And the best Black and White movie ever is:

[Jerjo]

We watched the new Halloween last night. Other than the fantastic scene in the asylum yard at the beginning of the movie, it was pretty standard. Jamie Lee Curtis was very very good as the bitter and damaged Laurie but the direction has no snap to it (other than the scene I wrote about) and the plot the standard slasher stuff, complete with plot holes. Seriously, how the FUCK does a guy who has been in a mental institution all but one day since he was six years old, navigate this world with all that has changed since the late 70s, including driving a modern police vehicle? Then there's his inhuman ability as an old man to sustain serious wounds and keep going. I admit that I am not the target audience for a movie like this but I had hoped we'd get beyond these tired tropes.

[nycsteve]

It is true that TCM can run a bummer at times. Wonder how they decide what films to run and which not to for that matter. Of course the great classics, but the others?

Im sure what we are shown is just the tip of the iceberg as far as what Turner has the rights to. I for one enjoy the B movies , C cheapos , and even an occasional D dregs movie. Without TCM the bulk would be lost. You can only watch Ben Hur and The Great Escape so many times. The less thens give context to the greats as Dugi Houser does for Archie Bunker. Some of the throw away B's are great entertainment , especially the crime dramas from the 50s. I would love to see TCM devot some days to exploring the less seen. The do tend to replay a core group of films. With the depth of their library they could really surprise.

[Staun]

Im sure what we are shown is just the tip of the iceberg as far as what Turner has the rights to. I for one enjoy the B movies , C cheapos , and even an occasional D dregs movie. Without TCM the bulk would be lost. You can only watch Ben Hur and The Great Escape so many times. The less thens give context to the greats as Dugi Houser does for Archie Bunker. Some of the throw away B's are great entertainment , especially the crime dramas from the 50s. I would love to see TCM devot some days to exploring the less seen. The do tend to replay a core group of films. With the depth of their library they could really surprise.

I agree, I mean, the things I haven't seen. The crime dramas from the 50's would be excellent viewing.

[ronmac]

Watched that, too. Except for the ending, it was mighty good. Any movie with a non-horror show Vinny Price in it is right up my alley. Love it when he plays the cad or the corrupt lawyer. He was even great in The Fly as the mild-mannered brother of the fly.

The man really could act. It's a shame that he became stereotyped as a horror maven. But, to his immense credit, he not only played everything very well, he approached his craft with absolute professionalism.

We watched the new Halloween last night. Other than the fantastic scene in the asylum yard at the beginning of the movie, it was pretty standard. Jamie Lee Curtis was very very good as the bitter and damaged Laurie but the direction has no snap to it (other than the scene I wrote about) and the plot the standard slasher stuff, complete with plot holes. Seriously, how the FUCK does a guy who has been in a mental institution all but one day since he was six years old, navigate this world with all that has changed since the late 70s, including driving a modern police vehicle? Then there's his inhuman ability as an old man to sustain serious wounds and keep going. I admit that I am not the target audience for a movie like this but I had hoped we'd get beyond these tired tropes.

Some movies...

One that always sticks in my mind is the terrible "Christine," by Stephen (if my name is in the title, it's probably terrible) King. Sure, if you're being chased by a killer car with a mind of its own, why not run away down the middle of the street? Of course, there's one scene (I'm going by memory here) where the effing car ends up on a rooftop. They don't explain how it go there. Luckily, I didn't pay money to see that piece of trash.

[ronmac]

Some great movies on tomorrow on TCM

Suspicion (1941) @ 11:00 am

Laura (1944) @ 9:30

And, if you want to see Bette Davis at her best, All About Eve is on at 11:15

[ronmac]

WHOA!!!

Sunday at midnight, "Haxan: Witchcraft through the Ages" (1922)

This one is way out there.

[JKL2000]

WHOA!!!

Sunday at midnight, "Haxan: Witchcraft through the Ages" (1922)

This one is way out there.

Is it good? I was kind of interested that they were showing. I seem to remember the reviews weren't great.

Boy they sure repeat films a lot. Laura and All About Eve were both on recently. I wonder how many movies they have.

[Hal...]

Is it good? I was kind of interested that they were showing. I seem to remember the reviews weren't great.

It's a faux documentary and no it's not that great. At least, I wasn't impressed.

[Staun]

Some great movies on tomorrow on TCM

Suspicion (1941) @ 11:00 am

Laura (1944) @ 9:30

And, if you want to see Bette Davis at her best, All About Eve is on at 11:15

Another Davis classic. But, I like her with a little more edge like, The Letter. I don't know, that might be my favorite of her's. She had so much range like, Now Voyager to Baby Jane. Wonder how she and Bogey would have paired?

[Staun]

It's a faux documentary and no it's not that great. At least, I wasn't impressed.

Hal and Ron, is Tuesdays sci-fi Tuesday now?

[ronmac]

It's a faux documentary and no it's not that great. At least, I wasn't impressed.

I haven't seen the entire movie, but it's certainly noteworthy for what it is and when it was made.

[ronmac]

Hal and Ron, is Tuesdays sci-fi Tuesday now?

The monthly theme (Which they do on Tuesdays) is "Out of this World," which, I assume is due to the Apollo 11 anniversary.

[ronmac]

Another Davis classic. But, I like her with a little more edge like, The Letter. I don't know, that might be my favorite of her's. She had so much range like, Now Voyager to Baby Jane. Wonder how she and Bogey would have paired?

Yeah, I definitely like some edge, but she shows quite a bit in "All about Eve," which they do show an awful lot. But, the dialog makes that movie.

[ronmac]

Is it good? I was kind of interested that they were showing. I seem to remember the reviews weren't great.

Boy they sure repeat films a lot. Laura and All About Eve were both on recently. I wonder how many movies they have.

Ted Turner owns the Warner Brothers and MGM film libraries, among others.

[Staun]

Yeah, I definitely like some edge, but she shows quite a bit in "All about Eve," which they do show an awful lot. But, the dialog makes that movie.

Yep, and it's also another case of just being a good story. Tons of Apollo things on TV. I really do enjoy the old sci-fi, uncut. Comet tried their best to run some good ones but of course, they were chopped up.

[ronmac]

Comet tried their best to run some good ones but of course, they were chopped up.

The 200 commercial breaks don't help.

[Hal...]

Wonder how Davis and Bogey would have paired?

Quite well; they were in six (or seven) movies together but I've only seen two:

Petrified Forest (1936), which airs Aug 11 at 6am (set your DVR!) on TCM and which Leonard Maltin gives 3½ stars: "Solid adaptation of Robert Sherwood play, focusing on ironic survival of the physically fit in civilized world. Bogart is Duke Mantee, escaped gangster, who holds writer [Leslie] Howard, dreamer Davis, and others hostage at roadside restaurant in Arizona. Stagy, but extremely well acted and surprisingly fresh. Howard and Bogart recreate their Broadway roles."

It's one of my favorite classics and probably the only movie I find Davis quite fetching. She's actually quite sweet in it and when you consider many of her later roles, is a bit of a departure for her. And I love those big eyes.



Marked Woman (1937), which Maltin gives 3 stars: "Bristling gangster drama of district attorney Bogart convincing Bette and four girlfriends to testify against their boss, underworld king [Eduardo] Ciannelli." This is classic Davis. Marked Woman is significant for a particularly brutal scene, given the time it was made. I definitely recommend this. It's not playing on TCM anytime soon. Incidentally, from what I recall, Davis and her "four girlfriends" are actually prostitutes with their boss being a Mafia capo but since the movie is post-code, it's all implied.



There's another I haven't seen but after reading over the synopsis, I certainly want to. Kid Galahad (1937), which Maltin gives 3 stars: "D: Michael Curtiz. Edward G. Robinson, Bette Davis, Humphrey Bogart, Wayne Morris, Harry Carey. Well-paced yarn with promoter Robinson making naive bellhop Morris a boxing star, tangling with mobster Bogart at every turn."

They were also in Dark Victory but Bogey only has a supporting role in it. I've seen parts of it (my ex really liked it) but never had a desire to see the whole thing because I think it qualifies as melodrama, which is code for "old school chick flick".

In three others, one or both of them only had a supporting role. The seventh was one of those movies with a paper thin plot that paraded the studio's stars through it.

BTW, in looking for Kid Galahad at my libraries, I ran across another that looks really interesting: Bullets or Ballots (1936), that stars Edward G. Robinson, Joan Blondell, Barton MacLane, Humphrey Bogart, and Frank McHugh. Maltin gives it 3 stars: "Cop Robinson pretends to leave police force to crack citywide mob ring run by MacLane. Good, tough gangster film."
Robinson? Check.
Bogey? Check.
Blondell? Check!

I haven't seen the entire movie, but it's certainly noteworthy for what it is and when it was made.

I don't disagree. My issue with it was that I found it a little disjointed. But mostly it just seemed to reiterate a lot of myth and when the filmmakers got to the part I was most interested in, it was too dated for my taste. I think I would have preferred either a real documentary or a real horror film. This tried to walk the tightrope of being both but often fell off. Just my 2¢.

[Hal...]

I really do enjoy the old sci-fi, uncut. Comet tried their best to run some good ones but of course, they were chopped up.

The other issue, besides the 200 commercial breaks, is that sometimes a movie was filmed in a wider format but the sub-channels still have prints in 4:3 (or 5:3) which are the dimensions of old TV tubes (e.g. Forbidden Planet was shot in the widescreen format but is often shown in 4:3). I've noticed this on Comet, Charge!, MyTV, et al.

In Leonard Maltin's annual movie guide is a section on aspect ratios. They started including this after certain channels, like TCM, started showing movies with letter-boxing. Here's what it says about aspect ratios:

An aspect ratio is the relationship between the width and height of a screen image. Most sound films until 1953* were 1.37 to 1, slightly wider than they were tall. The television screen size is 1.33:1 [or 4:3], so very little is lost when an older movie is shown on TV, and even films shot in the later standard 1.66:1 don't suffer too badly. In the 1950s in an effort to combat TV, Hollywood started a battle of screen sizes, beginning with CinemaScope, more than twice as wide as it was high. Most films are now shot and shown in a ratio of 1.85:1 and since this has become the norm, such films are no longer thought of as "widescreen".

*I just discovered that the first movie in 1.66:1 was Shane.

I remember from my first job at a movie theater we sometimes had to change both the lens of the projector and the matting of the screen because the movie was in that narrow format, 1.66:1, which is actually 5:3 (I forget what we called it), which was developed by Paramount.

Now, here's the important part: after the early to mid '80s, just about all movies were shot in the wider aspect ratios as cameras with wider lenses became common. So, if you see a movie on TV made after '85 or so and it's in 4:3, you're not getting the whole picture. I'm to the point now that I can't watch them. I even sent an email to MyTV, I think, complaining about the movies they were showing in 4:3. I didn't get a response, of course. The thing is, tho, that not all of their movies are in that narrow format so sometimes I'm surprised.

Incidentally, if you're curious, here are some of the widescreen formats which you've probably seen in the opening credits:

CinemaScope – 2.35:1 Some early titles were 2.66:1 and 2.55:1
CinemaScope 55 – 2.35:1 CinemaScope using 55mm film
Duo-Vision – 2.35:1 In split-screen
Hammerscope & Megascope – 2.35:1 England
Panavision – 2.35:1 Modified in 1971 to 2.4:1
Panavision Super 70 – 2.35:1 for 35mm & 2.2:1 for 70mm
RKO-Scope – 2.35:1 A form of Superscope 235
Space-Vision – 2.35:1 In 3-D
Superama – 2.35:1 A form of Superscope 235
Super Panavision 70 – 2.35 for 35mm & 2.2:1 for 70mm
Technirama, Techniscope & Technovision – 2.35:1
Todd-AO 35 – 2.35:1
Ultra Panavision 70 – 2.75:1 in 70mm
Vistarama, Vistascope & Warnerscope – 2.35:1 Forms of CinemaScope
Cinerama – From 2.6:1 to 2.8:1
Super Technirama 70 – 2.2:1 in 70mm
Super35 – Ranges from 1.85:1 to 2.35:1 (variable screen size process)
System 35 & Super Techniscope – Ranges from 1.85:1 to 2.35:1 (variable, the same as Super 35)
Todd-AO – 2.2:1
Vista Vision – ranges from 1.66:1 to 2:1 (a variable ratio)
Vitascope – 2:1 Approx.

I should point out that all the movies that we got were 35mm prints regardless of the original format or the original film stock the movie was shot on. Only certain theaters could exhibit 70mm prints.

[ronmac]

I don't disagree. My issue with it was that I found it a little disjointed. But mostly it just seemed to reiterate a lot of myth and when the filmmakers got to the part I was most interested in, it was too dated for my taste. I think I would have preferred either a real documentary or a real horror film. This tried to walk the tightrope of being both but often fell off. Just my 2¢.

Well, it was 1922. I hear ya, though. From a technical standpoint, it's pretty cool for the time.

[Hal...]

Well, it was 1922.

I can usually forgive stuff based on the date a movie was released. However, may I remind you that Nosferatu was released the same year and it is still creepy.

BTW, did you ever see Shadow of the Vampire, the fictional movie about the making of Nosferatu? It stars John Malkovich as F.W. Murnau and Willem Dafoe as Max Schreck. The movie plays on the urban legend that Schreck was, indeed, a vampire. It's not scary and I would say it's a 2½ star movie; worth watching, if only once. I will say for a 2½ star movie, it sure has stayed with me. I think you'd like it.

[ronmac]

Sure, I get it. There was a lot of great cinematography in the 20s, for sure. I'm not suggesting Haxan was great filmmaking. But I like it as an art. It's also a curiosity. I don't know how Swedish filmmaking compared to German int he 20s.

I have actually never seen Shadow of the Vampire, but have always been intrigued by it. Some day.

[JKL2000]

Doh! All this time I thought Haxan was the sequel to The Blair Witch Project! The film company was called Haxan. LOL

[Staun]

Hal, how did I forget, The Petrified Forest? Marked Woman, I have not seen. "The kind ladies don't talk to". Yeah, I want to see this. The aspect ratio information was very interesting. Thank goodness for the Hal 9000. Great post.

[Staun]

Doh! All this time I thought Haxan was the sequel to The Blair Witch Project! The film company was called Haxan. LOL

As much talk as the BWP got, I've never seen all of it in one sitting. I haven't made up my mind about it but will revisit.

[ronmac]

As much talk as the BWP got, I've never seen all of it in one sitting. I haven't made up my mind about it but will revisit.

Isn't there a sequel coming out?