I don’t have anything movie related to talk about lately due to the increased hours at my work. (I long for the days when I was an unemployed bum, well maybe not.
Kenneth Morgan wrote:I think tonight I'll watch the repeat of "Carol for Another Christmas" on TCM. I saw it when it was aired this past Sunday. I thought it was OK, particularly if you're used to Rod Serling's writing style. Steve Lawrence was surprisingly good as the Ghost of Christmas Past, and Peter Sellers gave one of his best performances as "ME".
J.M. Vargas wrote:^^^ Don't they televise St. Patrick's Midnight Mass on some local TV channel? I'm pretty sure I've seen it as I've channel surfed the set. And when/where was Koch made Monsignor except a long time ago inside his own bloated ego?
Polynikes wrote:Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (2011). I am old enough to have watched the 1979 BBC adaptation with Alec Guinness, and this film is woeful by comparison. Judging by reviews on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes, a large majority of reviewers hold the same opinion. Trying to condense this book into a film is a mistake, because understanding the characters is crucial and a two hour film does not allow the luxury of enough time. Even allowing for this, it was a poor adaptation of the book. Some of the actors did a good job given the limitations of time and the script. Benedict Cumberbatch turned in a performance up to his usual fine standard (although why the writers felt the need to make Guillam gay is mystifying). Unfortunately, I thought Gary Oldman gave a poor portrayal of Smiley, failing to capture the strengths, weaknesses and foibles of the character. Like many others of my generation, I urge you to buy the BBC 1979 series on DVD.
Kenneth Morgan wrote:Not a movie or DVD, but my cable system just added Cozy TV. While I like some of the shows they're featuring (like, "I Spy" and "The Six Million Dollar Man", for example), they make some ill-advised cuts in the shows and have more commercials than the similar-themed and better Antenna TV. One thing I will say in praise of both: they don't have those lousy pop-up adds for other shows that fill up a third of the TV screen, like a lot of other networks have.
Now, if I could only get Optimum to add Retro TV and one other network I heard also shows older series. I think it's called MeTV, or something.
tucco wrote:I always imagined that THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS was written for Roger Moore....seems that way doesn't it?
.....I watched DAYLIGHTS and LICENCE TO KILL recently and I am more shocked than ever at how crap LICENCE is. It's so different that I almost think of Dalton as a one-off Bond like Lazenby was
Steve T Power wrote:Bad Boys - Yes, the 1995 Michael Bay debut. What a piece of utter garbage. The action was sparse and horrible, the villains were lame, there were way too many shots of will smith running in slo mo with a billowing shirt. What there was of the script was written by a dogs asshole... there are logical fallacies here that makes the Black Hawk chopper ride to Havana from Bad boys II seem like the work of a genius! Then there's that cast; Tea Leoni out Martin Lawrences Martin Lawrence in the annoying and "dumb as shit" category, and when Will Smith, still in 'Fresh Prince' mode is the best thing your flick has going for ya, you are in deep trouble. Lastly, there's that CONSTANTLY INTENSE score, which was an assault on the ear drums. To whomever it was that convinced me that this was actually one of Bay's better flicks, and that I should own it on Blu-Ray - you are dead to me...
After a rough evening, I just wanted a simple cop actioner, and this thing just RUINED my night...
Ash22 wrote:Batman: Year One
mavrach wrote:I feel funny copying & pasting from the Facebook group to here, but I'm doing it anyway!
Dan Mancini wrote:Ash22 wrote:Batman: Year One
Loved the comic, but boy was the movie dull . . . even though the choice of Bryan Cranston to play Gordon was inspired.
hoytereden wrote:Thanks J.M for mentioning Brigitte Bardot's's butt in Contempt. One of the natural wonders of the world at that time IMO. One of those "You could bounce a dime off it" models. Oh, and the rest of the movie was ok too!
Polynikes wrote:hoytereden wrote:Thanks J.M for mentioning Brigitte Bardot's's butt in Contempt. One of the natural wonders of the world at that time IMO. One of those "You could bounce a dime off it" models. Oh, and the rest of the movie was ok too!
There is little of Brigitte Bardot's body which one does not see in the excellent The Wicker Man (the original 1973 version with Edward Woodward, not the crass remake with Nicolas Cage). For once, the nudity and eroticism are justified in relation to the plot, and "that scene" is not inserted solely for the pleasure of the male audience - although I do confess the latter is a welcome bonus. Leaving aside male lasciviousness, the 1973 version of The Wicker Man isa brilliant film and still unsettles me now on the umpteenth viewing.
hoytereden wrote:Polynikes wrote:hoytereden wrote:Thanks J.M for mentioning Brigitte Bardot's's butt in Contempt. One of the natural wonders of the world at that time IMO. One of those "You could bounce a dime off it" models. Oh, and the rest of the movie was ok too!
There is little of Brigitte Bardot's body which one does not see in the excellent The Wicker Man (the original 1973 version with Edward Woodward, not the crass remake with Nicolas Cage). For once, the nudity and eroticism are justified in relation to the plot, and "that scene" is not inserted solely for the pleasure of the male audience - although I do confess the latter is a welcome bonus. Leaving aside male lasciviousness, the 1973 version of The Wicker Man isa brilliant film and still unsettles me now on the umpteenth viewing.
I believe it's Britt Ekland in The Wicker Man, not BB. I know the scene you refer to and.....
Polynikes wrote:hoytereden wrote:Polynikes wrote:hoytereden wrote:Thanks J.M for mentioning Brigitte Bardot's's butt in Contempt. One of the natural wonders of the world at that time IMO. One of those "You could bounce a dime off it" models. Oh, and the rest of the movie was ok too!
There is little of Brigitte Bardot's body which one does not see in the excellent The Wicker Man (the original 1973 version with Edward Woodward, not the crass remake with Nicolas Cage). For once, the nudity and eroticism are justified in relation to the plot, and "that scene" is not inserted solely for the pleasure of the male audience - although I do confess the latter is a welcome bonus. Leaving aside male lasciviousness, the 1973 version of The Wicker Man isa brilliant film and still unsettles me now on the umpteenth viewing.
I believe it's Britt Ekland in The Wicker Man, not BB. I know the scene you refer to and.....
You are right, of course it is Britt Ekland! Sheer absent-mindedness on my part. Apologies for my error.
J.M. Vargas wrote:mavrach wrote:I feel funny copying & pasting from the Facebook group to here, but I'm doing it anyway!
The site isn't in the position to turn down any contributions, even if its sloppy seconds.What's that Facebook address again?
I'm as hetero as they come but, since Godard didn't want BB's butt (it's only there at the behest of the studio chiefs), I think "Contempt" would be better off without them just as "Psycho" would be the perfect movie without the shrink at the end explaining everything. It's the creativity with which JLG shoots the butt (at one point just lingering on the damn thing for no reason) that I admire more than the butt itself, so WOW to both of them.hoytereden wrote:Thanks J.M for mentioning BB's butt in Contempt. One of the natural wonders of the world at that time IMO. One of those "You could bounce a dime off it" models. Oh, and the rest of the movie was ok too!
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests