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

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, cigarjoe said:

Yea I've had similar issues 

 

 

i should resist posting with my phone, because it is HARD TO EDIT when I make a mistake, and sometimes I outright can't change an attached pic or something. I GENUINELY DON'T KNOW HOW I DID IT since there have been numerous occasions before when I was told after clicking POST "you must wait ten seconds between posts," so DAMNED IF I KNOW WHAT I DID.

If I start posting in Korean, know it's cause I'm on my phone.

it's been a VERY LONG TIME since I've seen THE GIRL IN BLACK STOCKINGS, I went in expecting great things from ANN BANCROFT- and she is great- but came away remembering how (wonderfully) HATEFUL the dialogue is (it's like an ALBEE play directed by DAVID LYNCH)  AND thinking RANDELL was BOSTON SOCIETY OF FILM CRITICS-WORTHY as SUPPORTING ACTOR (maybe not Oscar-level, but worthy of citation.) If you can steal a scene from MARIE WINDSOR, I tip my hate to you.

Also he was AUSTRALIAN and there no HINT of ACCENT.

Girl+in+the+Black+Stockings+(51).jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Blondie Knows Best Poster

Blondie Knows Best (1946) Movies! TV Network  7/10

Dagwood is being sued by his grumpy new neighbor and has to pose as Mr Dithers to make a deal.

#18 in the Blondie series and a a very fast and funny entry, many subplots and wacky scenes. Stooge Shemp Howard appears as a process server who keeps trying give a summons to Dagwood. Shemp has some of the funniest moments as his character has bad eyesight and keeps breaking his glasses. He would soon replace Curly in the Three Stooges. Jerome Cowan plays a client who has a altercation with Dithers before he knows who he is. This is what causes him to switch places with Dagwood. Yet another plot twist has Dagwood volunteering as a guinea pig in an experiment by two doctors. They give him a truth serum. Jean Willes has an unbilled appearance as a nurse. She would later play sexy blond B girls but she has dark hair in this one. I remember her as one of the bus passengers on The Twilight Zone episode "Will The Real Martian Please Stand Up". She plays a "dancer" and the driver says she can't be the Martian because she is one passengers that he remembers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/2/2020 at 8:56 AM, LornaHansonForbes said:

I watched THE MUMMY'S GHOST (1944).

tumblr_ox9x01dfUk1spnykgo1_500.jpg

Please enjoy this photograph of LON CHANEY JR's tightly-wrapped BATCH. I had to see it, now you do too.

While I am a fan of UNIVERSAL HORROR i have always felt a large degree of apathy in re: THE MUMMY sequels (to be honest with you, while it has some stuff that works really well, the 1933 original is not one of my favorites either.) I have to admit though that there is something increasingly GLEEFUL about their STUPIDITY, ie, over time the MUMMY ends up in NEW ORLEANS and finally, I think, LOUISVILLE, KY (I am 100% serious. and I can only hope he finds the time to give RAND PAUL a second pummeling, because RAND PAUL is just the type of idiot to stand still long enough to let the Mummy catch him. )

I have said this many times, but if THE MUMMY caught you, YOU DESERVED TO DIE. Call it a heartless take, BUT LIONEL BARRYMORE could outrun the ****ing Mummy. it is also worth noting that in an ODD NOD TO CONTINUITY IN THE SERIES, THE MUMMY in this go-round has lost the use of the left side of his body, so he is SHUFFLING ABOUT EVEN MORE SLOWLY AND WITH ONLY ONE ARM THAT WORKS. things LITERALLY veer into "one-legged man in an ***-kicking competition" by the end.

A couple of stunts go visibly wrong in this.

JOHN CARRADINE is in this. As an EGYPTIAN. He is wearing a lot of bronzer and it looks pretty good.

Honestly, the HERO of this movie is 100% PEANUTS THE DOG- whose name ABSOLUTELY SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING ELSE THE SEVERAL DOZEN TIMES IT IS CALLED OUT IN THIS MOVIE. PEANUTS takes NO CRAP from THE MUMMY and I really wish he and FRIDAY from EYES IN THE NIGHT had teamed up to fight supernatural crime.

mg55.jpg she can hold my PEANUTS any day! (sorry, it was too easy) Also not even true

i'd be lying if I said I was not amused by this movie.

 

[spoiler]

the heroine in this movie is quite attractive, and dons a nightgown in many scenes that leaves little to the imagination. she also dies at the end, rather oddly too, which is one thing that does make this movie stand out at least to some degree.

You could be driving a '67 Mustang at 120 MPH and the Mummy would still catch you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other night, watched Death in Paradise - the early episodes.  I never saw them.  I think there are only two people left from the original cast.  Still watching repeats of old Law & Orders and Blue Bloods.  Also, for many reasons, tend to fall asleep while watching things at night.  Last night, one of the Starz/Encore channels ran The Verdict.  And while I fell asleep during part of it, it is an excellent movie (and some people believe Newman should have won his Oscar for this rather than The Color of Money - I like both films).

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Vautrin said:

The mummy wears a codpiece. Isn't that an anachronism?

It certainly wouldn’t be the first or  only one in a Universal horror film. As the series went on they went completely nuts. In the next installment of the series THE MUMMY rises from a swamp in New Orleans, when in the previous film, he fell into a swamp  in Massachusetts (Massachusetts, of course, famed for its many wetlands.)

its  also set 30 years in the future, so it’s supposed to be taking place in 1997 even though it was (obviously) filmed in 1944. 

The bold commitment to noncontinuity and outright senselessness was really strong with this series, Honestly I kind of admire it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched Dracula. I had to wait until my wife went to bed as she has bad dreams pretty easily. Personally, I enjoyed it. I thought they played it well where you didn't have to see absolutely all of the horror elements such as the bites on the neck and the stake through the heart, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually STALLION, after all the years that movie has existed, and all the years and viewings of it by me over 60+ years, the movie is more CAMP than "horror" to me.  ;)  But I still enjoy it.  It's an old friend, y'know?  ;) 

Sepiatone

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

It certainly wouldn’t be the first or  only one in a Universal horror film. As the series went on they went completely nuts. In the next installment of the series THE MUMMY rises from a swamp in New Orleans, when in the previous film, he fell into a swamp  in Massachusetts (Massachusetts, of course, famed for its many wetlands.)

its  also set 30 years in the future, so it’s supposed to be taking place in 1997 even though it was (obviously) filmed in 1944. 

The bold commitment to noncontinuity and outright senselessness was really strong with this series, Honestly I kind of admire it.

We have wetlands here???

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stallion said:

I just watched Dracula. I had to wait until my wife went to bed as she has bad dreams pretty easily. Personally, I enjoyed it. I thought they played it well where you didn't have to see absolutely all of the horror elements such as the bites on the neck and the stake through the heart, etc.

I opted to watch Dracula's Daughter, the DVD double feature with Son as I cannot stand Svengoolie butchering these classics. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also watched THE MUMMY'S HAND (1940) which was the first sequel to THE MUMMY and THE MUMMY'S CURSE (1945) which was the last.

The first actually had an impressive cast (CECIL KELLAWAY who would later be an Oscar nominee) and (a very pudgy) WALLACE FORD, who had been a leading man in the 1930's, but who was comic relief here.

The latter was completely ridiculous, but made all the more endearing by it. it is, again, set in NEW ORLEANS and begins with a musical number en Francais by TANTA BERTHE, the local EDITH PIAF.

Universal seemed to not only enjoy using THE HELL out of footage from the previous entries in the series and also giving key bits of dialogue to bit players with no acting skills.

I actually think THE MUMMY SERIES was more important than it is given credit for, watching it, I got a sense of how fun it probably was to go to one of these ridiculous things and sit in the audience. also, one can see the seeds of SLASHER FILMS being sown in the sand here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I loved watching the Friday night lineup of TCM horror with my grandmother. She's 99 and couldn't remember seeing any of them before (though I'm sure she has.) She jumped, gasped, and made exclamations like "oh my!" or "oh no!" quite a lot. In some ways, it felt like I'd gone back in time and got to experience the movies as original audiences may have. Really fun.

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

It certainly wouldn’t be the first or  only one in a Universal horror film. As the series went on they went completely nuts. In the next installment of the series THE MUMMY rises from a swamp in New Orleans, when in the previous film, he fell into a swamp  in Massachusetts (Massachusetts, of course, famed for its many wetlands.)

its  also set 30 years in the future, so it’s supposed to be taking place in 1997 even though it was (obviously) filmed in 1944. 

The bold commitment to noncontinuity and outright senselessness was really strong with this series, Honestly I kind of admire it.

Well, knowing how slowly the mummy moves I could see it taking him 30 years to get from Massachusetts to

Louisiana. I never got into the Universal Mummy movies, though I've seen a couple of them. They are entertaining

in a weird way and they are fairly short in the running time dept.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

568b5a29-efc7-4057-9c56-edfce5c0d874.jpg

I am so sorry, I watched THE MUMMY'S TOMB last night, which was the second MUMMY SEQUEL after the more humorous 1940 "re-boot" THE MUMMY'S HAND. On the plus side, there are no more UNIVERSAL MUMMY FILMS for me to review, so there is that for you guys to appreciate (I have to imagine your reaction to hearing this is similar to the joy felt by all of MARCEL PROUST'S pen pals when he finally DIED. )

THIS ONE REALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED "THE MUMMY'S CURSE"

SPOILERS KINDA SORTA

One thing really made this one stand out though: the HEROES of the previous film, DICK FORAN (who plays a very INDIANA JONES type) and WALLACE FORD (who is a genuinely likeable comic sidekick) are BOTH KILLED in the first half of the movie! [Early FRIDAY THE 13TH PART 2 vibes) it's really pretty shocking.

the make-up all around is GREAT- not just for LON CHANEY in his first go-round as THE MUMMY, but the old age make-up for WALLACE FORD and DICK FORAN, who are 30 years older in this version than the previous version filmed 2 years before, it's some of the best "old" age make-up I have ever seen, FORAN in particular is convincing. The photography is also excellent- lots of shadows- although they SHAMELESSLY RECYCLE footage from the previous film, the 1933 Mummy and even THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN for the "villagers on the loose" finale.

TURHAN BEY is in this and he is very handsome and gives a surprisingly forceful and committed performance.

while these movies are deliberately silly, there are MOMENTS of genuine, ruthless horror- not just the killing of the leads, but two nice old ladies also bite the dust in the series.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm watching "Where Are The Dreams Of Youth?", an Ozu film that I recorded off of TCM the other weekend when it ran on Silent Sunday Nights.

 

It had no soundtrack at all, which I found startling, and in fact is why I came to this forum today...completely silent.  Budget cuts?  No more TCM commissioned film scores?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2020 at 6:48 AM, LornaHansonForbes said:

i should resist posting with my phone, because it is HARD TO EDIT when I make a mistake, and sometimes I outright can't change an attached pic or something. I GENUINELY DON'T KNOW HOW I DID IT since there have been numerous occasions before when I was told after clicking POST "you must wait ten seconds between posts," so DAMNED IF I KNOW WHAT I DID.

If I start posting in Korean, know it's cause I'm on my phone.

it's been a VERY LONG TIME since I've seen THE GIRL IN BLACK STOCKINGS, I went in expecting great things from ANN BANCROFT- and she is great- but came away remembering how (wonderfully) HATEFUL the dialogue is (it's like an ALBEE play directed by DAVID LYNCH)  AND thinking RANDELL was BOSTON SOCIETY OF FILM CRITICS-WORTHY as SUPPORTING ACTOR (maybe not Oscar-level, but worthy of citation.) If you can steal a scene from MARIE WINDSOR, I tip my hate to you.

Also he was AUSTRALIAN and there no HINT of ACCENT.

Girl+in+the+Black+Stockings+(51).jpg

Lorna, I love the composition of this still. The handrails from the pool divide the picture. To the left the two women look anxiously at the man in the wheelchair. To the right the cowboy and the swimmer are off in their own little world, quietly cruising each other as if they were perched against bar stools in their favorite gay bar.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A Place for Lovers (1968) -- 3/10

placeforlovers1969.375_052020141019.jpg

I knew that when this film was first released that it was generally regarded as an unmitigated disaster. However, the whole idea of a tragic romance with Faye Dunaway and Marcello Mastroianni directed by Vittoria De Sica sounded like it couldn't be that bad. Wrong, wrong, wrong. The two stars are at their most photogenic, especially Dunaway, and the European scenery is glorious, but this is an incredibly vapid and lifeless film that never feels credible for a single moment. You never really get the feeling that these are two actual human beings at the center of this tale; their dialogue feels like it was made up by a computer with no idea of how human interaction actually worked. Ella Fitzgerald sings the title song; at least that isn't a disappointment. But the rest, with its listlessness and its utter waste of two great stars (to say nothing of a brief moment of barbaric animal cruelty) make this a film so disappointing that it almost feels like it can single-handedly kill off the auteur theory.

  • 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...