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

Recommended Posts

The Tony Randall double feature, Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter and The Brass Bottle.

I've seen WSSRH several times before and I always thought it was more fun. Mansfield is great to look at and I'm a big fan of all things 60's. This time Jayne Mansfield's high pitched squeal schtick was grating. Is that supposed to be sexy or something?

The Brass Bottle I enjoyed. It's always a big surprise when you find something that had somehow slipped by and this is one of them. The film is the precursor to I Dream of Jeanie but this story is quite different. Burl Ives is the 'Green Gin' Genie that is released from the bottle. Later he summons a 'Blue Gin' Genie played by Kamala Devi who is offered to Randall, but he not interested because he's in love with Barbara Eden, who is NOT a genie.  

Brassbottleposter.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did no one else here watch THE KISS BEFORE THE MIRROR (1933, on TCM On Demand through 5/31)?

A man (Paul Lukas) follows the wife (Gloria Stuart) he suspects is having an affair, and guns her down in another man's bedroom. His lawyer (Frank Morgan), intending to prepare a defense of insanity, rather than premeditated murder, meditates a little too deeply on the vanities and behaviors of women with lovers. Specifically, his own wife's (Nancy Carroll) conduct and habits.

Directed by James Whale and cinematography by Karl Freund. It's not horror as the genre is normally understood. Unless like me you're frightened at the idea that a man who claims to be in love but thinks himself betrayed is entitled to kill the supposedly straying woman.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Polly of the Precodes said:

Did no one else here watch THE KISS BEFORE THE MIRROR (1933, on TCM On Demand through 5/31)?

A man (Paul Lukas) follows the wife (Gloria Stuart) he suspects is having an affair, and guns her down in another man's bedroom. His lawyer (Frank Morgan), intending to prepare a defense of insanity, rather than premeditated murder, meditates a little too deeply on the vanities and behaviors of women with lovers. Specifically, his own wife's (Nancy Carroll) conduct and habits.

Directed by James Whale and cinematography by Karl Freund. It's not horror as the genre is normally understood. Unless like me you're frightened at the idea that a man who claims to be in love but thinks himself betrayed is entitled to kill the supposedly straying woman.

I likeJames  Whale a lot, it is  a great pre-code & good  acting from Morgan,and all of the cast It would never be made in any era after 1934 i guess.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, nakano said:

I likeJames  Whale a lot, it is  a great pre-code & good  acting from Morgan,and all of the cast It would never be made in any era after 1934 i guess.

Have you seen The Great Garrick;   this is a romantic comedy,   directed by James Whales and starting Brian Aherne and Olivia DeHavilland.     (this is how Aherne meet sister Joan who he would marry a few years later).    Really nice Warner Bros. film from 1937.      Aherne plays the stuffy,  full-of-himself,  British actor Garrick as he travels to France and meets the Comédie Française.    

Image result for the great garrickSee the source image

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Have you seen The Great Garrick;   this is a romantic comedy,   directed by James Whales and starting Brian Aherne and Olivia DeHavilland.     (this is how Aherne meet sister Joan who he would marry a few years later).    Really nice Warner Bros. film from 1937.      Aherne plays the stuffy,  full-of-himself,  British actor Garrick as he travels to France and meets the Comédie Française.    

Image result for the great garrickSee the source image

 

I like The Great Garrick very much. Amusing story,  excellent performances. As I recall I particularly enjoyed Melville Cooper's performance.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRw9zAWgv-OOytENnxl70U

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

It's not just the work that is racist, it was evidently the author as well! Like H.L. Mencken, Wolfe was racist and anti-Semitic.

Boy was I confused....Thomas Wolfe & Tom Wolfe are both novelists/authors....but very different.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Vautrin said:

I did pick up the game of euchre,

which is a card game mostly played in the Midwest, so my year spent there wasn't a total waste of time.

I'm amazed at how ubiquitous this was when I was a kid & now can't find anyone to play-never realized this was a "regional" card game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, TikiSoo said:

I'm amazed at how ubiquitous this was when I was a kid & now can't find anyone to play-never realized this was a "regional" card game.

It was the most popular card game in the country in the 1800s.   

 I think all card games have declined in popularity in the last 40 years.  My generation was the first to have home video games, and it's only grown since then.  We grew up playing board games and learning card games and occasionally playing video games, but younger folks largely preferred electronic games and it seems they didn't bother to learn how to play cards.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Polly of the Precodes said:

Did no one else here watch THE KISS BEFORE THE MIRROR (1933, on TCM On Demand through 5/31)?

I did not know it was airing, but- as a JAMES WHALE fan- I MOST CERTAINLY will be checking it out...although I don't care for PAUL LUKAS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I APOLOGIZE FOR prattling on re: LOOK HOMEWARD ANGEL, but I am consternated by the fact that a couple of you have mentioned owning editions that come in at 562 pages. 

I swear to you guys, the copy of LOOK HOMEWARD ANGEL that I bought ca. 2000 at the bookstore at UNC CHAPEL HILL had 800+ pages and a photo of an angel statue on the cover.

I have since gone to AMAZON, GOOGLE and BING and CANNOT FIND THIS particular EDITION ANYWHERE. which is BIZARRE because- again, I OWN IT- and my experience with amazon is that they carry ALL EDITIONS, even past and out of print ones, for a title. you may just have to pay out the wazoo for an original.

All other editions are listed at 562 pages.

did i maybe just "luck up" and get ahold of a special CRITERION-style SUPERDUPER RACIST EDITION of the book [with a special foreword by PAT BUCHANAN?]

Have they since MADE CUTS and omitted the racist parts?

I'm sorry to harp on this, and I am the FIRST PERSON to tell you that I AM NOT A RELIABLE WITNESS, but I take reading seriously and I used to have a CARDINAL RULE that: IF I MADE IT PAGE 100 IN A BOOK, I WAS GOING TO FINISH READING IT even if it suuuuucked. I distinctly recall that LOOK HOMEWARD ANGEL was the FIRST INSTANCE of my saying "nah, **** it" to this LIFELONG PERSONAL RULE OF MINE and I DISTINCTLY recall making it to page 400 in that 800 page edition which seems to have vanished into thin air.

**i may just have to do a dig and see if I can locate this copy, i hated the book so much i kinda doubt i took it to a used bookstore lest some innocent person come across it like me.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT- FOUND A COPY ON THRIFTBOOKS

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/look-homeward-angel_thomas-wolfe/286119/item/18959308/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwwLKFBhDPARIsAPzPi-JK4yVzfrdU9xvX8JrMAgF8lmqHFggEeqjp-aQPCmKh-1AbXVgzZE0aAvQkEALw_wcB#idiq=18959308&edition=2275613

IT DOESNT SAY HOW MANY PAGES IT IS THO.

I PROMISE TO SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT THOMAS WOLFE NOW AND I THANK YOU ALL FOR INDULGING ME.

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

EDIT- FOUND A COPY ON THRIFTBOOKS

https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/look-homeward-angel_thomas-wolfe/286119/item/18959308/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwwLKFBhDPARIsAPzPi-JK4yVzfrdU9xvX8JrMAgF8lmqHFggEeqjp-aQPCmKh-1AbXVgzZE0aAvQkEALw_wcB#idiq=18959308&edition=2275613

IT DOESNT SAY HOW MANY PAGES IT IS THO.

I PROMISE TO SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT THOMAS WOLFE NOW AND I THANK YOU ALL FOR INDULGING ME.

Number of pages wouldn't necessarily be a guide as to completeness or differences between editions, since type/font size would affect the pagination, and that could vary from edition to edition.

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

I APOLOGIZE FOR prattling on re: LOOK HOMEWARD ANGEL, but I am consternated by the fact that a couple of you have mentioned owning editions that come in at 562 pages. 

I swear to you guys, the copy of LOOK HOMEWARD ANGEL that I bought ca. 2000 at the bookstore at UNC CHAPEL HILL had 800+ pages and a photo of an angel statue on the cover.

I have since gone to AMAZON, GOOGLE and BING and CANNOT FIND THIS particular EDITION ANYWHERE. which is BIZARRE because- again, I OWN IT- and my experience with amazon is that they carry ALL EDITIONS, even past and out of print ones, for a title. you may just have to pay out the wazoo for an original.

All other editions are listed at 562 pages.

did i maybe just "luck up" and get ahold of a special CRITERION-style SUPERDUPER RACIST EDITION of the book [with a special foreword by PAT BUCHANAN?]

Have they since MADE CUTS and omitted the racist parts?

I'm sorry to harp on this, and I am the FIRST PERSON to tell you that I AM NOT A RELIABLE WITNESS, but I take reading seriously and I used to have a CARDINAL RULE that: IF I MADE IT PAGE 100 IN A BOOK, I WAS GOING TO FINISH READING IT even if it suuuuucked. I distinctly recall that LOOK HOMEWARD ANGEL was the FIRST INSTANCE of my saying "nah, **** it" to this LIFELONG PERSONAL RULE OF MINE and I DISTINCTLY recall making it to page 400 in that 800 page edition which seems to have vanished into thin air.

**i may just have to do a dig and see if I can locate this copy, i hated the book so much i kinda doubt i took it to a used bookstore lest some innocent person come across it like me.

It is obvious that I can not state with certainty but it is my suspicion that you are referring to: O Lost. That is the reconstruction of the original manuscript. You might think of it as the Director's Cut of: Look Homeward, Angel. It was published by University of South Carolina Press in: 2000. It is listed at: 744 pages.

O lost : a story of the buried life : Wolfe, Thomas, 1900-1938 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The novel which he submitted needed extensive edits prior to publication to shorten and clarify it. That is very common with first novels. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2021 at 10:36 PM, Swithin said:

I loved reading Dostoevsky in my youth.  The Idiot was my favorite. A few years later, when I was assigned Dostoevsky's novels in college, I thought "What's this?!!!"  My problem was that, as a youth, I had read and enjoyed the Constance Garnett translations. My college teachers were using more modern translations which did not appeal to me as much.

I recently read that some writer/professor said that Constance Garnett's translations were "excruciatingly Victorianish." I don't care, they will always be Dostoevsky to me.

It may be that my favorite is the tale of the monks who steal the red planet: The Brothers Karamazov.

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

It is obvious that I can not state with certainty but it is my suspicion that you are referring to: O Lost. That is the reconstruction of the original manuscript. You might think of it as the Director's Cut of: Look Homeward, Angel. It was published by University of South Carolina Press in: 2000. It is listed at: 744 pages.

O lost : a story of the buried life : Wolfe, Thomas, 1900-1938 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The novel which he submitted needed extensive edits prior to publication to shorten and clarify it. That is very common with first novels. 

THANK YOU!!!!!

PS- and the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA publishing it in full makes total sense. My only surprise is that they didn't ask STROM THURMAND to write the foreword.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this is a coincidence:  I was just talking about Hairspray  (the original version)  here the other day,  comparing it with Earth Girls are Easy.   I was just saying that EGAE was kind of in the same spirit as Hairspray-  both were musicals / comedies made in 1988, both enjoy their own brand of silliness.  I did also say that there's actually a lot more to Hairspray than there is to Earth Girls.  I mean, Hairspray is fun, but it also has some things to say, it leaves you with some things to think about  (which is more than the gloriously shallow Earth Girls would try to claim...)

Anyway, at the time  I made that mention of Hairspray,  I had no idea it was coming up this week on the TCM  schedule.  Well, it is !  Tonight, in fact,  at 6:30.

People, this is a fun movie, I recommend it.  Of course, it's kind of a special taste sort of film, it being directed by the unconventional John Waters.  So probably not for everyone.  But it's quite an enjoyable ride;  it has that quality of joyful silliness,  the film has lots of fun with costumes and hairdos ( look at the title), etc.  But it also looks at some major issues around things like race, body image,  clique-bullying,  and feminism.  But in such a playful and entertaining way, you never feel like it's a "message" movie.  

Anyway,  Hairspray, the 1988 version.  Check it out !

ps:  after all that,  I have to say that I personally am not allowed to watch it.  It's only available in the States, not being broadcast in Canada.  Guess it's yet another "No Canadian Rights"  thing.  I get so tired of that !

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

Well, this is a coincidence:  I was just talking about Hairspray  (the original version)  here the other day,  comparing it with Earth Girls are Easy.   I was just saying that EGAE was kind of in the same spirit as Hairspray-  both were musicals / comedies made in 1988, both enjoy their own brand of silliness.  I did also say that there's actually a lot more to Hairspray than there is to Earth Girls.  I mean, Hairspray is fun, but it also has some things to say, it leaves you with some things to think about  (which is more than the gloriously shallow Earth Girls would try to claim...)

Anyway, at the time  I made that mention of Hairspray,  I had no idea it was coming up this week on the TCM  schedule.  Well, it is !  Tonight, in fact,  at 6:30.

People, this is a fun movie, I recommend it.  Of course, it's kind of a special taste sort of film, it being directed by the unconventional John Waters.  So probably not for everyone.  But it's quite an enjoyable ride;  it has that quality of joyful silliness,  the film has lots of fun with costumes and hairdos ( look at the title), etc.  But it also looks at some major issues around things like race, body image,  clique-bullying,  and feminism.  But in such a playful and entertaining way, you never feel like it's a "message" movie.  

Anyway,  Hairspray, the 1988 version.  Check it out !

ps:  after all that,  I have to say that I personally am not allowed to watch it.  It's only available in the States, not being broadcast in Canada.  Guess it's yet another "No Canadian Rights"  thing.  I get so tired of that !

It is available for viewing free with commercials on: TubiTV.

https://tubitv.com/movies/504468?utm_source=justwatch-feed&tracking=justwatch-feed

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

Well, this is a coincidence:  I was just talking about Hairspray  (the original version)  here the other day,  comparing it with Earth Girls are Easy.   I was just saying that EGAE was kind of in the same spirit as Hairspray-  both were musicals / comedies made in 1988, both enjoy their own brand of silliness.  I did also say that there's actually a lot more to Hairspray than there is to Earth Girls.  I mean, Hairspray is fun, but it also has some things to say, it leaves you with some things to think about  (which is more than the gloriously shallow Earth Girls would try to claim...)

Anyway, at the time  I made that mention of Hairspray,  I had no idea it was coming up this week on the TCM  schedule.  Well, it is !  Tonight, in fact,  at 6:30.

People, this is a fun movie, I recommend it.  Of course, it's kind of a special taste sort of film, it being directed by the unconventional John Waters.  So probably not for everyone.  But it's quite an enjoyable ride;  it has that quality of joyful silliness,  the film has lots of fun with costumes and hairdos ( look at the title), etc.  But it also looks at some major issues around things like race, body image,  clique-bullying,  and feminism.  But in such a playful and entertaining way, you never feel like it's a "message" movie.  

Anyway,  Hairspray, the 1988 version.  Check it out !

ps:  after all that,  I have to say that I personally am not allowed to watch it.  It's only available in the States, not being broadcast in Canada.  Guess it's yet another "No Canadian Rights"  thing.  I get so tired of that !

Here's a thread on Hairspray you might like.

 

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

Ended up rewatching Chaplin again last night. I had seen it almost 7 years ago, and loved it back then. It holds up beautifully. Robert Downey Jr so thoroughly disappeared into the role of Charlie Chaplin that I began to forget it was him. Lots of entertaining cameos, a lush production, moving finale, great production values....

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

Ended up rewatching Chaplin again last night. I had seen it almost 7 years ago, and loved it back then. It holds up beautifully. Robert Downey Jr so thoroughly disappeared into the role of Charlie Chaplin that I began to forget it was him. Lots of entertaining cameos, a lush production, moving finale, great production values....

BIG OLE BELLY FLOP THO. I remember it was actually a bit of a surprise that Downey Jr. got a best actor Oscar nomination because the film did so badly.

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

BIG OLE BELLY FLOP THO. 

That's true. It bombed at the box office ($10 million on a $35 million dollar budget), making it one of three big biopics at the end of 1992 that lost money like a sieve (the others being Malcolm X and Hoffa) even though they were all quality films.  I think the other biggest box-office fiasco of 1992 were Toys (which you know my mixed emotions on) and 1492: Conquest of Paradise (which I stopped midway and never finished)

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, CinemaInternational said:

That's true. It bombed at the box office ($10 million on a $35 million dollar budget), making it one of three big biopics at the end of 1992 that lost money like a sieve (the others being Malcolm X and Hoffa) even though they were all quality films.  I think the other biggest box-office fiasco of 1992 were Toys (which you know my mixed emotions on) and 1492: Conquest of Paradise (which I stopped midway and never finished)

And yet SISTER ACT and BASIC INSTINCT were HUGE SMASHES no one predicted. (WAYNES WORLD too, to a degree)
I know this happened throughout Hollywood history, but one interesting thing about films of the 90s is how every year a handful of “sure things” ate it hard while a another handful of films no one expected *anything* of absolutely *blew up.*

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

And yet SISTER ACT and BASIC INSTINCT were HUGE SMASHES no one predicted. 
I know this happened throughout Hollywood history, but one interesting thing about films of the 90s is how every year a handful of “sure things” ate it hard while a another handful of films no one expected *anything* of absolutely *blew up.*

Or look at 1990 as well. Smashes included Home Alone (which WB passed on because they didn't think it would turn a profit), Ghost (which was not expected to go much of anywhere), Pretty Woman (with a mostly untried female lead and a leading man who hadn't had a hit in 8 years), and Dances with Wolves (an entry in a genre left all for dead that was being referred to as Kevin's Gate). So what did the money men invest in that year? The bonfire of the Vanities and Havana (actually a good film).

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

Here's a thread on Hairspray you might like.

 

Thanks, Moe.  I never knew that thread existed....sad to say, I don't seem to spend as much time here as I used to,  and am often unaware of threads that might interest me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

And yet SISTER ACT and BASIC INSTINCT were HUGE SMASHES no one predicted. 
I know this happened throughout Hollywood history, but one interesting thing about films of the 90s is how every year a handful of “sure things” ate it hard while a another handful of films no one expected *anything* of absolutely *blew up.*

Sister Act was such fun though. As for Basic Instinct, regardless of what one can say about the film, the ad department did a great job with the trailer that helped lure people in. It was fast, touch, sexy, violent, and very punchy looking.

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...