Open Water left me with nightmares over the following week.
  3. Of those which I've seen both: 1948: Olivier vs Wyman - Love Olivier and his performance here, but Wyman did it w/ no words 1952: Cooper vs Booth - I don't love Cooper, although nice job here. Booth wins 1956: Brynner vs Bergman - Love both stars and both performances. I like Yul here. 1961: Schell vs Loren - I remember very little about Two Women. That speaks enough for me to go w/ Schell who was great in Judgment 1966: Scofield vs Taylor - This is a tough one. Both were magnificent on their role (and Burton deserves every bit the mention Taylor gets), so maybe
  4. I wasn't trying to generalize, but I could see how it came out that way. I did somewhat characterize the group as a community. You could speak to that more than I could. I did seem that almost immediately, disagreement on the context was thrown aside, and a discussion about the already decided-to-be "troll" had taken over. I think someone might have even mentioned that they'd left the group. I think I might've too, given that welcome. I will say, though, since I have you here, that I appreciate your effort to keep things positive, and your comments are good. I'm a fan. I do think, however
  5. Personally, I never check the resumes of the posters, so I take them at face value, purely reading the content. I'm beginning to gather that many have been on here for years and have come to look at this as a bit of a community, which I really like, by the way. I'm pretty new to it, since August, I think, but I have noticed that when a newbie comes in strong or starts with a negative OP, there is a suspicion among the core group to dismiss them quickly as a troll (I've seen it once before this one). I think my first one was a criticism of Alicia and what I thought was a overly gushing passing
  6. I would bet most everybody has posted a criticism of TCM or a specific showing or intro, either in an OP or a comment on one. I think "troll" may be a little harsh, assuming they have motives of stirring up the membership. It was certainly on the negative side, and most of us disagree that it was awful and that Noir Alley is heading south, but, apparently, Le Corbeau thought Hellbound wasn't worthy and wanted to vent about it. I'm guessing he/she thought it'd get some support on that. A miscalculation, obviously. Usually, OP's that don't thrill us don't get much attention. That's the answer fo
  7. Did I mention that I had the slimmest of hope? lol
  8. Classy approach! I would say, though, that, first off, human nature dictates that the negative motivates most to start a topic, because they have a beef, or are looking for sympathy from this 'community'. Either way, it's venting about the channel, and where else is there to do that with fellow fans who would understand? Secondly, they (and I must admit that I too, somewhat secretly, lol) have the slimmest of hope that TCM is actually monitoring these, and that maybe, just maybe, they're listening to our criticism, especially if they deem their criticism constructive, even if presented negativ
  9. There were people complaining about the new look, saying that trying to include a younger audience was a mistake. A "sad, slow death"? Where do you think they'd be in a generation from now if they didn't? The truth is that a sizable percentage of their current audince will be dead by then. I suppose if the extent of their ambition is for the channel only to last until 2045, then they'd survive that, but what business thinks in those terms? They already were showing 1-star scifi movies, ....... and then there's TCM Underground, lol. They could start showing neo-classics from 20-30 years ago, th
  10. I can't think of any old classics that I can't stand or are especially overrated, but I could give you actors & actresses who I'm not fond of. Of a later generation of films, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. It's always heralded as brilliant. WHAT?! They went over-the-top stupid a few times, like the back alley fight scene, for instance. I saw the story and thought it had a chance to be a classic in much better hands. It could, and should, have been done playing the absurdity of the actual events straight, more like a Curb You Enthusiasm way
  11. Nice trivia! I did just now watch Nothing in Common. Very good flick. Someone mentioned in this thread (I thought, but can't find it) that this movie told him/her that Hanks was definitely going to be huge. Truer words never spoken. He was outstanding, showing every angle of his talents in it. I'll have to chase down a Mr Halpern and Mr Johnson copy, as my Amazon firestick showed no results on the search. I only got a good synopsis of it from IMDB. I'll check out The Desert Hawk as well. Oh yeah, and The Toy was awful. I remember seeing it when it came out. The critics crushed it, as well
  12. You're right about a couple of things: 1) I'm not particular gaga over West Side Story either. For me, musicals, in general?---ehh. I'm not the one who decides what makes a classic, though. The enduring concensus of critics & audience does, and this one is deemed a classic, still absolutely loved by many for 60 years now. 2) Yes, it is a Romeo & Juliet theme, and there are maybe 1000+ movies in Hollywood with that theme. So, why not make an original movie with that in mind? Why be a hack, and steal the West Side Story name? One can improve upon anything. As I stated in my fi
  13. Gigot is one I will see. I'm looking for straight dramatic roles he's done, as opposed to comedy/dramedy. For my taste, I've found him at his best there, and it seems to a rare thing with him. Smokey, The Toy, Don't Drink, Mr Billion, etc, all have that comedic element that I'm trying not to see. I know comedy was his stock in trade, but I disagree that it was his forte. I have hopes that Mr Halpern & Mr Johnson is much more rooted in drama than the comedy it looks like it has.
  14. After watching The Hustler and Requiem for a Heavyweight within a couple of days of each other, it occurred to me that Jackie Gleason never gets mentioned too much for his dramatic roles (except for his Minnesota Fats). Personally, as great as he was as a comedic actor, I think his dramatic acting chops are still better. Not being leading man material, lookswise, he was doomed for supporting roles, but am I the only one who can't take my eyes off him when he's on screen. I'm guessing who ever shared a scene with him had to bust their **** just to stay in it. I can only think of those two movie
  15. I didn't know he was still alive. How could anyone not love Bob Newhart. He's the straight man who gets the laughs. He's the lovable guy who everything happens to. He's always been so understated, and his timing impeccable. I can't believe he's been working this late in life.
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
  • Create New...