Track the Films You Watch (2007) (1 Viewer)

[Adam_S]

Because the scene is really over the top?

 

[Michael Elliott]

Perhaps in their minds, which might be why all of his films were laughed at at some point. One person said the ending to PSYCHO was over the top as well. REAR WINDOW got a lot of laughs as well as the end. In fact, the only ones that didn't get any laughs was DIAL M FOR MURDER and ROPE.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I'm a big fan of THE BIRDS. Scary stuff, but the last time I saw it I recall thinking the early buildup went on for too long. Let me ask you -- did the audience also laugh at Tippi Hedren's "reaction" closeups when she was watching the gasoline erupt into flames? Audiences today are hopeless as far as I'm concerned. Same thing went for when I saw THE EXORCIST: THE VERSION YOU'VE NEVER SEEN.

The audience might also have laughed at the scene with the birds attacking because of the rear projection? Who knows...

 

[Sandro]

Re: Mississippi Burning
I too enjoyed the movie when I saw it in theaters but, on reading further, I was surprised how much of a fabrication it was. My personal view is that history should not be bent that much by Hollywood in the name of entertainment. I understand that history is messy and does not always present the nice and tidy conclusions that Hollywood demands. But when life and death events are portrayed it is too important. That's why I am not usually that fond of watching Hollywood's version of history.

Out of :star: :star: :star: :star:

Sweet Sweetback's BaadAsssss Song :star: :star: 1/2
Melvin Van Peebles' movie kicked off the blaxpoitation genre and this film must have really seemed almost revolutionary back in 1971. I was unprepared by how "arty" this film was especially in the slow first half - I was reminded of a Godard movie, which is usually not a good thing for me. Anyway the film's second half is much better and the overall film is worth seeing at least once for fans of 70s cinema.

Hot Fuzz :star: :star: :star:
The makers of Shaun of the Dead send up American action movies in an amusing movie that is way too long. Enjoyably silly but not as funny as it should be but there's some good stuff and the final fight in the model village is inspired.

Brick :star: :star: :star:
This highly original "high-school noir" movie got some glowing reviews last year and they are generally deserved. I especially enjoyed the dialog particularly the fake slang. I am interested in what writer/director Rian Johnson will do next.

Mad Magician :star: :star: 1/2
Vincent Price goes all psycho as a magician who starts killing those who are hampering his career in this middling effort. Shot in 3-D so we are treated to shots of pingpong balls, water and a buzz saw coming at the camera.

The Tingler :star: :star: :star:
After watching Trog which has a stupid premise and giving it a BOMB why does this movie, which has one of the stupidest premises in movie history rate so highly? I wish I knew
Anyway, I'm an unapologetic fan of Castle's films and Vincent Price is just fun to watch. This one never gets boring as the plot is carried through to its logical conclusion and we have the first screen treatment of an LSD trip and what is surely one of the screen's first portrayals of OCD! Not to mention the contrived finale in the theater which meshed with Castle's scheme of wiring up the cinema seats to shock certain viewers.

Uncle Buck :star: :star: 1/2
I remember this one being funnier when I saw it years ago. Surprising amount of heart.

Miami Vice :star: :star: 1/2
Disappointing Michael Mann effort. Stunning cinematography but too many shots of boats, cars, guns and not enough meat on the characters. Not that I'm a fan of the TV series but if you were then this had to be a huge shock.

Die! Die! My Darling :star: :star: :star:
This 60s horror flick is great campy fun due to Richard Matheson's script which balances the horror and the campiness and the performance of Tallulah Bankhead as a religious nut. Stephanie Powers did a good job too.

 

[Holadem]

Dunno Joe. I've taken a lenghty and hiatus form home video from most of the year. Barring the occasional screening, my Netflix account has been dormant for several months. It's not really intentional, it's part burnout, part circumstantial. And to be honest I am not sure I see a point in tracking all my screenings anyway. I do read this thread occasionally.

Coincidentally enough, this is the first weekend in ages I've truly felt like watching stuff, and came back form the library with a handful of titles. My first screening, Un Coeur en Hiver (1992) did not disappoint, my only regret is that I did not pick more films featuring Emmanuelle Beart (I have a feeling Stevegon would agree with me on that one).

--
H

 

[Michael Elliott]

Yes, they laughed at that as well. The biggest laughs came at the kids being attacked and there were several smaller laughs throughout but as I told Adam, most of the Hitch's were laughed at at some point. In fact, every older film I've seen in a theater has been laughed at by someone. Even CASABLANCA, TAXI DRIVER and various Kubrick's have been laughed at.


Re: THE TINGLER

I love this one because of how dumb the story is but HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL is my all-time favorite from Castle. There's one scene in it that makes me jump no matter how many times I watch it.

 

[Michael Elliott]

08/10/07

Man to Remember, A (1938) :star::star:1/2

Remake of One Man's Journey, which I watched a few
days ago. This time Edward Ellis plays a country doctor who grows
old and poor because of his kind heart, which won't allow him to turn
away sick people even if they don't have the money to pay him.
Garson Kanin directed the screenplay by Dalton Trumbo and it's
pretty faithful to the original movie. The fact that it's too faithful is the
only real problem with the picture because if you've seen the original
then you know everything that's going to happen here. Other than
that I'd say this version is somewhat better as the story is better laid
out and there's a new opening and closing, which suits the story very
well. Ellis is terrific in his role and brings a lot of class and warmth to
his character.

Bum Voyage (1934) :star::star:1/2

Hal Roach short with Thelma Todd and Patsy Kelly finding ship
tickets so they naturally take the room but what they don't know is
that there's a gorilla already there. This is probably the best short I've seen from the duo but most of that credit should go towards the man in the gorilla suit. He manages to give me quite a few laughs and certainly more than Kelly.

Man's Genesis (1912) :star::star::star::star:

Early caveman film from D.W. Griffith is rather unique since the
director hadn't done a film like this before. During the prologue, a
grandfather is walking his granddaughter and grandson as the boy
begins to hit the girl with a stick. The grandfather then sits them
down and tells them a story of when cavemen didn't have nothing to
fight with except their hands. The film then flashes forward to the
cavemen segment where Bruteforce (Wilfred Lucas) and
Weakhands (Robert Harron) are fighting over Lilywhite (Mae Marsh).
After getting beat up, Weakhands discovers a way to use a stick and
rock as a weapon. This is a really, really interesting little film
because I like the fact that the cavemen are in a silent film. They
couldn't talk in real life so seeing them in a silent movies just works
wonders. I'm rather curious to why Griffith added the prologue but it
doesn't matter because the cavemen footage is so great. The
costumes and facial hair looks very realistic and all three give strong
performances. Certainly worth seeking out, although this is pretty
hard to get a hold of. Griffith made a sequel two years later in
Brute Force.

Brute Force (1914) :star::star::star::star:

D.W. Griffith's sequel to Man's Genesis has Weakhands
(Robert Harron) and Lillywhite (Mae Marsh) living with a new family
but the womanless tribe led by Bruteforce (Wilfred Lucas) attacks
them and kidnaps all the woman. Since Bruteforce was able to beat
the tribe with sticks and rocks, Weakhands must come up with a new
invention to get revenge. He then comes up with a bow and arrow.
This is another highly entertaining two-reeler from Griffith who pulls
out all the stops and makes a really strong film, although the
opening and closing sequences set in current times was pretty
useless. Once again the cavemen look great with their make up and
costumes. Another added bonus is that there's a terrific fight
between the two sides, which goes on for quite a while. The action is
very much real as Griffith paid the extras a few more dollars if they
were willing to get hit upside the head. The one silly segment is
Griffith showing some dinosaurs, which are obviously fake. I could
tell one was an alligator dressed up as a dino but there's also a real
dino skeleton used, which Griffith was able to borrow from a
museum. Future Tarzan Elmo Lincoln plays one of the cavemen and
Lionel Barrymore is also on hand but I wasn't able to spot him. AKA
Primitive Man and In Prehistoric Days.

Revenue Man and the Girl, The (1911) :star::star::star:

D.W. Griffith short set in the hills of Kentucky where a government
man comes to force taxes on a group of moonshiners but he ends up
falling for a girl (Dorothy West). This is a pretty good short with
Griffith once again standing up against poor people and putting
down the government. West is very good in her role and Mabel
Normand is also on hand.

Little Tease, The (1913) :star::star:1/2

D.W. Griffith film where the title character (Mae Marsh) falls in love
with a man (Robert Harron) but her reputation for being a 'little tease'
might catch up with her. This is a pretty standard little love story and
moral lesson that the director had done many times before. Griffith's
battle with the studio made for some less than stellar films during
this period and this here is one of them. Henry B. Walthall and
Lionel Barrymore also star.

08/11/07

Psycho (1960) :star::star::star::star:

I'm not sure what else I can add that I haven't already said but I've probably watched this movie over 50 times and it gets better and better with each viewing. The more times you watch a classic the more new things you start to notice or perhaps you view a certain thing differently. The scene that really effected me this time out is the opening scene with Janet Leigh and John Gavin talking. This time watching the film I paid a lot closer attention to their eyes while they were speaking and I noticed how the two perfectly captured the sad lovers act. I found the film quite depressing while watching it and that hadn't really happened to me before. As for the rest of the film, I think this is Hitchcock's masterpiece even though it's probably not as technically great as Vertigo. I'll probably go on record and say that this film has the greatest screenplay in the history of cinema (from what I've seen). The dialogue is terrific throughout but there are several scenes that just stick out as terrific. The first being the scene I talked about before, the next being the scene between Anthony Perkins and Leigh while she's having dinner and the third one is the scene at the very end of the movie when Norman has turned into his mother. The shower scene is certainly one of the greatest in history but I still say that the heart, sadness and emotion of the scene with Leigh and Perkins having dinner is just as great.

Birds, The (1963) :star::star:

OK, would a fan of this film please explain to me why they like it? I personally think this is Hitchcock's most overrated film and I also think it's pretty poorly written and the direction is a major drop of quality from the previous ten years of Hitchcock's career but I guess I should also say that I feel the director's films went down after Psycho. I'm not sure where to start but I guess I'll start off with the structure of the picture. I'm going to guess that Hitchcock was doing a Rear Window type of thing were he uses the first 75% of the film to let viewers get to know the characters and then switches gear the last 25% of goes for the suspense. While it works perfectly in the other film I think the idea falls flat on its ass here. I think Tippi Hedren and Rod Taylor are very good in their roles but I didn't feel a thing for them. I certainly wanted them to live but I didn't care about him being burdened with his mother and I didn't care about her having a wild period in her life. I really didn't care for any of the supporting players and I think the bit with Jessica Tandy just went on and on and on. I also feel that the movie runs at least half an hour to long. Again, I guess Hitchcock wanted to save the suspense for last but the build up just bored me and when we finally get to the ending I was just wanting the film to end so there wasn't any suspense for me. I know this is a beloved Hitchcock film but I really can't see anything special here. There were several people in the crowd screaming and gasping so apparently it still packs a punch with several people but it's never worked with me and I think I disliked it more this time than any previous time. It's certainly too bad Hitch didn't get to film the ending he originally wanted because it would have been a lot better.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

I like it because, as I said earlier, it's scary. That is, it's a scary premise - nature gone berserk (in this case, our feathered friends). It would be terrifying to me if birds began grouping together and violently attacked people. I think just about all of the "panic" sequences are well staged, and the scene with school teacher Suzanne Pleshette is a real shocker. As I was saying before, the last time I watched the movie I recall thinking the set-up was too long getting to know the characters, which is the main flaw I have with the movie... and also, if memory serves, Tippi Hedren's character isn't exactly the most likeable sort, so we can't bond with her for this type of horrifying situation. I know you don't care for the ending, but it's okay with me. I think this is similar to your expectation with the ending of ROSEMARY'S BABY where you want Mia Farrow to kill the baby. Without me seeing THE BIRDS fresh again, my rating would be ***1/2.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

Fun in Acapulco (1963) :star::star:1/2

I fully expected to not care for this Elvis travelogue at all, but maybe I was in the right mood because it wasn't so bad. I was intrigued by the basic idea that Presley's playing a former circus acrobat who once accidentally killed his brother who fell to his death when Elvis failed to catch him during their trapeze act. Ever since, he's been terrified of heights and finds himself working hotels in Mexico to try and work out his problems; he takes on two jobs, as a lifeguard and a singer at the Acapulco Hilton. He hopes to conquer his fears by diving off the cliffs, and along the way bumps shoulders with established diving expert Alejandro Rey (who became known as Carlos in THE FLYING NUN), and moving in on his beautiful woman, Ursula Andress. The sights are colorful, even if much of it was faked with rear projection shots of Mexico -- they actually look pretty authentic and it's hard to notice. The south of the border music works within the framework of the film, and is passable (especially "Bossa Nova Baby"). The real stinker this time is the hilariously titled "There's No Room To Rhumba In a Sports Car", but these pictures are musicals, after all.

 

[SteveGon]

La Belle Noiseuse is a must-see!

 

[george kaplan]

His Kind of Woman

I'm really on the fence about this one. It starts out as a pretty damn good noir. It has it's share of quirky characters, but that's no problem, until the very end. In particular, Vincent Price. For most of the film, he's a minor, quirky character that serves the story well. Then, he engages in some heroics with the lead character which is also fine. But then, this somehow energizes him to go over the top. At this point, he starts spouting Shakespeare, and overacting, all the while, managing to somehow cajole both a bunch of rich old tourists, and a bunch of Mexican federales, to follow his leadership as they make an over-the-top amphibious assault on the bad guys.
Not only does this include a lot of bad acting and distractingly unrealistic plot, but also one laugh out loud moment, that is just out of place in such a film.

In one sense, this film is ruined by this, and in another, it's just a bizarre twist that changes the film, and if you can go along, works well in that context. For myself, I'm still uncertain as to which it is.

What's Up, Doc?

No uncertainty here. A great screwball comedy revisited, and introduced to my son.

 

[Mario Gauci]

Re: Revisits of old favorites vs. Seeking out new gems


This debate periodically comes up on HTF – usually brought about by the same three people - but it’s always interesting (and not a little painful) to indulge in.

I’ll get to the point without further ado: would I wish to watch, say, SHERLOCK JR. (1924), DUCK SOUP (1933), KING KONG (1933), SONS OF THE DESERT (1933), BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1935), HIS GIRL FRIDAY (1940), TO BE OR NOT TO BE (1942) and NORTH BY NORTHWEST (1959) once a year? Hell, yes. Do I have the opportunity to do this? Since I own them all on DVD, yes I do. Would they hold up to so many repeat viewings? I’ve never tried it to that extent but, I guess, they would; the fact that the majority of them run for less than 90 minutes is another point in their favour. I don’t know how many favorites one is allowed to have or how much one needs to watch a movie to earn it that title…but the truth is that I’ve never watched any movie 50 times or a 100, or every Christmas or Good Friday, or what have you! Does that mean that I don’t have favorites? Or favorite actors or directors? Or genres or even guilty pleasures?

All of the movies I’ve mentioned – chosen mainly for their entertainment value and my familiarity with them over the years – would all find a place in, say, my Top 25 all-time favorites. But, then, DUCK SOUP is ostensibly a musical (a genre I’ve generally little use for) and is directed by Leo McCarey (a director I admire, a sort of an auteur even but hardly one of my favorites). Should these factors disqualify its inclusion in a poll of this sort? Hardly – because the criteria for the poll is the sheer amount of pleasure I derive from any particular movie time and again. No matter how many times I watch the mirror and lemonade stall sequences in the movie, I always crack up in hysterics. But, I ask you, is entertainment the be-all-and-end-all of what we genuine film buffs seek in a movie? I understand the “comfort zone” talk but that would certainly pull the lid over many directors whose work is, by accident or design, on the margins of mainstream cinema.

Take Michelangelo Antonioni, for instance: he has just died but I’ve only noticed a couple of HTFers who bothered to pay tribute to his passing. I’ll be watching 7 films in all (and 5 of Ingmar Bergman’s) and, yes, none of them was (or is going to be) comfortable viewing. And yet, none of Antonioni’s films (at least) was as heavy-going as I was expecting it to be and, while I was already familiar with them from previous viewings, the sheer, unique brilliance of his vision in RED DESERT (1964) and BLOWUP (1966) really hit home this time around. Maybe it’s in direct relation to the knowledge that he has died or the fact that I’ve seen him in the flesh at the 2004 Venice Film Festival, I don’t know. But his achievements are what they are and, whether they’re understood or not, they can’t be ignored. True, there is hardly a shred of entertainment value in his films – surprisingly enough, not even in his biggest box-office hit, BLOWUP with all its fashionable nudity, pot-smoking, rock concert, murder mystery, etc. – but as I said, should we dismiss it just because its inconclusiveness is the negation of the thriller genre? Because, then, so should we dismiss Alfred Hitchcock’s THE BIRDS (1963; I can see Michael Elliott nodding in agreement as he reads this), Luis Bunuel’s THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962; take that George Kaplan), BELLE DE JOUR (1967) and THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISE (1972), etc. All open-ended movies and for no very good reason but all so skillfully done that one is never bothered – indeed is fascinated – by it.

The bottom line is that a true film buff/enthusiast/fan/goer should make time for all kinds of movies – no, definitely not every movie…but of all types. To what extent his horizons are broadened in this search for diversity belongs with the individual himself. Personally, this “odyssey” has made me stray far too often (and for far too long) from my main goals: not only that of becoming a film-maker myself but, to keep it on a simple level, even that which is get every unwatched DVD, DVD-R, DivX and VHS I own watched at the very least once!! To add insult to injury (after my recent gargantuan DVD purchase mentioned in an earlier post in this thread), I just read today that Roland West’s ALIBI (1929) is getting a DVD release from Kino in September, which reminded me that I still hadn’t picked up Image’s THE BAT WHISPERS (1930), which is an 8-year old disc and not readily available online, which made me search high and low for it from my usual suppliers and when I did find it available, I promptly ordered. However, since I’m an overseas customer, I incur shipping charges, which to justify I need to pick up other DVDs in the same order…7 in all, this time! People like Michael Elliott (who have the luxury of TCM and Netflix and revival theaters) can afford not to purchase any more DVDs; I, on the other hand (who should really stop and take stock of his situation) does not have such luxuries and, frankly, do not really mind spending all my money on DVDs. What gets me down is knowing that l don’t have enough space to store all of the DVDs in my whishlist and, worse still, time enough to get everything properly watched (supplements and all:frowning! Thankfully, for the last few months, I’ve met a schoolmate of my father’s and we have exchanged a shitload of DVDs (200 to be exact) and he has also directed me towards an out-of-town DVD rental store who is a virtual treasure trove for vintage Hollywood film buffs and I’ve been renting discs like crazy ever since. Not getting them watched, you see…just “renting” them (if you get my drift).

I haven’t exhausted my argument yet - I realize now that I haven't really touched on the "seeking out new gems" part - but I’ll give you all a breather (and have one myself) on this for the time being…


Re: Elvis Presley


For better or worse, I intend to dedicate a lot of the rest of the month to the King. I have almost 20 of his movies lined up and, while it requires much stamina, it’s something that I’ve been meaning to do for some time. I’m no authority on the subject – having only one album of his in my music collection and one movie on DVD-R – but the Elvis phenomenon is too huge to ignore indefinitely and the 30th Anniversary of his demise sounds like the right time to dive in. Also, since I was born 364 days before he perished, my life has, in a strange way, always been inextricably linked to his!!


Re: PSYCHO (1960) and THE BIRDS (1963)


I’m not sure but these two might well be the first two Alfred Hitchcock films I’ve watched back in the early 1980s...on Italian TV, natch. I recall that I missed out on the first 10 minutes or so of PSYCHO and that I was surprised with the audacious “irrelevance” of the opening clandestine meeting in the motel room between Janet Leigh and John Gavin when I finally caught up with it on VHS almost a decade later! I’m not about to write any eulogies for this film as it doesn’t need any, but I’ll say just this: I may prefer NORTH BY NORTHWEST out of all of Hitch’s movies but, to me, PSYCHO has always felt like his greatest (and, for better or worse, most influential) accomplishment. I know that in recent years that spot has – at least within the critics’ circles – been taken over by VERTIGO (1958) but I haven’t revisited the latter in years, so I don’t yet know how to pronounce myself on that view.

The same goes for THE BIRDS: the first half or more is practically irrelevant to the main plot/theme of the movie but I find the mere fact that Hitch chose to dwell on them for so long (thus leading the audience down a blind alley just for the fun of it) fascinating and irrefutable evidence of his mastery at audience manipulation. Of course, the fact that PSYCHO is, ostensibly, a horror movie (as well as a thriller and black comedy) and THE BIRDS science-fiction (as well as a horror movie and a melodrama) only adds to their evergreen appeal to me. Hitchcock’s films are usually denoted as thrillers but his best work is always so much more: thus, REBECCA (1940) is a brooding Gothic-tinged love story, FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT (1940) is a plea against American isolationism in times of war, REAR WINDOW (1954) is a study of the relationship between the film-maker and his audience, THE TROUBLE WITH HARRY (1955) a delightful black comedy, NORTH BY NORTHWEST a risqué romamtic comedy, etc.

 

[PatW]

Morning Glory (1933) :star: :star: :star: :star:

Katharine Hepburn stars as a young wanna-be actress who is hoping to break out on the stage in NYC. Three men are important in her life, a producer who gives her a small part and then dismisses her, an elderly actor who tries to help her by taking her under his wing and giving her acting lessons, and a playwrite who happens to be in love with her.

I was captivated from beginning to end watching this and that's mainly due to Katharine Hepburn's performance. This role is early in her career but she shines here and her performance is flawless. The supporting players were all good in their parts but this is Katharine's Hepburn's movie and the reason to watch.

 

[george kaplan]

I'll just respond briefly to Mario re: viewing practices.

First of all, there's no right and no wrong. If someone wants to watch the same 10 movies over and over and over again, and never watch anything else that's their perogative. If they would never dream of watching a movie made 10 years ago, much less one in black & white, god forbid a silent or a foreign film, then that's fine. Those people might not qualify as 'film buffs' under a number of definitions of the term, but who cares.

On the other hand if someone is only interested in seeing films they've never seen before, and have no interest in revisiting one once they've seen it, then that's fine too.

Of course most of us are in the middle somewhere, and, despite varying levels of film knowledge, and disputes about each others 'taste', we are none of us just casual film watchers, but film fanatics to one degree or another. And none of us has the time to watch all we want. So, we have to each prioritize.

For myself, that means watching plenty of new films I've never seen, partly in a quest to gain knowledge about those films (even if most of the knowledge includes the fact that I don't like many of them), but mostly for the joy of finding new films that I like enough to want to add to my collection. Which is for me the real point - to rewatch the greats (as I define them).

I also watch a little bit of new tv (e.g., Monk, certain sporting events), as well as a lot of classic tv on dvd (everything from Dick Van Dyke to Columbo to britcoms to Twilight Zone, etc.).

And I am one who has yearly films I watch (most of December is Christmas favorites, Groundhog Day on Groundhog Day, Planes Trains & Automobiles on Thanksgiving, etc.).

So, for me, it's all a matter of rotation. I basically watch something I've tivo'd (that I've never seen), followed by a movie I own, followed by something tivo'd, followed by a classic tv, etc., etc. It's far more complex than that, what with working in viewing with my wife and son, but that's the basic idea. I have so many films on dvd that I might not cycle through to a film for 5 years, but even at once every 5 years, those favorites (well over 1000 films) will get watched a number of more times in my life (barring an early exit), and never get old or stale.

To me that's a good balance, but to each his own.

 

[Mario Gauci]

Gee, George...this here post might well be the most solid piece of lucid writing you've ever done!

Seriously, I agree with most of what you've said and, believe me when I tell you that my original post was not intended to show that I was right and everyone else wrong - it was more of a stream-of-consciousness monologue with myself as I try to sort out this unwieldy dilemma. As a matter of fact, my twin brother was just telling me the other day that we should dedicate one day a week to every format: unwatched DVDs should ideally get watched daily but then we would follow them with, say, an unwatched DVD-R on Monday, a DivX on Tuesday, a DVD rental on Wednesday, an unwatched VHS on Thursday, a TV viewing on Friday, an original VHS on Saturday and a DVD watched once on Sunday! Sounds simple and logical enough, doesn't it?

And yet, despite all the best intentions, we can't seem to stick to the schedule...which, I have to admit, is immensely frustrating! Of course, this has been one strange month - first with the death of Bergman and Antonioni, the upcoming 30th anniversary of Elvis's death and, towards the end of the month, it's going to be 20 years since John Huston and Lee Marvin died!! In the middle of all this, my 31st birthday is coming up and a special treat (filmwise, of course) is in store for us. Hopefully, we won't fumble that one up and get the darned movie watched as planned.

At other times, I feel like saying to hell with the schedule and get down to watching what I really want to watch - rather than what I feel like or what I should be watching. As it happens, I've recently come across 10 movies on DivX which I've been pining for for ages, namely LA ROUE (1923), SECRETS OF A SOUL (1926), NAPOLEON (1927), LA FIN DU MONDE (1930), PHANTOM LADY (1944), THE LIFE OF OHARU (1952), LE DEUXIEME SOUFFLE (1966), PROVIDENCE (1977) and ON THE SILVER GLOBE (1987). These may not turn out to be of very high quality but they should be servicable enough to get the job finally done.

Another thing that's getting out of hand is the amount of potentially interesting movies shown on cable or Italian TV during the night which I have got to record and watch later on (here it comes again) when I have time. At present, this list is made up of 40 movies and most of these are fairly obscure; just now, I've finished watching THREE (1969) which recently came up in a discussion on another forum with people bemoaning its lack of DVD availability and which was coincidentally shown on cable TV a few days ago. Well, it's not what I'd call an essential movie but it's quirky and perceptive enough to be worth watching. Later on tonight, an Italian TV channel will be showing the "rare" Martin & Lewis comedy, THREE RING CIRCUS (1954); although I'm familiar with the movie from a childhood viewing, its unavailability on DVD (due to rights issues) makes me leap at the chance to reacquaint myself (even if dubbed in Italian) with it once more...for nostalgia purposes if nothing else!

It's time to turn in for me, guys...so, over to you.

 

[Michael Elliott]

Mario, I just noticed you watched Bergman's SARABAND a few nights ago and looking at your rating you didn't care too much for it. Have you seen SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE before? Since SARABAND is a sequel then it somewhat plays better stacked onto SCENES.

As far as buying DVDs plus the shipping charges, you really outta look into opening a DVD rental place on your own since I'm sure it would get good business since I doubt anyone over there has as many titles. Then you could always order new discs for your store.

Back to THE BIRDS and classic screenings: It's funny because at the end of each movie the audience will applaud for how much they like the film. For some reason they've always done this during classic movies yet yesterday was the first time I heard anyone booing. The film got booed pretty loudly, which somewhat took my by shock since the previous films all were received so well. They're showing two more next weekend and then it'll be over so I'll have to look somewhere else for classic films. There's another place in Louisville, which shows "classic" movies every two weeks but this is basically a college theater where people certainly come to laugh right after they've smoked a joint. They played Spielberg's JP there a couple weeks ago and I heard, again, it was a laugh riot.



Hmm....I might have to steal this idea and see how it goes. I might be able to pull this off if I don't hit 90% full on my DVR again. Most of my revisits over the past couple months have been films my girlfriend hasn't seen and I'm trying to introduce them to her. The Hitchcock films all went well with the exception of the last one but she's dead set on no silents or foreign films but we'll see.

 

[Michael Elliott]

I'm still dying for your review of THE AVENGING CONSCIENCE.

 

[george kaplan]

I'll tell you something else I do. I used to just let it fill up, but I found that the tivo has a tendency to mess up when it gets too full. Plus, I would often hit 100%, and then have to try to watch a bunch in a row, and frankly it got kind of irritating having to worry about it filling up, and acting up, and I was losing some of the enjoyment of watching the films due to worrying about how full the tivo was getting.

So, now, I basically prune it once a week. I wouldn't necessarily suggest this process for anyone, but maybe something similar depending on your situation. Each Saturday morning I go through the to-do list on the tivo and limit it to about 10 movies or so (there's also a number of tv shows for me and my wife on there), and if there's more than that, I prune them out a priori. Somehow it's easier for me to decide to not record something off TCM in the first place (until the next time it's showing on there ), than sweat out the fact that I have to try to watch it before I either run out of space to record something else, or it starts screwing up the tivo itself. This is a 250 hour drive, so it's got a lot of room, but this still makes life a lot easier for me.

 

[george kaplan]

The Tingler

Normally I put the S&S film comments in that thread, but this film doesn't even deserve that. Funny in the ridiculous way that such B films are (but not funny enough to warrant watching them), with cheesy effects and an intro that may be mocking DeMille in the Ten Commandments, or maybe something else I'm not aware of. Perhaps historically interesting for it's LSD sequence, but that's it. It's inclusion in the S&S list certainly puts another unneeded hole in that lists credibility.

 

[george kaplan]

Man's Favorite Sport?

Revisited this underrated comedy, along with my son.