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

Recommended Posts

I made it pretty far into ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS, but it just didn’t seem to *really* be about anything, so I checked out. I mean, it had a story, and things happened in it, and it had its moments (I liked the cutaway boardinghouse musical number), but the leads were just so hollow and everything felt so superficial. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

I made it pretty far into ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS, but it just didn’t seem to *really* be about anything, so I checked out. I mean, it had a story, and things happened in it, and it had its moments (I liked the cutaway boardinghouse musical number), but the leads were just so hollow and everything felt so superficial. 

I remember seeing it when it was released, at the Ziegfeld Theater in New York. The space was much more impressive than the rather dull film. Very disappointing.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched Beauty for the Asking,  with Lucile Ball,  Patrick Knowles, and Frieda Inescort.

This 1939 RKO film,  running at 68 minutes while average,  was still interesting.   I really liked the interplay between the two women and Knowles made for a swell cad.

Image result for beauty for the askingImage result for beauty for the asking

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, midwestan said:

I didn't really like the condescension that was openly leveled at the woman working in the Transit Authority or the Japanese transit observers from Tokyo. 

Those were two of the funniest parts!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Swithin said:

I remember seeing it when it was released, at the Ziegfeld Theater in New York. The space was much more impressive than the rather dull film. Very disappointing.

 

I saw it at the Ziegfeld also. I thought the movie was just OK, I liked the music and bought the soundtrack album. I liked seeing Ray Davies of the Kinks in an acting role and Sade Adu looked stunning.

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

I made it pretty far into ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS, but it just didn’t seem to *really* be about anything, so I checked out. I mean, it had a story, and things happened in it, and it had its moments (I liked the cutaway boardinghouse musical number), but the leads were just so hollow and everything felt so superficial. 

It's supposed to be a stylized London musical about the discontented 50's British postwar years, of class culture, complacent domestic life, the rise of advertising (which was seen as THE Evil Establishment in 50's UK), dance-pallys, the teen Mods vs. Rockers, and ultimately the race riots, which was the big historical event of the decade.

It would make more sense if you were British and learned all these things as history, but instead, comes off as Julian Temple trying to make his first real movie after 80's MTV videos, back in the mid-80's when Hollywood was beating its brains out trying to make MTV: the Movie.  And on that level, it's more watchable than Earth Girls Are Easy.

Back in the 80's MTV Glory Days, all we cared about was the David Bowie theme that got stuck in your head:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCJLOXqnT2I  🎶 😵

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

I made it pretty far into ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS, but it just didn’t seem to *really* be about anything, so I checked out. I mean, it had a story, and things happened in it, and it had its moments (I liked the cutaway boardinghouse musical number), but the leads were just so hollow and everything felt so superficial. 

Never mind Absolute Beginners,  I had fun watching the earlier "TCM Underground" pic that preceded it:  EARTH GIRLS ARE EASY  !!!

Oh my goodness, what a completely unabashedly silly piece of fluff !  But it was good fluff, I enjoyed it very much.  It was so shamelessly ridiculous, it didn't even try to have any kind of cohesive plot or make sense in any way,  so what do you do with a movie like that?  You go with it.  You sit back and enjoy the ride, and you don't try to pretend that it's anything other than a celebration of silliness -- but in a good way !

Maybe it's because I have a bit of a weakness for those kind of quirky goofy  '80s  comedies.  They make me nostalgic for the '80s.  I'd also put the original Hairspray in this category...a fluffy musical that's lots of fun, not particularly memorable, but kind of sweet.  (Actually, to be fair, there's a lot more going on in Hairspray than there is in Earth Girls are Easy.)

A brief description of what passes for a plot will give y'all an idea of how un-serious a film,  even a film that's a comedy, this is:  Geena Davis, who is engaged to a smarmy two-timing doctor,  and who works as a manicurist  at a salon called  (wait for it !)   "Curl Up and Dye",  is languishing beside her pool after a fight with the aforesaid smarmy fiance.  Suddenly a spaceship falls into her pool !  Oh no !  Aliens  !  But it's ok, the aliens are nice, three  furry young men who just want to meet some nice earth girls  (the "easy" part comes later-   no  pun intended...)

The rest of the tale involves Geena's attempts to help the aliens get their spaceship fixed so they can return whence they came, but not before a splendid time is had by all.  The aliens get their fur removed at the "Curl Up and Dye"  (any excuse to write that name again)  salon, whereupon they emerge as Jeff Goldblum,  Daman Wayans,  and Jim Carrey,  all three looking amazingly young and , well, attractive.  After their makeover, they check out all the fun things young Californians were doing in 1988 --- dancing  (Wayans steals the show),  hanging out at the beach  (where there's some kind of "blondes" contest going on),  accidentally robbing a convenience store,   stuff like that.

Why am I bothering to post about this goofy little movie at all, let alone writing so much about it?  I don't know, except that Earth Girls are Easy is so ingenuously silly,  so good-natured (no one in it is very mean, not even the two-timing fiance),  and so joyfully unworried about its own shallowness,  it kind of works !

Also,  I watched it in real time, which means I watched it at 2 o'clock in the morning .   And I didn't fall asleep once !

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, misswonderly3 said:

Never mind Absolute Beginners,  I had fun watching the earlier "TCM Underground" pic that preceded it:  EARTH GIRLS ARE EASY  !!!

Oh my goodness, what a completely unabashedly silly piece of fluff !  ...... Jeff Goldblum,  Daman Wayans,  and Jim Carrey,  all three looking amazingly young and , well, attractive.  After their makeover, they check out all the fun things young Californians were doing in 1988 --- dancing  (Wayans steals the show),  hanging out at the beach  (where there's some kind of "blondes" contest going on),  accidentally robbing a convenience store,   stuff like that.

Why am I bothering to post about this goofy little movie at all, let alone writing so much about it?  I don't know, except that Earth Girls are Easy is so ingenuously silly,  so good-natured (no one in it is very mean, not even the two-timing fiance),  and so joyfully unworried about its own shallowness,  it kind of works !

Also,  I watched it in real time, which means I watched it at 2 o'clock in the morning .   And I didn't fall asleep once !

I am lucky, I gots a HULU TV which also carries a WEST COAST TCM FEED, and I am a pretty early riser, so I caught the last 30 minutes or so of EARTH GIRLS and was surprised by how much fun it was, right down to the roast chicken spaceship out of FLASH GORDON serials of the 1930s.

Also it featured ANGELYNE at her MOST ICONIC in a CAMEO

See the source image

I saw seeds of the later smash hit dUMB AND DUMBER being germinated in the scenes between WAYANS and CARREY, and I am ashamed to admit, I also thought JIM CARREY was really cute [back then],

And I hate myself for it.

Also the late CHARLES ROCKET in a role as a slimy surgeon, his story is a very tragic one and worth a trip to wikipedia if you don't know it already.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SansFin said:

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016)

 

"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains. Never was this truth more plain than in the recent attacks at Netherfield Park, in which an entire household was slaughtered by a horde of the living dead during a whist party."

Darcy is a noted zombie killer with a strident manner and dour aspect. Elizabeth and her sisters are all Shaolin-trained to protect their family and estate.

This movie is not in any manner as silly or camp or stupid as the title might lead a potential viewer to believe. It is a fairly respectable retelling of the Jane Austen borefest while breathing some life into that whiny fairy tale. The main difference is that it is set during a zombie infestation and so the characters' personal needs and desires are subordinate to their greater duty to family and society. The adaptation is intelligently and delicately done. I am sorry to say that I fear this means that the movie will sink out of sight and not properly valued by serious cinephiles nor enter the ranks of cult movies. 

The movie's greatest flaw is that it follows the original story more closely than it deserves and so drags interminably in several places. 

7.5/10

It is available for viewing free with commercials on: IMDb.TV.

In the spirit of full disclosure, shouldn't you say which movies you watched only because you lost a bet? To be fair, you might add how many tricks you tried to pull to get out of watching this one. It'd make your liking it much more persuasive. 😉 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

as far as I'm concerned the 2005 KEIRA KNIGHTLY, aggressively au natural version of PRIDE AND PREJUDICE- which was filmed at someone's misbegotten insistence that the actors NOT ONLY use NO MAKE-UP but also be filmed in lighting which I can only describe as SADISTIC is the original PRIDE AND PREJUDICE AND ZOMBIES. 

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

for those who don't trust links, here's the video; it's a great song.

And for those wondering, the zebra-girl in Bowie's video is ALSO a homage to a 50's-60's British cigarette commercial...That's motivation!

(Seriously, what is the bug 50's-60's UK had up their hinder about advertising??  Even the seminally decade-iconic mondo-shock-doc Primitive London (1965) had to stick in cutesy parodies of British admen at work, as representation of what the Whitebread Establishment was doing at the other end of swingin'-60's London.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, EricJ said:

It's supposed to be a stylized London musical about the discontented 50's British postwar years, of class culture, complacent domestic life, the rise of advertising (which was seen as THE Evil Establishment in 50's UK), dance-pallys, the teen Mods vs. Rockers, and ultimately the race riots, which was the big historical event of the decade.

It would make more sense if you were British and learned all these things as history, but instead, comes off as Julian Temple trying to make his first real movie after 80's MTV videos, back in the mid-80's when Hollywood was beating its brains out trying to make MTV: the Movie.  And on that level, it's more watchable than Earth Girls Are Easy.

Back in the 80's MTV Glory Days, all we cared about was the David Bowie theme that got stuck in your head:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCJLOXqnT2I  🎶 😵

 

Well, clearly I did not find Earth Girls are Easy  "unwatchable".

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

I am lucky, I gots a HULU TV which also carries a WEST COAST TCM FEED, and I am a pretty early riser, so I caught the last 30 minutes or so of EARTH GIRLS and was surprised by how much fun it was, right down to the roast chicken spaceship out of FLASH GORDON serials of the 1930s.

Also it featured ANGELYNE at her MOST ICONIC in a CAMEO

See the source image

I saw seeds of the later smash hit dUMB AND DUMBER being germinated in the scenes between WAYANS and CARREY, and I am ashamed to admit, I also thought JIM CARREY was really cute [back then],

And I hate myself for it.

Also the late CHARLES ROCKET in a role as a slimy surgeon, his story is a very tragic one and worth a trip to wikipedia if you don't know it already.

Hey,  Angelyne looks like she came from Planet Clare !

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, SansFin said:

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016)

 

"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains. Never was this truth more plain than in the recent attacks at Netherfield Park, in which an entire household was slaughtered by a horde of the living dead during a whist party."

Darcy is a noted zombie killer with a strident manner and dour aspect. Elizabeth and her sisters are all Shaolin-trained to protect their family and estate.

This movie is not in any manner as silly or camp or stupid as the title might lead a potential viewer to believe. It is a fairly respectable retelling of the Jane Austen borefest while breathing some life into that whiny fairy tale. The main difference is that it is set during a zombie infestation and so the characters' personal needs and desires are subordinate to their greater duty to family and society. The adaptation is intelligently and delicately done. I am sorry to say that I fear this means that the movie will sink out of sight and not properly valued by serious cinephiles nor enter the ranks of cult movies. 

The movie's greatest flaw is that it follows the original story more closely than it deserves and so drags interminably in several places. 

7.5/10

It is available for viewing free with commercials on: IMDb.TV.

Really?  You think Pride and Prejudice  is a "borefest"  ?  Also a "whiny fairy tale"?

Alas !  SansFin,  I almost always love  your posts  and usually agree with them,  but in this case not.  I am sad that you found the novel  (the actual original one) boring and whiny.

I have to assume you're not a Jane Austen fan.  I doubt you'd like Emma any better.  

The only two Jane Austen novels I did not love were Northanger Abbey  (but here we can cut her some slack, since it was her first effort),  and Mansfield Park, which actually is a bit of a bore, mainly because its main character is something of a prig.

But everything else Jane A.wrote,  I believe is not only interesting and engaging to read, but also quite insightful about human nature.  Relevant even today.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

Really?  You think Pride and Prejudice  is a "borefest"  ?  Also a "whiny fairy tale"?

Alas !  SansFin,  I almost always love  your posts  and usually agree with them,  but in this case not.  I am sad that you found the novel  (the actual original one) boring and whiny.

I have to assume you're not a Jane Austen fan.  I doubt you'd like Emma any better.  

The only two Jane Austen novels I did not love were Northanger Abbey  (but here we can cut her some slack, since it was her first effort),  and Mansfield Park, which actually is a bit of a bore, mainly because its main character is something of a prig.

But everything else Jane A.wrote,  I believe is not only interesting and engaging to read, but also quite insightful about human nature.  Relevant even today.

Jane Austen was assigned reading at a time when I read for sheer enjoyment W. Shakespeare, E. A. Poe and P. G. Wodehouse. Her writing suffered by comparison and her stories were very thin by comparison. I realize that she is very popular but so is Adam Sandler and so it is obviously a matter of taste. The simple fact that less than twenty percent of my reviews in this thread have elicited comments clearly demonstrates that my taste is not in keeping with the majority here.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My Spy (2020)

 

A former Army Ranger working for the CIA gets owned by a little girl he is supposed to have under surveillance.

This movie is precious! It hits nearly every trope of the genre and makes them refreshing by breathing new life into them. It references: Notting Hill (1999) as a prelude to a firefight. It is very easy to empathize with him after a dinner with the girl and her mother when he says: "I miss dealing with terrorists." It acknowledges the similarity of a rescue with a dramatic scene in: Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981). The production values are more closely that of a made-for-television movie rather than a theatrical release because it is an Amazon Prime movie but there is quality work throughout.  

It will surely never be enshrined as a classic but it is great good fun.  

8.4/10

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

The only two Jane Austen novels I did not love were Northanger Abbey  (but here we can cut her some slack, since it was her first effort), 

I had to read Northanger Abbey as part of a Gothic literature class. In that context, as a sendup of the real Gothic novels, it's sort of fun. It makes a nice change when you read it after coping with Otranto, Udolpho, Melmoth, Vathek, and The Monk (all of which I loved, particularly Melmoth).

41emrk0lC0L._SX321_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SansFin said:

The simple fact that less than twenty percent of my reviews in this thread have elicited comments clearly demonstrates that my taste is not in keeping with the majority here.

Really? You calculate the percentage of responses to your posts? (just kidding) Most responses my posts receive are arguments or to point out everything I missed. I'm very glad someone is watching & commenting on newer movies, since I don't subscribe to any streaming service. This thread is most helpful to point me in the direction of what I may enjoy watching or should avoid!

I always bristle when anyone calls our posts "reviews", as we're really just a classic movies fan group stating our opinions. But I'm more annoyed by those who just state the title of what they 'JUST WATCHED' as if listing a tally.

As for Jane Austen stories- no, I don't find them boring if done well. But like Shakespeare, you have olde language & social mores as a barrier for many modern viewers. When I hear a younger person say they enjoyed the latest Austen story/movie, my heart warms knowing there still are people out there who can concentrate more than 5 minutes & have enough imagination to emotionally immerse themselves in another era.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SansFin said:

Jane Austen was assigned reading at a time when I read for sheer enjoyment W. Shakespeare, E. A. Poe and P. G. Wodehouse. Her writing suffered by comparison and her stories were very thin by comparison. I realize that she is very popular but so is Adam Sandler and so it is obviously a matter of taste. The simple fact that less than twenty percent of my reviews in this thread have elicited comments clearly demonstrates that my taste is not in keeping with the majority here.

Well,  for sure when one has to read something,  the element of coercion can definitely have an effect on the reader's enjoyment of the assigned reading material.  It's for that reason that I don't think Shakespeare, for instance, should be on any high school curriculum.    Personally,  I never found Edgar Allen Poe much fun -- although,  from what I know about you, SansFin, I can easily imagine your enjoying his macbre stories !  ( this is intended as a compliment, I hope you know.)

Jane Austen is what is known (in some circles) as a "miniaturist".  That is,  she focused on writing about just a few characters in a small community-  she didn't write about "big" ideas or issues,   she didn't write big stories  (even her novels are shorter than those of her contemporaries.) She was interested in character and in character development; most of her novels are about young women who learn some kind of life lesson after examining their own foolish behaviour.  That sounds a bit pat, and also didactic.  But for me, anyway,  the way Austen describes the psychological journey her characters experience is not didactic, it's entertaining and insightful.

However,  my opinion on anything here may not be considered valid because --  SHAMEFUL CONFESSION:  -  I kind of like Adam Sandler !  Sometimes , anyway.  I  certainly don't despise him the way I'm sure the majority of posters here do.  I would not say I was a fan, but on the other hand,  I haven't hated any film I've seen him in.  I've heard his latest effort,  Uncut Gems, is actually rather good  (although I have not seen it myself, maybe it's rubbish, I don't know.)

As for your getting few responses to your posts, SansFin,  all I can say is, I  often go for quite a while without reading the threads here, so that might explain why I rarely respond to your posts.  However,   whenever I  do see anything you've posted I read it, because I know that, whether I agree with your comments or not, I know they will be intelligent and well-written and quite often, funny.  We need posters like you here.

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

Really? You calculate the percentage of responses to your posts? (just kidding) Most responses my posts receive are arguments or to point out everything I missed. I'm very glad someone is watching & commenting on newer movies, since I don't subscribe to any streaming service. This thread is most helpful to point me in the direction of what I may enjoy watching or should avoid!

I always bristle when anyone calls our posts "reviews", as we're really just a classic movies fan group stating our opinions. But I'm more annoyed by those who just state the title of what they 'JUST WATCHED' as if listing a tally.

As for Jane Austen stories- no, I don't find them boring if done well. But like Shakespeare, you have olde language & social mores as a barrier for many modern viewers. When I hear a younger person say they enjoyed the latest Austen story/movie, my heart warms knowing there still are people out there who can concentrate more than 5 minutes & have enough imagination to emotionally immerse themselves in another era.

My memory is neither as independent of emotions nor as dependable with details as I wish it to be. It is part of my nature to record those things which I might wish to know with some certainty in the future. I began a database when I first posted to this thread so that I could know at a glance the movies I named so that I would not repeat them unknowingly weeks, months or years later.  Repetition might seem as if I am attempting to force users' attention towards a movie or I might be taken as a bore who seeks attention by repeating the same old things over and over again. It might provide also insight into the frequency and  extent of swings in my mood, taste and judgement if I praise a movie and then trash it some time later. 

The program I use for such databases requires a minimum number of fields. Title, release date, whether it is a movie or television program, whether I posted it or did not post because I was not happy with what I wrote and number of responses fulfill the requirement. A feature of the program is an aggregate page providing totals of fields and some basic correlations. 

It is by this that I can state with reasonable certainty after one click that I have posted a total of seventy-five movies and fourteen have elicited comments. This may be slightly incorrect because I do not slavishly search for responses but note only those which I see when I next visit this thread.

I often avoid posting of a movie which is available only on a subscription streaming service because that limits the value of my comments. We pay for two only services and one of those only recently began to give access to a plethora of movies. I must feel that a movie is quite wonderful or quite ghastly before bothering to post of it when availability is limited.

I agree that what I and many others post is not a true 'review' but I know of no word which is more appropriate.  I have been told that: 'reviewette' is not a real word. To simply call it a: 'comment' seems to me to make no differentiation between the user who spent an hour writing a synopsis and of their love/hate/indifference towards a movie and the user who simply chimes in: "me, too". I will appreciate any guidance on this matter which you might provide.

I rarely post of newer movies because I do not generally watch them. Someone quite vulgarly pointed out that I sometimes must watch a movie because I have lost a bet. I post of such movies only when I find them exceptional. The fact that so many are available on paid streaming services counts against them also.

I am sorry to say that I see virtually no scenario which would lead to my liking the writing of Jane Austen. I was forced by circumstance to read several of her novels. It is to my mind as if she was the: Barbara Cartland of her day. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

Well,  for sure when one has to read something,  the element of coercion can definitely have an effect on the reader's enjoyment of the assigned reading material.  It's for that reason that I don't think Shakespeare, for instance, should be on any high school curriculum.    Personally,  I never found Edgar Allen Poe much fun -- although,  from what I know about you, SansFin, I can easily imagine your enjoying his macbre stories !  ( this is intended as a compliment, I hope you know.)

Jane Austen is what is known (in some circles) as a "miniaturist".  That is,  she focused on writing about just a few characters in a small community-  she didn't write about "big" ideas or issues,   she didn't write big stories  (even her novels are shorter than those of her contemporaries.) She was interested in character and in character development; most of her novels are about young women who learn some kind of life lesson after examining their own foolish behaviour.  That sounds a bit pat, and also didactic.  But for me, anyway,  the way Austen describes the psychological journey her characters experience is not didactic, it's entertaining and insightful.

However,  my opinion on anything here may not be considered valid because --  SHAMEFUL CONFESSION:  -  I kind of like Adam Sandler !  Sometimes , anyway.  I  certainly don't despise him the way I'm sure the majority of posters here do.  I would not say I was a fan, but on the other hand,  I haven't hated any film I've seen him in.  I've heard his latest effort,  Uncut Gems, is actually rather good  (although I have not seen it myself, maybe it's rubbish, I don't know.)

As for your getting few responses to your posts, SansFin,  all I can say is, I  often go for quite a while without reading the threads here, so that might explain why I rarely respond to your posts.  However,   whenever I  do see anything you've posted I read it, because I know that, whether I agree with your comments or not, I know they will be intelligent and well-written and quite often, funny.  We need posters like you here.

 

I have no doubt that my personal tastes are very much dictated by social environment and personal bent. I grew up reading: Dostoevsky, Bulgakov and Gogol. I was approximately six years old when my grandfather had to stop reading Nabokov to me at bedtime because his work stimulated me. It is also that I fell in love at an early age with the richness of language and the vivid mental images it creates. That explains much of why I love Poe, Lovecraft and Ellison.

I will forgive your liking Adam Sandler if you will forgive my liking an actor whom I will not name out of shame.  It may also be that your liking of him is reliant on liking movies in which he appears. There are several actors who are not to my taste except for a very few movies which I would probably like very much no matter who starred in them. An example of this is that I am not a fan of John Wayne but like him very much in some of the non-Western and non-War movies which he made.

Knowing the number of responses to my 'reviews' is incidental to my not wishing to repeat nor contradict myself. The only thing which touches me is when a user mentions that they were alerted to a movie because of my suggestion and that they liked it very much. That usually occurs in threads other than this one. 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SansFin said:

I have no doubt that my personal tastes are very much dictated by social environment and personal bent. I grew up reading: Dostoevsky, Bulgakov and Gogol. I was approximately six years old when my grandfather had to stop reading Nabokov to me at bedtime because his work stimulated me. It is also that I fell in love at an early age with the richness of language and the vivid mental images it creates. That explains much of why I love Poe, Lovecraft and Ellison.

I will forgive your liking Adam Sandler if you will forgive my liking an actor whom I will not name out of shame.  It may also be that your liking of him is reliant on liking movies in which he appears. There are several actors who are not to my taste except for a very few movies which I would probably like very much no matter who starred in them. An example of this is that I am not a fan of John Wayne but like him very much in some of the non-Western and non-War movies which he made.

Knowing the number of responses to my 'reviews' is incidental to my not wishing to repeat nor contradict myself. The only thing which touches me is when a user mentions that they were alerted to a movie because of my suggestion and that they liked it very much. That usually occurs in threads other than this one. 

Thank you for your interesting and thoughtful post.  How intriguing that your grandfather read Nabokov to you.  (Hopefully he skipped certain passages, but perhaps not, since they appear to have had a stimulating effect. )   The only Bulgakov I've read is "The Master and Margarita", which I found most thought-provoking.

However,  now I'm dying to know who that shameful actor is you said you  like.  How can I forgive you for liking him if I do not know who it is?  I assure you I will not think badly of you regardless of who it may be.  After all, how can they be any more embarrassing than Adam Sandler?

As for John Wayne,  I used to despise him, but oddly enough, as I've gotten older, I find I don't mind him after all.  Sometimes I even like him.  I worry that this may be a symptom of aging -  am I losing my powers of aesthetic discrimination,  or am I merely becoming more open-minded?  One suggests early dementia, the other, the beginning of wisdom.  Either way,  I don't mind watching Stagecoach or Red River, John Wayne's presence notwithstanding.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Swithin said:

I had to read Northanger Abbey as part of a Gothic literature class. In that context, as a sendup of the real Gothic novels, it's sort of fun. It makes a nice change when you read it after coping with Otranto, Udolpho, Melmoth, Vathek, and The Monk (all of which I loved, particularly Melmoth).

41emrk0lC0L._SX321_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

 

I picked up a copy of EAST LYNNE in  a used bookstore just for funsies, but I can't make it too far.

WOW, THAT IS A GREAT COVER. I WISH THEY HAD USED SOME HOLOGRAPHIC TECHNIQUE WITH THE EYEBALLS SO THAT THEY MOVED BACK AND FORTH.

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

I picked up a copy of EAST LYNNE in  a used bookstore just for funsies, but I can't make it too far.

WOW, THAT IS A GREAT COVER. I WISH THEY HAD USED SOME HOLOGRAPHIC TECHNIQUE WITH THE EYEBALLS SO THAT THEY MOVED BACK AND FORTH.

The cover is a painting by the aged Goya, from his "Black Paintings" series of 1819-1823, which was the heyday of Gothic literature. (Another Gothic novel we had to read for the course was Frankenstein, written in 1818.)  Goya's images suit the mood of the novels.

6496.jpg?width=700&quality=85&auto=forma

"Two Old Men Eating Soup"

s111.jpg

"Saturn Devouring His Son"

 

 

  • Like 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...