I just hate to admit it, but....

Chit-chat, current events

Moderators: Sue Sue Applegate, movieman1957, moira finnie, Lzcutter

User avatar
Sue Sue Applegate
Administrator
Posts: 3327
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 8:47 pm
Location: Texas

NOT MY PAL FRANKIE

Post by Sue Sue Applegate »

because loudmouthed, extroverted, wolfish jerks like Sinatra’s character are always impossible to watch under any circumstances.
I like the way you phrased that description. Perfect!
I enjoy Kim Novak, too, and she and Rita Hayworth were also entertaining in Pal Joey.
Blog: http://suesueapplegate.wordpress.com/
Twitter:@suesueapplegate
TCM Message Boards: http://forums.tcm.com/index.php?/topic/ ... ue-sue-ii/
Sue Sue : https://www.facebook.com/groups/611323215621862/
Thelma Ritter: Hollywood's Favorite New Yorker, University Press of Mississippi-2020
Avatar: Ginger Rogers, The Major and The Minor
User avatar
mrsl
Posts: 4220
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 5:20 pm
Location: Chicago SW suburbs

Post by mrsl »

SandyK:

I remember when my Mom was alive, I would mention a movie I had watched and she would say 'yes, I saw that, but I didn't like it, or did like it' whatever. I was amazed that she could remember movies from 50 years ago, but she did when I asked her the plot lines. She, on the other hand was amazed that I could watch a movie more than once (I never told her some movies I saw 20 and 30 times), she probably wouldn't have believed me.

Often I watch to understand the more technical points, or to catch a reason for something in the plot line. Sometimes I watch just because I enjoyed it so much, I wanted to try to relive that fun feeling - a lot of movies DO give me that feeling.

Some I watch repeats because of the acting, or certain scenes, or to catch stuff that is out of the main camera view. There are so many reasons I watch repeatedly, but mostly just because I like the movie, and it's like a good book that you read over and over.

I'll never understand people like my Mom who only watch something once and thats it, never again. I can do it if I didn't like it, but not if I did like it.

Anne
Anne


***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *

]***********************************************************************
User avatar
Bogie
Posts: 534
Joined: September 3rd, 2007, 12:57 am
Location: Toronto, Canada

Post by Bogie »

JohnM wrote:
<b>Star Wars</b> is the only film that I fell asleep through, in a movie theater! My wife did, as well.

I.
I find it interesting that most of the respondents don't like SW especially considering the fact that George Lucas used serials of the 1930s and '40s as a template for the movie. I admit the first SW movie is a bit dry but EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and RETURN OF THE JEDI are fantastic films.

The prequels nearly tarnished the legacy tho, thankfully Lucas was able to cap it off with probably the darkest SW film ever in tone with REVENGE OF THE SITH. That movie right there ranks with the original trilogy and is probably my second favourite SW film of all.

Well I guess this proves the old saying "diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks" :)
jdb1

Post by jdb1 »

SPTO wrote:
JohnM wrote:
<b>Star Wars</b> is the only film that I fell asleep through, in a movie theater! My wife did, as well.

I.
I find it interesting that most of the respondents don't like SW especially considering the fact that George Lucas used serials of the 1930s and '40s as a template for the movie. I admit the first SW movie is a bit dry but EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and RETURN OF THE JEDI are fantastic films.

The prequels nearly tarnished the legacy tho, thankfully Lucas was able to cap it off with probably the darkest SW film ever in tone with REVENGE OF THE SITH. That movie right there ranks with the original trilogy and is probably my second favourite SW film of all.

Well I guess this proves the old saying "diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks" :)
I find the phenomenon interesting as well: considering all its elements, I should love SW, but none of the series, save maybe the first two, even interested me. I watch various episodes now and then on TV, and I just can't see what it is that's lacking. Even the tackiest of the old serials engages me more. I can take in the old Star Trek with far greater enthusiasm, and rarely tire of it. I frankly think the acting has a lot to do with it. I'm not engaged because for the most part the actors in the SW movies don't seem to me to be quite comfortable with what they are doing. This is true for me of the actors in the later episodes -- they don't see committed to the whole gestalt, or whatever you want to term it. It's like the contemporary young actresses who try to play period pieces. It just doesn't sit right.

And Yoda - I can do without him/it altogether. If you've spent any time around children, Muppets and/or Sesame Street, how can you hear him speak and not have an image of Frank Oz (or any of his Muppet alter egos) get in the way? Mel Blanc's voice, just as readily identifiable, was never so distracting.
User avatar
cinemalover
Posts: 1603
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:57 am
Location: Seattle, Washington

Post by cinemalover »

Another film that I just don't care for is A Streetcar Named Desire. STELLLLLAAAAAAAAHHH! Could you please buy the guy a new t-shirt for cripes sake! I'd trade the whole steamy, sweltering mess of 'em for a good bowl of gumbo.
Chris

The only bad movie is no movie at all.
klondike

Post by klondike »

cinemalover wrote:Another film that I just don't care for is A Streetcar Named Desire. STELLLLLAAAAAAAAHHH! Could you please buy the guy a new t-shirt for cripes sake! I'd trade the whole steamy, sweltering mess of 'em for a good bowl of gumbo.
I'm with you on that one, Chris; order us 2 bowls!
But what about The Rose Tattoo? Do you think it makes a difference if all that passionate, agonized yelling's being done by a sweaty Italian woman from a N'Awlins bungalow, in a dingey slip, 'stead of a clammy Polish guy from a Brooklyn tenement, in a torn T-shirt?
They're both from the boozey pen of Tennessee Williams . . just two similar shoes on different feet, seems like to me . . .
Course, for my money, Anna's got it ALL over Marlon . . but maybe that's just me.
pktrekgirl
Administrator
Posts: 641
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 1:08 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

Post by pktrekgirl »

I think I must be different from most people, because while Lawrence of Arabia is one of my LEAST favorite movies of all time, Doctor Zhivago is one of my favorites.

I think the part I like about it most is the 'Russian-ness' of it. In my experience, Russian culture is very fatalistic, and more than a bit pessimistic. And I think Zhivago captures that feeling quite well. That feeling that life is a struggle - and quite often a fairly pointless one....so grab what little happiness you can scrape together, and soldier on. It fits *exactly* with the look in the eyes of every single person you watch on the metro in Moscow.

By no means is it a perfect film...but I do think David Lean captured that bit quite well - especially with the contrast between Rod Steiger's character (representing the most cynical) and the character of Zhivago (representing the most idealistic and optimistic) at opposite ends of the spectrum. And with Alec Guinnesses' character in the middle for reference (as the embodiment of pragmatism).

The Russian Revolution is a fascinating bit of history....and this film did a good job, I thought, in portraying exactly how harshly it impacted the population of Russia - the rich, the poor, the Party member and the Czarist. It showed the brutality of extremism for what it is. And in the midst of it all, a small bud of happiness bloomed...if only for a moment.

Can't get enough. :P

And as an added bonus, whenever I finish watching this film (and I watch it about once a year at least - it is probably my most-watched film of all time), I can't help by be reminded of some perspective: because no matter how badly my life my suck...life during the Russian Revolution sucked worse. :lol:
My wife said she'd help young people, ... That's what I'd do. Help young people, then buy a big motor home and get out of town.
~ Gary Cooper
pktrekgirl
Administrator
Posts: 641
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 1:08 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

Post by pktrekgirl »

Oh!!! And I just noticed some posts about The Hunt for Red October - another great film.

Not that it does all that well at capturing the Russian culture or anything like Zhivago does.....

...it's just a doggone exciting movie.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
And Sean Connery is hot. :P
My wife said she'd help young people, ... That's what I'd do. Help young people, then buy a big motor home and get out of town.
~ Gary Cooper
User avatar
mrsl
Posts: 4220
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 5:20 pm
Location: Chicago SW suburbs

Post by mrsl »

I apologize in advance to Larry and any others I might offend with my comments, but some things I find so hard to understand, even at my age now, I can't accept some truths. As for the Russian-ness, having lived through being a child and fearing 'the Russians are coming, the Russians are coming' - that was not a comedic movie title, it was a way of life that caused every school child of my generation going to sleep at night praying for protection and peace. I've heard that Russia is a beautiful country but from movies that have been filmed there, I have yet to see what is so endearing about it. It seems rather grim and colorless and that Lennin square or whatever its called needs a little greenery and warmth. It kind of looks like a cement football field with bubbles on top of the goal posts.

Russia and Germany are two countries I'll never understand, during WWI, the world banded together to free the German people from under the Kaisers thumb, and after it had been accomplished, within a very short time, historically, they were right back, only this time under Hitler's thumb. It's not like several generations had passed, WWII encompassed the same older people and their children !!!! Hello!!! What were they thinking???

Dr. Zhivago, Lawrence of Arabia
, and most german/russian based films put me to sleep - but I guess it's a personal thing. I never saw Star Wars until all 4 episodes were done, then I sat with my grandson one weekend and watched them all, or tried to - the darn kid kept poking me to wake me up - yet the following weekend we watched all 6 movies made with the original cast of Star Trek and I never missed a minute - Go Figure!!!

As someone said - "Diffrent strokes for diffrent folks" - and thank goodness for that or this would be a mighty boring world.

Anne
Anne


***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *

]***********************************************************************
User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5513
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Post by movieman1957 »

Anne:

Having just watched a ten hour documentary on WWI it is true the whole thing seemed stupid. It was a series of treaties that wound up pitting one country against another.

The Kaiser was deposed when the German people, tired and starving, had had enough. The people were starting to revolt. The Kaiser wanted the army home to fight against the people. The army refused.

WWI was directly responsible for WWII. A French officer said that when the final surrender was signed that it wasn't really peace. He said it would be lucky if it lasted 2o years. When WWII started he was 65 days off.
Last edited by movieman1957 on October 31st, 2007, 8:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
pktrekgirl
Administrator
Posts: 641
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 1:08 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

Post by pktrekgirl »

Well, first of all, WWII was not at all the same thing as WWI, Anne. It was NOT about freeing the German people from Hitler's thumb. It was about protected ALL of Europe from a monster bent on world domination, and protecting the Jews in particular from genocide.

No offense, but as far as WWII goes? Screw the German people. They voted for that monster - they put him in office. They saw how he invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc...and did nothing to stop him. And they bought into his propaganda that it was all the Jews fault that they were in the dire straits they were in. And as much as they protested that they had no idea what was going on? Well, I find it hard to believe that disappearance of a few million Jews...not to mention the boxcars full of prisoners with gold stars stitched to their clothing...and the stench of burning flesh coming out of those crematoriums wouldn't tip them off that...erm....'something was amiss.' Sure, they didn't know. They didn't WANT to know. Because knowing would require them to rise up and DO something.

So the 'German people' are at the end of a VERY long list of people my heart goes out to as a result of WWII. Germany started the war, and frankly, they got exactly what they deserved. My sympathy goes to the Jews, the Catholic clergy who tried to protect Jews, the gypsies, the Czechs, the Poles, the Russians, the Brits, the Dutch, and the French....among many others. The German people are at the tale end of that particular list, in my book.

And by the way, did you know that 27 MILLION Russians lost their lives during WWII - fighting on OUR side? 27 MILLION. Not a small number. And did you know that the Nazis surrounded St. Petersburg for over two years, and starved/froze out a city full of innocent civilians? And that in one year alone, over 650,000 residents of St. Petersburg died at the hands of the Nazis - either through enemy fire, starvation, or freezing to death?

In short - I can appreciate that you don't like Stalin. Who does? But that CERTAINLY doesn't put Russia into the same boat as Germany where WWII is concerned. Where WWII is concerned, Russia made some huge sacrifices - perhaps more than we did, to be honest, because we came in late.

Now, as for the Cold War and the fact that as a child, you were scared to death? Well, that was YOUR government scaring you. Not the Russians. And you know what? Russian children were being scared by THEIR government, just the same as we were! They ALSO were told as children that the U.S. was evil, and had our finger on the button...and that WE just couldn't wait to set off the Apocalypse. You honestly think it was any different being a Russian child than being an American child, in this regard? If you talk to people who grew up in the Soviet Union during the Cold War, you will quickly discover that they were taught the exact same thing as us: "WE would NEVER set off a nuclear war, kiddies...but those evil (Russians/Americans - pick one) - now THEY would do it in a heartbeat!"

Propaganda. Both sides used it - not just them. ;) And meanwhile, BOTH sides where building up massive nuclear arsenals, the likes of which are practically unimaginable. So big that either ONE of us could have destroyed life on this planet.

Finally - yes, Russia IS a fairly bleak country, by comparison to here. Russia has a very LONG and very bloody history. We, in comparison, are a very young country, and have not had the opportunity to learn the lessons that Russia - and indeed EVERY European nation has learned. We have never had bombs dropped on our civilian population. We have never had our country invaded like many European countries have. We have never had our government overthrown. We have never had famine on the scale that some European countries have experienced.

So to say that Red Square could 'use a little greenery', to THEM would probably sound like the rantings of a spoiled teenager who did not appreciate the struggle endured by his grandparents. Red Square is their HISTORY. It is the heart of their NATION. And having stood in that square on numerous occasions (I walked through it on the way to work every day for a year), I have to say that is is breathtaking...and embodies much of their history in a uniquely Russian manner. You have the Kremlin on one side - the center of power (for that region of Russia) long before the Communists co-opted it for the Soviet government. Inside the Kremlin then, for many years you had the Soviet government...sitting side by side with the beautiful Russian Orthodox churches that were there LONG before...inside those same Kremlin walls.

You have St. Basils...a beautiful monument to God...build by Ivan the Terrible...arguably the most brutal ruler in all of Russian history.

You have G.U.M. - Russia's largest department store....only a few feet away from Lenin's Tomb.

This is the beauty of Russian history & culture - the dichotomy of the thing.

Now...I am not saying that Russia is the most beautiful country on earth. Although frankly, St. Petersburg is positively breathtaking.

But then, the U.S. isn't so beautiful either, to be honest. We are a 'business country' - we have no centuries-old churches, ruins that help us to span the ages in our minds, etc. In sort, we have alot of big buildings, a few monuments less that 200 years old, and some very nice national parks. But then...Russia has some beautiful scenery too, out in the countryside. I mean, it's a MASSIVE country...and they have TONS of natural beauty. And even some wonderful man-made beauty - the many Orthodox churches, as one example. Shoot...even communism produced some uniquely Russian man-made beauty. The ring line stations on the Moscow metro are positively STUNNING, for example. I think it might be the only country in the world where tour groups have actual tours of the city metro system, and don't just use it to get somewhere else! :lol:

But if all you think about when you think of Russia is the crackerbox flats around Moscow...well, that's like thinking of the U.S. solely in terms of the squalid slums that are...shall we say, 'off the beaten tourist track'....but which we all know make up a large portion of Washington D.C.

Russia is a country that has endured great struggle. And that struggle, quite frankly, shows. But out of that struggle, it has also produced some amazing beauty - Rublev and the other Russian iconographers...Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov and the other Russian composers.... Tolstoy's literature and Pushkin's poetry are world treasures....the list goes on and on.

Even the struggle against communism produced some splendid writers - Boris Pasternak (who wrote Doctor Zhivago) being one of them.

There is alot of good there. Just like with any other place. It's not what I think you are picturing it as.
My wife said she'd help young people, ... That's what I'd do. Help young people, then buy a big motor home and get out of town.
~ Gary Cooper
pktrekgirl
Administrator
Posts: 641
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 1:08 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

Post by pktrekgirl »

JohnM wrote:I can't stand any of David Lean's epic films. They're duller than dishwater to me, and those repetitive themes, that just keeping dronning on and on and on...
:lol:

I understand how people can think this. I know I think it myself about Lawrence of Arabia. But I have to admit it made me chuckle, coming from a guy who uses Omar Sharif as his avatar. :lol:

Yes...I know....I am easily entertained. :P
My wife said she'd help young people, ... That's what I'd do. Help young people, then buy a big motor home and get out of town.
~ Gary Cooper
User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5513
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Post by movieman1957 »

JohnM:

The only things of Lean's or Kubrick's I can watch are pretty much the early suff. I enjoy "Brief Encounter" and I really like "Bridge On The River Kwai" from Lean. I really like "Paths of Glory" and Spartacus" is fine. Beyond that they always reminded me of a Mahler symphony in that it needed to be bigger and longer than anything else. Not that there weren't fine qualities in parts but does it really take that long to tell it.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
Post Reply