Anyone watch old movies?

[Marvin the Martian]

There is a 1944 movie called Gaslight, I saw it a couple years ago at IU Cinema. The movie involves a husband covering up his crimes by convincing his wife she is going crazy. The movie is where the phrase "gaslighting" comes from.

In today's world, this could be renamed "Heads Exploding". Trump says the stupidest, most outlandish things and people react negatively. Then Trump supporters say "heads exploding". As if the cause is the liberal reaction.

The cause is something like Trump saying he is considering handing over a former US Ambassador to Russia to Russia. That deserves outrage. Turning this back on the outrage us gaslighting, plain and simple.

It really is a good movie, worth seeing.

 

[Bill4411]

There is a 1944 movie called Gaslight, I saw it a couple years ago at IU Cinema. The movie involves a husband covering up his crimes by convincing his wife she is going crazy. The movie is where the phrase "gaslighting" comes from.

In today's world, this could be renamed "Heads Exploding". Trump says the stupidest, most outlandish things and people react negatively. Then Trump supporters say "heads exploding". As if the cause is the liberal reaction.

The cause is something like Trump saying he is considering handing over a former US Ambassador to Russia to Russia. That deserves outrage. Turning this back on the outrage us gaslighting, plain and simple.

It really is a good movie, worth seeing.

Yup that movie made Ingrid Bergman a big star, she won the Oscar for the best actress that year. Charles Boyer played the Trump character.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

There is a 1944 movie called Gaslight, I saw it a couple years ago at IU Cinema. The movie involves a husband covering up his crimes by convincing his wife she is going crazy. The movie is where the phrase "gaslighting" comes from.

In today's world, this could be renamed "Heads Exploding". Trump says the stupidest, most outlandish things and people react negatively. Then Trump supporters say "heads exploding". As if the cause is the liberal reaction.

The cause is something like Trump saying he is considering handing over a former US Ambassador to Russia to Russia. That deserves outrage. Turning this back on the outrage us gaslighting, plain and simple.

It really is a good movie, worth seeing.

This is a perfect example of heads exploding.

From the moment I heard Trump speak of this "interesting idea" about allowing the Russians to question our guys while the Russians allowing Mueller to question their guys, I said to myself: "What the f*ck is this?" The President of the United States has absolutely no authority here. There is no possible way POTUS can compel the attendance of any US citizen to be questioned by a foreign government. I suppose it's possible for POTUS to have some authority over the state department allowing a Russian investigator, who otherwise could not enter the country, to enter for this purpose. But there is absolutely no way POTUS could cloak the Russian investigator with the authority necessary to compel the appearance of any US citizen for questioning. And there certainly is no way POTUS can order the US citizen to "voluntarily" appear for questioning. This whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.

This was a totally stupid idea to begin with which I chalk up to Trump having zero experience in these mattersI. I think the public reaction to this is even worse. I hear experienced and knowledgeable people comment as if Trump can actually accomplish this. I chalk that up to exploding heads.

Thanks for the movie tip. I saw that movie years ago. Several "old movies" are in my top ten list. The older I become, the more "old movies" there are, so the number of possibilities is always growing.

 

[UncleMark]

This was a totally stupid idea to begin with which I chalk up to Trump having zero experience in these mattersI. I think the public reaction to this is even worse. I hear experienced and knowledgeable people comment as if Trump can actually accomplish this. I chalk that up to exploding heads.

No, the experienced and knowledgeable people are simply stating how stunning it is that the President would even consider the notion at all, the impracticability notwithstanding.

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

There is a 1944 movie called Gaslight, I saw it a couple years ago at IU Cinema. The movie involves a husband covering up his crimes by convincing his wife she is going crazy. The movie is where the phrase "gaslighting" comes from.

In today's world, this could be renamed "Heads Exploding". Trump says the stupidest, most outlandish things and people react negatively. Then Trump supporters say "heads exploding". As if the cause is the liberal reaction.

The cause is something like Trump saying he is considering handing over a former US Ambassador to Russia to Russia. That deserves outrage. Turning this back on the outrage us gaslighting, plain and simple.

It really is a good movie, worth seeing.

I haven’t said much about the news conference In Helsinki. But you speak of outrage in your post.... Really? Outrage? It isn’t like he released 5 Combat Commanders responsible for leading attacks on US soldiers in exchange for a traitor and then Trump attempted to make him a hero.... I mean that would be OUTRAGEOUS

This isn’t an attempt at whataboutism... I just find the over the top rhetoric nonsensical.....

 

[Hoosier_Hack]

This is a perfect example of heads exploding.

From the moment I heard Trump speak of this "interesting idea" about allowing the Russians to question our guys while the Russians allowing Mueller to question their guys, I said to myself: "What the f*ck is this?" The President of the United States has absolutely no authority here. There is no possible way POTUS can compel the attendance of any US citizen to be questioned by a foreign government. I suppose it's possible for POTUS to have some authority over the state department allowing a Russian investigator, who otherwise could not enter the country, to enter for this purpose. But there is absolutely no way POTUS could cloak the Russian investigator with the authority necessary to compel the appearance of any US citizen for questioning. And there certainly is no way POTUS can order the US citizen to "voluntarily" appear for questioning. This whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.

This was a totally stupid idea to begin with which I chalk up to Trump having zero experience in these mattersI. I think the public reaction to this is even worse. I hear experienced and knowledgeable people comment as if Trump can actually accomplish this. I chalk that up to exploding heads.

Thanks for the movie tip. I saw that movie years ago. Several "old movies" are in my top ten list. The older I become, the more "old movies" there are, so the number of possibilities is always growing.

It sounds to me this “Ambassador” had more business dealings in Russia than a certain President did.... should we be concerned?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

No, the experienced and knowledgeable people are simply stating how stunning it is that the President would even consider the notion at all, the impracticability notwithstanding.

...something about nuance and strong points...

 

[Marvin the Martian]

This is a perfect example of heads exploding.

From the moment I heard Trump speak of this "interesting idea" about allowing the Russians to question our guys while the Russians allowing Mueller to question their guys, I said to myself: "What the f*ck is this?" The President of the United States has absolutely no authority here. There is no possible way POTUS can compel the attendance of any US citizen to be questioned by a foreign government. I suppose it's possible for POTUS to have some authority over the state department allowing a Russian investigator, who otherwise could not enter the country, to enter for this purpose. But there is absolutely no way POTUS could cloak the Russian investigator with the authority necessary to compel the appearance of any US citizen for questioning. And there certainly is no way POTUS can order the US citizen to "voluntarily" appear for questioning. This whole thing is a tempest in a teapot.

This was a totally stupid idea to begin with which I chalk up to Trump having zero experience in these mattersI. I think the public reaction to this is even worse. I hear experienced and knowledgeable people comment as if Trump can actually accomplish this. I chalk that up to exploding heads.

Thanks for the movie tip. I saw that movie years ago. Several "old movies" are in my top ten list. The older I become, the more "old movies" there are, so the number of possibilities is always growing.

Are you sure the president cannot compel? Not the pres personally, but the DOJ can issue a subpoena under article 10 of the mutual legal assistance treaty.

Article 10 addresses the procedures for obtaining testimony
and evidence in the Requested Party. Article 10(1) provides
that a person requested to testify and produce documents,
records, or items in the Requested Party be summoned, if
necessary by subpoena or order, to appear and testify and
produce such documents, records, or items, in accordance with
the requirements of the law of the Requested Party. Article
10(2) further states that, in accordance with procedures used
in the Requested Party, persons present at the execution of a
request must be permitted to pose questions directly or to
formulate questions to be posed to the person being questioned,
and to make a verbatim transcript of the proceeding using, if
necessary, technical means. In the event that a person whose
testimony or evidence is being taken asserts a claim of
immunity,incapacity or privilege under the laws of the
Requesting Party, Article 10(3) provides that the evidence will still
be taken and the claim made known to the Requesting Party for
resolution by its authorities.
​

That same treaty specifically exempts items that fall under national security. I haven't checked, I would assume an ambassador would fall under that or under standard diplomatic immunity. If Trump decides the questioning is important, do you really think DOJ will not pursue it?

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

There is a 1944 movie called Gaslight, I saw it a couple years ago at IU Cinema. The movie involves a husband covering up his crimes by convincing his wife she is going crazy. The movie is where the phrase "gaslighting" comes from.

In today's world, this could be renamed "Heads Exploding". Trump says the stupidest, most outlandish things and people react negatively. Then Trump supporters say "heads exploding". As if the cause is the liberal reaction.

The cause is something like Trump saying he is considering handing over a former US Ambassador to Russia to Russia. That deserves outrage. Turning this back on the outrage us gaslighting, plain and simple.

It really is a good movie, worth seeing.

You’re forgetting, back in the 70s and 80s the “old” movies were from the 30s and 40s. Now the “old” movies are from the 70s and 80s. And the stuff we listened to in jr high is now on the classic rock station.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Are you sure the president cannot compel? Not the pres personally, but the DOJ can issue a subpoena under article 10 of the mutual legal assistance treaty.

Article 10 addresses the procedures for obtaining testimony
and evidence in the Requested Party. Article 10(1) provides
that a person requested to testify and produce documents,
records, or items in the Requested Party be summoned, if
necessary by subpoena or order, to appear and testify and
produce such documents, records, or items, in accordance with
the requirements of the law of the Requested Party. Article
10(2) further states that, in accordance with procedures used
in the Requested Party, persons present at the execution of a
request must be permitted to pose questions directly or to
formulate questions to be posed to the person being questioned,
and to make a verbatim transcript of the proceeding using, if
necessary, technical means. In the event that a person whose
testimony or evidence is being taken asserts a claim of
immunity,incapacity or privilege under the laws of the
Requesting Party, Article 10(3) provides that the evidence will still
be taken and the claim made known to the Requesting Party for
resolution by its authorities.
​

That same treaty specifically exempts items that fall under national security. I haven't checked, I would assume an ambassador would fall under that or under standard diplomatic immunity. If Trump decides the questioning is important, do you really think DOJ will not pursue it?

I assume we have a treaty with Russia about this. Discussing the treaty is way down in the weeds here. POTUS can’t change the treaty or the rights of US citizens under it. Most of these treaties require the US to recognize the suspected activity as a crime. So the treaty probably doesn’t apply.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I assume we have a treaty with Russia about this. Discussing the treaty is way down in the weeds here. POTUS can’t change the treaty or the rights of US citizens under it. Most of these treaties require the US to recognize the suspected activity as a crime. So the treaty probably doesn’t apply.

​

From the treaty:

Legal assistance shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty where the conduct that is the subject of the request constitutes a crime under the laws of both Parties. The Requested Party may, in its discretion, also provide legal assistance where the conduct that is the subject of the request would not constitute a crime under the laws of the Requested Party.​

 

[CO. Hoosier]

​

From the treaty:

Legal assistance shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty where the conduct that is the subject of the request constitutes a crime under the laws of both Parties. The Requested Party may, in its discretion, also provide legal assistance where the conduct that is the subject of the request would not constitute a crime under the laws of the Requested Party.​

The individual still has due process rights and rights under the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.

 

[Bill4411]

You’re forgetting, back in the 70s and 80s the “old” movies were from the 30s and 40s. Now the “old” movies are from the 70s and 80s. And the stuff we listened to in jr high is now on the classic rock station.

You're right but like an old song some of the old movies are the best ones...plus the women in those old movies are often more beautiful than the ones in the newer movies. Aha the old movie studio system where they would pluck a North Carolina hillbilly like Ava Gardner off of her sharecropper father's tabacco farm and turn her into a major star after a talent scout from MGM saw a picture of her in her brother in law's shop window.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The individual still has due process rights and rights under the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.

It is amazing that now we are OK with a president saying that he might accept a US Ambassador being called before a foreign power but of course he gets to exert his 5th amendment right. Just like yesterday you were OK with the president saying we had no real obligation to defend Montenegro even though they are in NATO. You are lowering your standards bigly to carve out Trump exceptions. If Obama had made either of these statements Jade Helm would have had to become a reality to keep the south in the union.

 

[UncleMark]

It is amazing that now we are OK with a president saying that he might accept a US Ambassador being called before a foreign power but of course he gets to exert his 5th amendment right. Just like yesterday you were OK with the president saying we had no real obligation to defend Montenegro even though they are in NATO. You are lowering your standards bigly to carve out Trump exceptions.

Heads Exploding!!!

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

You're right but like an old song some of the old movies are the best ones...plus the women in those old movies are often more beautiful than the ones in the newer movies. Aha the old movie studio system where they would pluck a North Carolina hillbilly like Ava Gardner off of her sharecropper father's tabacco farm and turn her into a major star after a talent scout from MGM saw a picture of her in her brother in law's shop window.

I love the classics. The original 12 Angry Men is one of my all time favorites. It was remade in the late 90s, nowhere near as good.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

It is amazing that now we are OK with a president saying that he might accept a US Ambassador being called before a foreign power but of course he gets to exert his 5th amendment right. Just like yesterday you were OK with the president saying we had no real obligation to defend Montenegro even though they are in NATO. You are lowering your standards bigly to carve out Trump exceptions. If Obama had made either of these statements Jade Helm would have had to become a reality to keep the south in the union.

C'mon Marv! I never said any of those things.

I said POTUS neither could nor SHOULD negotiate the interrogation of any American citizen in foreign affairs. I would add especially for a former ambassador.

I said it was a MISTAKE to have a mutual defense pact with Montenegro. I never said we should not honor it.

I always considered you one of the last refuges of sane discussions here on the Cooler. Don't make me doubt that by reading things into my posts I never said.

 

[Bill4411]

I love the classics. The original 12 Angry Men is one of my all time favorites. It was remade in the late 90s, nowhere near as good.

I love to watch TCM and one gem I discovered recently was "Out of the Past", which apparently is considered one of the great Film Noirs. They tried to remake it in the 1980's in a film called "Against All Odds" but it really didn't measure up to the original.

The original stared Jane Greer, Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas and all were perfect in their roles. I had never heard of Jane Greer before seeing that movie; she was pure evil and an absolute knockout!

 

[Marvin the Martian]

C'mon Marv! I never said any of those things.

I said POTUS neither could nor SHOULD negotiate the interrogation of any American citizen in foreign affairs. I would add especially for a former ambassador.

I said it was a MISTAKE to have a mutual defense pact with Montenegro. I never said we should not honor it.

I always considered you one of the last refuges of sane discussions here on the Cooler. Don't make me doubt that by reading things into my posts I never said.

There is a huge disconnect I see between what you say you are saying and at the same time saying everyone complaining about them are "heads exploding". What am I missing? Is it fair game to suggest a competent US President would not 1) question NATO's defense of a member and 2) not hold WH meetings (per SHS comments yesterday) on having a former ambassador testify? I don't know why it is OK to brush this off with just "inexperience". How is it "heads exploding" to bring these things up? The head exploding is the one that made the statements to begin with.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I love to watch TCM and one gem I discovered recently was "Out of the Past", which apparently is considered one of the great Film Noirs. They tried to remake it in the 1980's in a film called "Against All Odds" but it really didn't measure up to the original.

The original stared Jane Greer, Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas and all were perfect in their roles. I had never heard of Jane Greer before seeing that movie; she was pure evil and an absolute knockout!

They remade a lot of film noir, I don't think any compared to the originals. At least none come to mind.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

There is a huge disconnect I see between what you say you are saying and at the same time saying everyone complaining about them are "heads exploding". What am I missing? Is it fair game to suggest a competent US President would not 1) question NATO's defense of a member and 2) not hold WH meetings (per SHS comments yesterday) on having a former ambassador testify? I don't know why it is OK to brush this off with just "inexperience". How is it "heads exploding" to bring these things up? The head exploding is the one that made the statements to begin with.

I think both issues are an overreaction. That is why I used the term exploding heads.

Do you really think the US will go to war over Montenegro? In any event, we didn't defend Ukraine when Russia occupied some of it despite our agreement to defend Ukraine when it gave up its nukes. Trump's comments about Montenegro are not unprecedented.

 

[hoosboot]

It sounds to me this “Ambassador” had more business dealings in Russia than a certain President did.... should we be concerned?

You forgot the, "but this isn't an attempt at whataboutism."

 

[hoosboot]

There is a huge disconnect I see between what you say you are saying and at the same time saying everyone complaining about them are "heads exploding". What am I missing? Is it fair game to suggest a competent US President would not 1) question NATO's defense of a member and 2) not hold WH meetings (per SHS comments yesterday) on having a former ambassador testify? I don't know why it is OK to brush this off with just "inexperience". How is it "heads exploding" to bring these things up? The head exploding is the one that made the statements to begin with.

While President Trump may or may not have the power to compel the former ambassador to testify, does anyone honestly fool themselves into believing that President Trump doesn't think he has the power to do that. And, ultimately, isn't the problem that his perspective is so bent that he might actually do it if he was able to.

 

[UncleMark]

I think both issues are an overreaction. That is why I used the term exploding heads.

There are very fine people on both sides.

Do you really think the US will go to war over Montenegro? In any event, we didn't defend Ukraine when Russia occupied some of it despite our agreement to defend Ukraine when it gave up its nukes. Trump's comments about Montenegro are not unprecedented.

No matter how outrageous, your default is to at least minimize Trump's behavior, if not condone it.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No matter how outrageous, your default is to at least minimize Trump's behavior, if not condone it.

Ha. I guess from your perspective I minimize Trump's behavior. From my perspective I'm poking fun at those who overreact to every time Trump takes a breath. Our history of disregarding a specific defense agreement and disregarding a specific red line tells me that what Trump said about Montenegro is no biggie.

I have no idea what you mean by "condone" Trump's behavior. I've agreed with a number of his policy initiatives and several appointments. I don't recall ever condoning his BS.

Oh, . . . . .Nuance isn't your strength and your head has exploded.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

While President Trump may or may not have the power to compel the former ambassador to testify, does anyone honestly fool themselves into believing that President Trump doesn't think he has the power to do that. And, ultimately, isn't the problem that his perspective is so bent that he might actually do it if he was able to.

Correct. Trump has often demonstrated ignorance about POTUS authority. He demonstrated that again yesterday when he said Putin is responsible for anything that happens in Russia cuz he is president. I don't think that is correct, but it might be. Then Trump said that was similar to him being responsible for things that happen in the US cuz he is president. That is clearly wrong. Trump probably thinks so long as he has a pen and a phone he can do anything and is responsible for everything.

 

[Bill4411]

I think both issues are an overreaction. That is why I used the term exploding heads.

Do you really think the US will go to war over Montenegro? In any event, we didn't defend Ukraine when Russia occupied some of it despite our agreement to defend Ukraine when it gave up its nukes. Trump's comments about Montenegro are not unprecedented.

But why even say it? Talk about a ridiculous thing to say by a sitting President.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

But why even say it? Talk about a ridiculous thing to say by a sitting President.

No argument here. Trump says so many ridiculous things I can't keep them all straight. I think the difference for me is that the ridiculous things have a short shelf life and only serve those who wake up everyday looking for something new to criticize him for.

 

[Stuffshot]

I haven’t said much about the news conference In Helsinki. But you speak of outrage in your post.... Really? Outrage? It isn’t like he released 5 Combat Commanders responsible for leading attacks on US soldiers in exchange for a traitor and then Trump attempted to make him a hero.... I mean that would be OUTRAGEOUS

This isn’t an attempt at whataboutism... I just find the over the top rhetoric nonsensical.....

Translation of Hoosier Hack's position:

But what about this hypothetical I just made up even though Trump didn't actually say anything resembling this hypothetical I just made up? Let's talk about this hypothetical I just made up instead of talking about what Trump actually threatened to do. We should wait until Trump actually does something outrageous that causes the whole country serious problems that are far more difficult and expensive to correct than simply avoiding those problems ahead of time after Trump has alerted us that he intends to cause them.

And, "this isn't an attempt at whatsboutism," even though that's exactly what it looks like.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

No argument here. Trump says so many ridiculous things I can't keep them all straight. I think the difference for me is that the ridiculous things have a short shelf life and only serve those who wake up everyday looking for something new to criticize him for.

If Trump gets reelected, in 5 more years you will know how you were sounding circa 2015.

 

[Matt Tiger]

Do I like old movies?Does an old bear do his business in the woods?You cant beat King Kong,from 1933,It Happened One Night,The Petrified Forest,Captain Blood,Charge of the Light Brigade,The Adventures of Robin Hood,Angels With Dirty Faces,Stage Coach,Young Mr Lincoln,Drums Along the Mohawk,Destry Rides Again,Mr Smith Goes to Washington,Gone With the Wind,San Francisco,Test Pilot,Boom Town,Northwest PassageHigh Sierra,The Maltese Falcon,Casablanca,Flying Tigers,Now,Voyager,The Sands of Iwo Jima,High Noon,Shane,From Here to Eternity,and The Asphalt Jungle are all classics.They were shows that hold up well because of great acting,dialogue,characters and direction.Now movies rely on sex,violence,gore and filthy language.

 

[hoosboot]

Do I like old movies?Does an old bear do his business in the woods?You cant beat King Kong,from 1933,It Happened One Night,The Petrified Forest,Captain Blood,Charge of the Light Brigade,The Adventures of Robin Hood,Angels With Dirty Faces,Stage Coach,Young Mr Lincoln,Drums Along the Mohawk,Destry Rides Again,Mr Smith Goes to Washington,Gone With the Wind,San Francisco,Test Pilot,Boom Town,Northwest PassageHigh Sierra,The Maltese Falcon,Casablanca,Flying Tigers,Now,Voyager,The Sands of Iwo Jima,High Noon,Shane,From Here to Eternity,and The Asphalt Jungle are all classics.They were shows that hold up well because of great acting,dialogue,characters and direction.Now movies rely on sex,violence,gore and filthy language.

You should get out to see more movies.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Do I like old movies?Does an old bear do his business in the woods?You cant beat King Kong,from 1933,It Happened One Night,The Petrified Forest,Captain Blood,Charge of the Light Brigade,The Adventures of Robin Hood,Angels With Dirty Faces,Stage Coach,Young Mr Lincoln,Drums Along the Mohawk,Destry Rides Again,Mr Smith Goes to Washington,Gone With the Wind,San Francisco,Test Pilot,Boom Town,Northwest PassageHigh Sierra,The Maltese Falcon,Casablanca,Flying Tigers,Now,Voyager,The Sands of Iwo Jima,High Noon,Shane,From Here to Eternity,and The Asphalt Jungle are all classics.They were shows that hold up well because of great acting,dialogue,characters and direction.Now movies rely on sex,violence,gore and filthy language.

There isn't a single Marx Brothers movie in that list, for shame.

I think there is a type of bias against modern films. We mainly see the great old movies today, the crappy ones are stored in vaults. Or are destroyed as most silent movies were destroyed. But in today's movies, we see the good and the bad. It makes it seem like all the old movies were Casablanca and all modern movies are The Emoji Movie.

Oh, and Gone with the Wind is horrible. Hate to say it, I know some people really love it. But it is bad.

 

[Bill4411]

You should get out to see more movies.

I understand what you are saying but there are so many great and interesting movies that were made before I was born that there has to be something awfully good for me to head to the theater.

 

[Bill4411]

There isn't a single Marx Brothers movie in that list, for shame.

I think there is a type of bias against modern films. We mainly see the great old movies today, the crappy ones are stored in vaults. Or are destroyed as most silent movies were destroyed. But in today's movies, we see the good and the bad. It makes it seem like all the old movies were Casablanca and all modern movies are The Emoji Movie.

Oh, and Gone with the Wind is horrible. Hate to say it, I know some people really love it. But it is bad.

I agree GWTW is horribly dated but there aren’t many funnier movies than, “Bringing up baby”, “Harvey” or “Arsenic and old Lace” and they don’t resort to bodily functions to supply the humor.

 

[hoosboot]

There isn't a single Marx Brothers movie in that list, for shame.

I think there is a type of bias against modern films. We mainly see the great old movies today, the crappy ones are stored in vaults. Or are destroyed as most silent movies were destroyed. But in today's movies, we see the good and the bad. It makes it seem like all the old movies were Casablanca and all modern movies are The Emoji Movie.

Oh, and Gone with the Wind is horrible. Hate to say it, I know some people really love it. But it is bad.

Why you gotta hate on The Emoji Movie like that? :>)

Great point. I invite my friends to go back and watch Cannonball Run II. It's great evidence of heavy drug use in the movie business of the 80's. And other than the occasional "Right turn, Clyde", most of Clint Eastwood's movies before Unforgiven are unforgivable. You can't even understand the lyrics in that rock and roll music the kids listen to these days!

 

[Bill4411]

They remade a lot of film noir, I don't think any compared to the originals. At least none come to mind.

Oddly the Maltese Falcon had been made 3 times before until they got it so right in the Humphrey Bogart version they never tried doing it again. I have probably watched that movie 7 or 8 times and never tire of seeing Mary Astor, Sidney Greenstreet, and Peter Lorre in addition to Bogey.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Oddly the Maltese Falcon had been made 3 times before until they got it so right in the Humphrey Bogart version they never tried doing it again. I have probably watched that movie 7 or 8 times and never tire of seeing Mary Astor, Sidney Greenstreet, and Peter Lorre in addition to Bogey.

Bloomington Humanities Center did a film noir class earlier this year, Maltese was the first movie covered. I like the movie, I hadn't seen it a couple decades. It is true that a lot of the classics we remember were remakes, 1944's Gaslight I used to open with was a remake.

 

[Bill4411]

Bloomington Humanities Center did a film noir class earlier this year, Maltese was the first movie covered. I like the movie, I hadn't seen it a couple decades. It is true that a lot of the classics we remember were remakes, 1944's Gaslight I used to open with was a remake.

Yes it was from I believe a 1940 French film, as was Algiers that was shot for shot the same as the French film and Algiers was the model according to the writers for Casablanca although I never thought they seemed that much alike. Algiers had a very sad ending for Pepe who was the model for one famously romantic skunk that had a Charles Boyer accent.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On old movies, for the sake of argument, let's start the definition at pre-1965. You are stuck in a cave in Thailand and the rescue diver can bring you one movie to watch. They have a great collection, but it is all pre-1965. What do you have him bring you?

For me it is The Longest Day. I know I can watch that movie over and over and not get sick of it. If it were just a one time viewing, probably Duck Soup.

While not a movie, but I theorize people who love old movies are also Bob Newhart fans. I see he has a series of interviews on Audible called Hi Bob. He interviews some celebrities like Conan O'Brien, Will Ferrell, Jimmy Kimmel, and others. I am in the middle of a book on Audible, but that is next.