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

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Bronxgirl48 said:

I'm answering myself -- it might have been Tallulah Bankhead.

I thought I'd read that it was Barbara Stanwyck; but this is definitely something that Tallulah would do.  I could see Bette Davis doing this too.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

Believe early on she was required to keep a few extra pounds on, and of course, her wardrobe and hairstyle was dowdy and/or more matronly than Ball's.   Apart from Ball's vanity, they were trying to give the impression Ball was at least 10 years younger than Vance to fit the character (Ball was supposed to be playing a woman in her early 30s, and she was 10 years older than that, and just 2 years younger than Vance).  Desi also touched up his hair starting sometime in the middle of the series run to cover the gray to make him appear younger (though he was still in his 30s when the series started, being 6 years younger than Ball)

Vance and Ball didn't exactly get along upon first meeting, but became friends over the course of the first series.   There's a quote attributed to Vance that went something like "if this show's a success then I'm going to learn to love that b*itch."

By the time her second series came about, from what I've read, Vance would only do it if she could have a better wardrobe and a more stylish hairdo.

The rumor saying that Vivian had to gain weight to appear on the series is a myth.  At some point during the series' run, at a party, Lucy presented Viv with a mock contract with all kinds of outlandish requirements (must be 20 lbs heavier than Ball, can't have red hair within 5 shades of Lucy's, etc. etc.).  At some point, some of these gag contractual requirements ended up becoming "truth." 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Why Vautrin! Haven't you heard? Didn't you get the memo???

Evidently almost ANY movie from the 1940-'50s filmed in B&W and which contains at least ONE crazy *** character in it that isn't playing that charcater for laughs, is NOW considered a "film noir"! Uh-huh, and especially if someone which as a noted expert on the subject such as The Czar of Noir, aka one Eddie Muller SAYS it is, then brother it MUST be one!

(...OR in other words here folks...IF Cause for Alarm, a movie which contains absolutely NO visuals which even MILDLY suggest the story taking place in some dark and dangerous urban environment NOR a film in which the protagonist is vaining fighting against a rigged and corrupt system in which they have little chance to survive from , well, IF this movie is a "film noir" and which one would THINK it should have for Eddie to present it on his series titled "Noir Alley", I'll EAT MY FREAKIN' FEDORA!!!)

 

Could be the well has run dry.  If all available Noir has been shown ad nauseam and the time machine isn't available to go back and make more, then the only thing left to do is redefine Noir.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Why Vautrin! Haven't you heard? Didn't you get the memo???

Evidently almost ANY movie from the 1940-'50s filmed in B&W and which contains at least ONE crazy *** character in it that isn't playing that charcater for laughs, is NOW considered a "film noir"! Uh-huh, and especially if someone which as a noted expert on the subject such as The Czar of Noir, aka one Eddie Muller SAYS it is, then brother it MUST be one!

(...OR in other words here folks...IF Cause for Alarm, a movie which contains absolutely NO visuals which even MILDLY suggest the story taking place in some dark and dangerous urban environment NOR a film in which the protagonist is vaining fighting against a rigged and corrupt system in which they have little chance to survive, well, IF this movie is a "film noir" and which one would THINK would it woiuld be for Eddie to present it on his series titled "Noir Alley", I'll EAT MY FREAKIN' FEDORA!!!)

 

Salt and Pepper?

Ellen Jones finds herself caught in a web of circumstance of no fault of her own, which is noirish. But that alone is superficial. That happens in a lot of non-noirs.  The movie reminds me of a half-hour suspense TV show in the 50s, callled PANIC!  A young boy's father is off to work at a lighthouse where there is no phone. Somehow the boy overhears a couple of men talk about going to the lighthouse to kill his father. The boy frantically tries to save his father. He goes to the police but they don't believe his story. All this frantic running around in desperation, just like Ellen Jones. That was the first episode I ever saw. In the second episode, a woman is attacked and burglarized. She goes to police and is interviewed by an investigator. The recorder of the conversation enters and he's the man who attacked her. The woman flees in terror and we get a half hour of stark anxiety.

Just kidding about the Salt and Pepper.  A handsome dose of Spike is better. That is if you need to dine on a fedora in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Moe Howard said:

Could be the well has run dry.  If all available Noir has been shown ad nauseam and the time machine isn't available to go back and make more, then the only thing left to do is redefine Noir.

Ya know Moe, sometimes I DO think this a plausable explanation for Eddie's picks. Good point.

(...and 'cause I really DIDN'T want to chow down on that fedora of mine...good ones aren't cheap, ya know)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cutter's Way. Starts off okay with some Moby Dick jokes, so maybe there will be some humorous

intellectual chitchat along the way. But that really didn't last. And after a while a little bit of Cutter and

his nastiness and non-stop mouth gets annoying. Okay, embittered Vietnam vet. Yeah I get it, but you

need more than that. The off and on investigation of the killer is interesting, though things seem to bog

down in the middle. The finale is a little on the absurd side, but no big deal. Eduardo mentioned the

ambiguity of the ending where one bullet is heard to be fired. I'm going with Bone/Cutter shot Cord.

I don't think Cord had a miniature gun in his sunglasses and if his security guys came in they likely

would have emptied their guns instead of shooting once. A pretty good movie but it doesn't quite

get there, a nice try that falls short. {I thought maybe Bone had that name because he liked to bone

the ladies and vice versa, but I could be wrong}.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, laffite said:

Salt and Pepper?

Ellen Jones finds herself caught in a web of circumstance of no fault of her own, which is noirish. But that alone is superficial. That happens in a lot of non-noirs.  The movie reminds me of a half-hour suspense TV show in the 50s, callled PANIC!  A young boy's father is off to work at a lighthouse where there is no phone. Somehow the boy overhears a couple of men talk about going to the lighthouse to kill his father. The boy frantically tries to save his father. He goes to the police but they don't believe his story. All this frantic running around in desperation, just like Ellen Jones. That was the first episode I ever saw. In the second episode, a woman is attacked and burglarized. She goes to police and is interviewed by an investigator. The recorder of the conversation enters and he's the man who attacked her. The woman flees in terror and we get a half hour of stark anxiety.

Just kidding about the Salt and Pepper.  A handsome dose of Spike is better. That is if you need to dine on a fedora in the future.

So you're saying here laffite that because in both of these cases you offered up here there's characters being "frantic" and which gives the viewer "anxiety", that this alone would legitimately constitute them being defined as "noir" then, right?!

Then tell me here. Has the simple definitions of "Suspense" or "Melodrama" movie been assigned to the trash bin of cinematic history? And when exactly did this happen?

(...wait, don't tell me...this happened about 10 years ago or so and when it seemed everyone jumped on this whole "film noir" designation bandwagon and which is a whole lot more "artsy-er" sounding, right?!)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dargo said:

Why Vautrin! Haven't you heard? Didn't you get the memo???

Evidently almost ANY movie from the 1940-'50s filmed in B&W and which contains at least ONE crazy *** character in it that isn't playing that charcater for laughs, is NOW considered a "film noir"! Uh-huh, and especially if someone which as a noted expert on the subject such as The Czar of Noir, aka one Eddie Muller SAYS it is, then brother it MUST be one!

(...OR in other words here folks...IF Cause for Alarm, a movie which contains absolutely NO visuals which even MILDLY suggest the story taking place in some dark and dangerous urban environment NOR a film in which the protagonist is vaining fighting against a rigged and corrupt system in which they have little chance to survive from NOR a protagonist who's attempting to get away with something that would be deemed a larcenous or generally antisocial behavior,well, IF this movie is a "film noir" and which one would THINK it should be for Eddie to present it on his series titled, wait for it, "Noir Alley", I'll EAT MY FREAKIN' FEDORA!!!)

 

I always put those memos in the shredder before I read them. Saves a lot of time. Casablanca, not noir. And you

can take that to the bank. If Eddie is the Czar of Noir what is the Mankman? The Serf of Nerf? I think if one

wants to make a noir case for Cause for Alarm there is the ol' behind the placid and sunny environs of suburban

Anytown, USA is the rot underneath, as Uncle Charlie might put it. But even that is a bit of a stretch. Barry is just

one paranoid guy, which isn't a whole lot of rot. Maybe this one should have been presented as Noir Crabgrass.

But I still like this one for the reasons already mentioned. Barry up in the bedroom being waited on by sweet

Loretta reminded me of the days I would get a day off from school for being sick, in actuality or not and

my mom would bring me something to eat. 

If Joe Pesci was in a Loretta Young movie he might have had to put one third of his salary in the *************swear jar. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

If Joe Pesci was in a Loretta Young movie he might have had to put one third of his salary in the *************swear jar. 

Samuel L Jackson.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Dargo said:

So you're saying here laffite that because in both of these cases you offered up here there's characters being "frantic" and which gives the viewer "anxiety", that this alone would legitimately constitute them being defined as "noir" then, right?!

Not at all. Firstly, it's the character, not the viewer, that is thrown into a frantic and anxious state. Those instances from the TV show parallel what happens to the character in the movie. That's how the TV program remind me of the movie. And second, none of this was said to imply that any or all of the three instances were noir. In fact, I indicated that the movie was not noir when I said that this alone is too "superficial" to establish noir, and further added that this sort of thing appears in many movies, "non-noirs" or in other words "suspense" and "melodrama" terms that you used that mean the same thing. We are actually in accord with all this. Sorry, if I was not clear enough before.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dargo said:

Why Vautrin! Haven't you heard? Didn't you get the memo???

Evidently almost ANY movie from the 1940-'50s filmed in B&W and which contains at least ONE crazy *** character in it that isn't playing that charcater for laughs, is NOW considered a "film noir"! Uh-huh, and especially if someone which as a noted expert on the subject such as The Czar of Noir, aka one Eddie Muller SAYS it is, then brother it MUST be one!

(...OR in other words here folks...IF Cause for Alarm, a movie which contains absolutely NO visuals which even MILDLY suggest the story taking place in some dark and dangerous urban environment NOR a film in which the protagonist is vaining fighting against a rigged and corrupt system in which they have little chance to survive from NOR a protagonist who's attempting to get away with something that would be deemed a larcenous or generally antisocial behavior,well, IF this movie is a "film noir" and which one would THINK it should be for Eddie to present it on his series titled, wait for it, "Noir Alley", I'll EAT MY FREAKIN' FEDORA!!!)

 

Its almost in the same boat as In A Lonely Place barely any Noir visuals in that one either and none of the principal characters commits any crimes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Moe Howard said:

Could be the well has run dry.  If all available Noir has been shown ad nauseam and the time machine isn't available to go back and make more, then the only thing left to do is redefine Noir.

Plenty of Foreign Noir out there.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dargo said:

So you're saying here laffite that because in both of these cases you offered up here there's characters being "frantic" and which gives the viewer "anxiety", that this alone would legitimately constitute them being defined as "noir" then, right?!

Then tell me here. Has the simple definitions of "Suspense" or "Melodrama" movie been assigned to the trash bin of cinematic history? And when exactly did this happen?

(...wait, don't tell me...this happened about 10 years ago or so and when it seemed everyone jumped on this whole "film noir" designation bandwagon and which is a whole lot more "artsy-er" sounding, right?!)

Noir is a style combined with a dark story, always has been from the get go, who ever was trying to pigeon hole it into the American Crime genre caused all the confusion.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cigarjoe said:

Noir is a style combined with a dark story, always has been from the get go, who ever was trying to pigeon hole it into the American Crime genre caused all the confusion.

Yes CJ, and thus this very LACK of the "style" OR of the visual cinematic aspect to the film Eddie presented to us this week in Noir Alley WAS the very point of my little disertation up there, and why I said it SHOULD be defined as either a "Suspense" or a "Melodrama" and not a "Noir", and so thus again, didn't have a reason for being shown in this series.

Allow me to point out here that besides all the exterior scenes shot in bright sunlight, even most of the interior scenes were shot in bright light and with absolutely no use of shadowy contrasts or tilted camera angle shots, and which are two mainstays of the noir genre's visual style.

Once again, the ONLY very faint reason this film could in ANY manner be called a "noir" would be that this SUSPENSE or MELODRAMA movie was shot in B&W and made during the classic noir era, and with emphasis on the words "very faint reason" here.

(...And btw, your point here would not be germane to anything I said in that post, and although your point about "the American Crime genre" IS a valid one, of course)

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Yes CJ, and thus this very LACK of the "style" OR of the visual cinematic aspect to the film Eddie presented to us this week in Noir Alley WAS the very point of my little disertation up there, and why I said it SHOULD be defined as either a "Suspense" or a "Melodrama" and not a "Noir", and so thus again, didn't have a reason for being shown in this series.

(...And so YOUR point here would not be germane to anything I said in that post, and although your point about "the American Crime genre" IS a valid one)

I wouldn't call it a Noir either because of that lack of style.  Besides having a style and a dark story Noir is also subjective. Its got to have enough of those elements to tip it Noir for you.

"You watch enough Noirs and you literally get to the point where, I've heard it put this way, that "you know them when you see them." I'll go that one better. Noir, for me is a pan generic dark story told in a stylistic way that triggers a vibe that you tune to, almost akin to a drug/alcohol high. You get a Noir buzz. But its a strange type of high that is actually topsy-turvy to a drug/alcohol high in that it works like this. For Noir neophytes they will only get that high from the hard boiled hardcore Noirs with Detectives, Femme Fatales, and murder. They are the Noir junkies, the mainliners. But with the more Noirs you get exposed to you'll find that there is an endless variety of stories that shuffle and spiral away on different tendrils that provide enough of the elements that make a film a Noir. Your personal life experiences will also inform your affinity to the types of stories that will tip Noir for you. So your tolerance level to Noir goes down, you don't need the hardboiled, hard core stories to get the fix and you recognize the noir in all the various tragedies and picaresque situations that plague the human condition. Noir expands out to an ill delineated, fuzzy "on the cusp of Noir" point where a film can tip either way for an individual. A good example of this effect is the the film Somebody Up There Likes Me that has a few very noir-ish sequences sprinkled through out its length."

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read the post above I hereby nominate the word 'tendrils' as being a gloriously underused word. 

I also read several posts above that there were jokes in regards to The White Whale (aka: "Moby Dick") in CUTTER'S WAY.  → Did y'all know that 'Moby Dick' was reincarnated as a barnyard fowl?  MOBY CHICKEN!  (Legend has it Gregory Peck was trying to hunt down and chuck a spear thru "Moby Chicken" before he passed on in 2003!).  😛  

NOTE:  This post brought to you by the fact I couldn't stay off the 'Dark Roast' STARBUCKS ICED COFFEE early this morning.  All the caffeine makes me think of weird stuff . . . 🤪  ). 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Joe Gillis said:

The set designer for this film went way over the top with the "ivy-covered-cottage-with-a-picket-fence" look.   God.  Not even the Munchkins would live in a house this "precious."

Yep.  Looked like they super-glued ivy all over that house.  

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lydecker said:

Yep.  Looked like they super-glued ivy all over that house.  

As both a self-taught expert on plants and a former resident of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, I will let you know that LARGE LEAF (ALGERIAN) IVY DOES EXCEPTIONALLY WELL OUT THERE.

While it is a dry climate, it is also A VERY MILD CLIMATE (it's not HUMID, which is less stress on plants and the sun isn't as intense), and THE IVY there does fine in RATHER SUNNY CONDITIONS if given some small degree of occasional irrigation (OR NOT IN SOME CASES)

I have seen MASSIVE BANKS OF IVY on the sides of OVERPASSES on the SANTA MONICA FREEWAY that would not be the least bit out of place in the proper gardens of the properest manor house in all EAST HAMPDONSHIRE-UPON-STRATFORD-LEES, UK.

So while it may seem like LORETTA was shacking up with THE SEVEN DWARFS from the facade of the house, I will attest firmly, there are THOUSANDS OF HOUSES LIKE THAT ALL OVER THE LA AREA.

AND the house in CAUSE FOR ALARM! is covered in large leaf variegated Algerian Ivy (which is MY FAVORITE):

See the source image

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Dargo said:

I've seen a lot of euphemisms in my day but that one's a first.

(...sorry Lorna AND Ed...I JUST couldn't resist borrowing the line as it seemed to fit so very well here again for some reason)  ;) 

LOL

No need to be sorry brother. I thought long and hard about reusing it myself 😂

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

As both a self-taught expert on plants and a former resident of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, I will let you know that LARGE LEAF (ALGERIAN) IVY DOES EXCEPTIONALLY WELL OUT THERE.

While it is a dry climate, it is also A VERY MILD CLIMATE (it's not HUMID, which is less stress on plants and the sun isn't as intense), and THE IVY there does fine in RATHER SUNNY CONDITIONS if given some small degree of occasional irrigation (OR NOT IN SOME CASES)

I have seen MASSIVE BANKS OF IVY on the sides of OVERPASSES on the SANTA MONICA FREEWAY that would not be the least bit out of place in the proper gardens of the properest manor house in all EAST HAMPDONSHIRE-UPON-STRATFORD-LEES, UK.

So while it may seem like LORETTA was shacking up with THE SEVEN DWARFS from the facade of the house, I will attest firmly, there are THOUSANDS OF HOUSES LIKE THAT ALL OVER THE LA AREA.

AND the house in CAUSE FOR ALARM! is covered in large leaf variegated Algerian Ivy (which is MY FAVORITE):

See the source image

Ah ha!  Loretta  wasn't having an affair with the doctor  --  she was having an affair with Sneezy who was, unfortunately, allergic to Algerian Ivy.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2021 at 11:51 AM, LornaHansonForbes said:

See the source image

in his book ALTERNATE OSCARS, author DANNY PEARY argues that JOHN HEARD should have won the 1981 BEST ACTOR OSCAR for CUTTER'S WAY. 

For the first hour, I wondered just what he was basing this on...and then came the scene where he and BRIDGES are watching THE POLO MATCH and he lets loose with some HARDCORE RENDING AND GNASHING, some TORTURED SOUL STUFF that in the hands of a lesser actor- say ROD STEIGER- would have been AWFUL, but HEARD makes it work.

There were numerous times thereon in the film where I looked into those piercing blue eyes of his and was sorry for THE POTENTIALLY GREAT LEADING MAN that the world of moviegoers lost out on...(HEARD, in real life, had some serious issues with drugs and abusive behavior, whether that was because of career difficulties or the cause of said difficulties, I dunno.)

He should have been at LEAST nominated! Had the film done well, he probably would have.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2021 at 12:09 PM, ElCid said:

Back to Noir Alley.

This is the second time I have seen Cause For Alarm and still not impressed with it.  Guess because I have a hard time with the Loretta Young role and/or her portrayal of it.  Also do not see it as Noir, but rather another 1950's drama.  After all, there is no crime in it, no criminals and so forth.  Just Barry Sullivan being paranoid.

I hadn't seen it in awhile and it doesn't hold up well. Comes off as an overlong episode of the (upcoming) Loretta Young show. Young does what she can with the hackneyed script. Everything is shot in bright sunlight. Not very noirish. Everyone she has to deal with is so annoying.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

Just a really quick note about Cause for Alarm:  It's well-known,  and was even in 1950, that the more guilty you act, the more guilty people are going to think you are.  If you're innocent,  relax.  Running around acting guilty will only make you seem guilty.

Loretta should have said to the execrable Barry S.,  : "Yeah, so the letter was mailed.  Nothing you say is true, and I say,  I'm not worried.  And if you die-  and it won't be by my hand-  they can do an autopsy which will show there's no overdose of your medicine in your system. So nyah !"

Also, the worst thing she could have done was to remove the gun from Barry's hand.  The gun in his hand would have proved he was trying to kill her and that he was a nutter.  By removing the gun,  there'd be no evidence that Barry was bonkers and was trying to kill her.  

And yeah, Eddie's right...Loretta has no time to lose, and yet she takes several minutes to change her outfit and "get all dolled up", just to go to the post office and retrieve the letter  (which it turns out wasn't there anyway.)   The expectations in the 1950s of how women were supposed to look, no matter what the situation,  were ridiculous.

One more thing-  nosy neighbours and busy body aunts !  The flip side to the "we're all friends and we all help each other out in this neighbourhood" thing is the nosy neighbour who interferes or possibly threatens the person with their nosiness, well-meaning or not.  I would not have been able to stand living in a neighbourhood like that back then, with everyone standing around staring at everything I do.

And that little kid !  He'd have driven me crazy !  he's not cute,  he's a pain in the azz !   Get lost, kid !  And get your own cookies.

Agree wholeheartedly! :D

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

WELL, ACTUALLY : I THINK YOU MIGHT JUST BE SURPRISED!!!!

(I apologize for any derailment that may incur by my veering off on this tangent.)

about a month ago, I went to my local grocery store around 6:00 pm to buy some groceries. i checked myself out at the self-checkout (don't know if they have those in CANADA, but they are EVERYWHERE HERE.)

full disclosure- i had been doing yardwork in someone else's yard and was too tired to go home and change, so i did do my shopping in a sweaty sleeveless "wife beater" tee shirt because I work out, Iook damn good for 43 and as long as I'm covered, this is America, I pay my taxes and I am allowed to shop dressed in a floor length ballgown if I so want.

I did not keep my receipt because it is my local grocery store and I am there upwards of 5 times a week, I have shopped there for myself and my family for three decades and spent thousands of dollars in that time,.

on the way out the door, I was physically accosted by the security guard who snatched the cart out of my hands and accused me of stealing. I of course did not have the receipt because I did not keep it.

she then pushed my cart in front of me and blocked my leaving while another employee took my groceries that I HAD PAID FOR away while WHILE THE POLICE WERE CALLED.

I was told to stop lying and when I said "check the system, I paid $41.06 at checkout two" I was told "it ain't gonna be in the system" by a bug-eyed  bag girl who bore a striking resemblance to BENITO MUSSOLINI.

FIVE MINUTES LATER, the manager who REALLY REGRETS TAKING THAT SMOKE BREAK FOR THAT PARTICULAR 15 MINUTES shows up, recognizes me AND GOES AND PRESSES THE BUTTON ON THE MACHINE WHICH INSTANTLY SPITS OUT MY RECEIPT FOR $41.06.

I promptly informed all present that every last inch of my *** could then be kissed and left.

SO...

if that manager had not shown up, they would have absolutely had me arrested by the police, THERE WAS NOTHING I COULD SAY THAT WOULD CONVINCE THEM I WAS INNOCENT

IT WAS DOWNRIGHT KAFKAESQUE.

long ramble ended.

my point being that, as with LORETTA IN "CAUSE FOR ALARM!" ANYONE'S LIFE, LIBERTY AND SAFETY CAN BE SNATCHED AT ANY MOMENT. FATE AND HUMANKIND TOGETHER WILL ABSOLUTELY BAND TOGETHER TO KNOCK YOU ON YOUR BUTT AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT. WE ALL HAVE OUR OWN LITTLE UNIVERSES IN WHICH WE ARE IN CHARGE OF OUR DOMAIN, BUT AT SOME POINT, 99.99999% OF US FORFEIT THAT THE MINUTE WE WALK OUT OUR DOOR OR THE MINUTE LUCK THROWS US ONE OF HER PATENDED B!TCH-GODDESS CURVEBALLS.

And there is nothing so galling or unsettling as that lesson to learn about life.

WOW. What a scary story.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...