And the best Black and White movie ever is:

[JJ88]

I've rekindled my love of Westerns over the last year or so. Of those, I can't get away from nominating High Noon in relation to this thread. Just a terrific film all round. (I'm a big fan of another. later Gary Cooper one Man Of The West, but that's not B&W.)

[ronmac]

Stupid times demand stupid entertainment. I admit that Spaceballs is incredibly weak and KFM is peak sophomoric humor but I did see it with a gang of frat brothers when I was in college. It spoke to this band of drunken youths like an oracle. Top Secret. on the other hand, is nonstop hilarious. And if one joke doesn't work for you, there's another coming in 60 seconds. I remember Siskel and Ebert reviewing it and they spent most of the review just laughing and quoting their favorite bits. The East German Women's Swim Team. Latrine and Chocolate Mousse. The Cow! The Swedish bookstore. It means 'one whose bosoms defy gravity". Oh, and the goddamn Ford Pinto.

Can't say I ever saw Top Secret. I refuse to was Spaceballs.

I've rekindled my love of Westerns over the last year or so. Of those, I can't get away from nominating High Noon in relation to this thread. Just a terrific film all round. (I'm a big fan of another. later Gary Cooper one Man Of The West, but that's not B&W.)

Gary Cooper does nothing for me. I know he's well-loved and highly regarded, but I find him to be a dull and bland actor.

[Hal...]

When I was on a ship in the CG, we would borrow about 20 movies on VHS before a multi-month patrol. Spaceballs and Top Secret were two that we got. During an assignment at sea, some of those movies would be seen more than once. Spaceballs was one I never finished and never wanted to. Rick Moranis was the only thing funny in it and half the time he wasn't. After Young Frankenstein, nothing Mel Brooks ever did I found amusing.

As much as I wanted to like Top Secret, I didn't. The only thing I laughed at was the cow in galoshes.

Now, Kentucky Fried Movie is one I'm very fond of, which I saw at the drive-in, the first of a double feature with The Groove Tube, which I thought was mostly stupid. There are a lot of skits in KFM that didn't work and some that haven't aged well. "High Adventure" still holds up as does the commercial "Household Odors". There are some others but the best bits are the 'movie' "Fistful of Yen", the commercials "Scott Free" (which I still think is fucking brilliant; that's a link to the YouTube video of it, btw) and "United Appeal for the Dead", which has the best laugh in the whole movie. The skit "Eyewitness News" at the end is quite funny, too.

[ronmac]

After Young Frankenstein, nothing Mel Brooks ever did I found amusing.

I'm inclined to agree about the ones I've seen.

We watched "High Anxiety" a few weeks ago for movie night. It was my wife's choice. It was beyond terrible. And I also learned that Mel Brooks was a terrible actor.

Now, Kentucky Fried Movie is one I'm very fond of, which I saw at the drive-in, the first of a double feature with The Groove Tube, which I thought was mostly stupid. .

"The Groove Tube" was a CLASSIC! Seriously, though, I haven't seen it since I was a teen.

[ronmac]

Svenghoulie is showing a classic tonight. “The Old Dark House” (1932). Directed by James Whale with a cast that includes Boris Karloff, Charles Laughton, Melvyn Douglas, Gloria Stuart and others you know. It’s a solid 3-1/2 stars and introduced many of the haunted house movie cliches that are still widely used today.

This is rarely shown on TV and worth checking out.

HOWEVER, this is a very short movie, clocking in at one hour and 11 minutes. That means more than half of the 2-1/2-hour broadcast will be commercials and inane, unfunny skits.

Consider yourselves warned.

[JKL2000]

Can't say I ever saw Top Secret. I refuse to was Spaceballs.



Gary Cooper does nothing for me. I know he's well-loved and highly regarded, but I find him to be a dull and bland actor.

Have you seen Sergeant York? Cooper doesn’t have the appeal of Jimmy Stewart, I agree with you, and in a film like Mr Deeds… he’s pretty bland, but in Sgt York I think he’s a good choice for the lead.

[ronmac]

Have you seen Sergeant York? Cooper doesn’t have the appeal of Jimmy Stewart, I agree with you, and in a film like Mr Deeds… he’s pretty bland, but in Sgt York I think he’s a good choice for the lead.

Yes, I've seen it. It's been a very long time. I mean, his demeanor was perfect for a number of roles. He just tends to leave me a bit flat.

[Hal...]

I refer to Cooper as "Mr Cardboard". But, as Jed said, he was great in Sergeant York.

My dad thought Harrison Ford was the same.

[nycsteve]

Ford can be one dimensional to. But he can also loosen up. Star Wars , Indiana Jones.
Alot of Costner also.

[ronmac]

I refer to Cooper as "Mr Cardboard". But, as Jed said, he was great in Sergeant York.

My dad thought Harrison Ford was the same.

I tend to agree with your dad.

[JJ88]

I have a lot of time for Cooper but my main knowledge of his work comes down to his Westerns, which I should remedy. I saw an early one of his last year, The Plainsman, with Jean Arthur. He was Wild Bill Hickok and she was Calamity Jane. (The film was nothing special.)

Talking of Jean Arthur, I watched Mr. Smith Goes To Washington on the weekend and thought that was really great.

[nycsteve]

Jean Arthur had that certain something.

[ronmac]

Jean Arthur had that certain something.

Yeah, she was great.

[ronmac]

I saw an early one of his last year, The Plainsman, with Jean Arthur. He was Wild Bill Hickok and she was Calamity Jane. (The film was nothing special.)

Gary Cooper as Wild Bill Hickok just doesn't sound right.

[boilk]

Svenghoulie is showing a classic tonight. “The Old Dark House” (1932). Directed by James Whale with a cast that includes Boris Karloff, Charles Laughton, Melvyn Douglas, Gloria Stuart and others you know. It’s a solid 3-1/2 stars and introduced many of the haunted house movie cliches that are still widely used today.

This is rarely shown on TV and worth checking out.

HOWEVER, this is a very short movie, clocking in at one hour and 11 minutes. That means more than half of the 2-1/2-hour broadcast will be commercials and inane, unfunny skits.

Consider yourselves warned.

Big fan of this over-looked gem in Universal's early 30s horror classics run. Amazing cast, as you mentioned and James Whale is at his usual high-standard of direction. The atmosphere is palpably thick, and the sheer number of odd-ball characters on display makes it a delight.

I think that horror hosts are a real hoot, but it's hard for me, in the modern age, to even conceive of watching a movie with commercials anymore.

Neil

[TheLoony]

Hal, thanks for the tips on Hitchcock flicks but unless I buy them on dvd I ain't a gonna see them. Not spending money on dvd's any more unless I absolutely have to have it because I already have a bunch that I will never watch again. Unless I get lucky in my guide searches and come across them.

I did do a search on The Birds as I'd wondered for years how that movie was made and it turned out to be crazier than I expected. Did find the short story and read that but have yet to find it to watch.

[ronmac]

^^ TCM shows Hitchcock flicks all the time.

[JJ88]

Jean Arthur had that certain something.

Definitely. I thought she gave a terrific performance in Mr. Smith...and not unpleasing to the eye.

[boilk]

Hal, thanks for the tips on Hitchcock flicks but unless I buy them on dvd I ain't a gonna see them. Not spending money on dvd's any more unless I absolutely have to have it because I already have a bunch that I will never watch again. Unless I get lucky in my guide searches and come across them.

I did do a search on The Birds as I'd wondered for years how that movie was made and it turned out to be crazier than I expected. Did find the short story and read that but have yet to find it to watch.

There are a bunch of older Hitch flicks up on youtube, if that helps any.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...z7lOkFhMt7Lu_9

Neil

[ronmac]

[JKL2000]

^ Queen Christina looks like fun!

[Hal...]

I don't know why but that scene from Frankenstein always makes me laugh.

[ronmac]

I don't know why but that scene from Frankenstein always makes me laugh.

That scene is genius, as it gets us to sympathize with who we thought was a monster. And it's a travesty that it was censored to completely change the meaning of it.

[Hal...]

I agree, but only to an extent. The first time I saw the movie, that scene wasn't in it. But (a) I saw that he had a child-like innocence when throwing daisies in the water, so the intent to sympathize wasn't lost, and (b) I don't think it completely changed the meaning of the scene. No, we don't see his confusion over what just happened nor do we see his remorse/panic. We do, however, fill in the missing piece. That is, that he killed her. In the censored version, the reason is a mystery. And yes, that changes the narrative a bit, but only a bit. And in one respect it also strengthens our understanding that he's an abomination, moreso than the uncensored version. Whether he kills accidentally or on purpose is, ultimately, immaterial.

When I did see the restored version, a few years after, I didn't really have any epiphany or anything. The movie does work much better with it intact – sorta. But I don't think the censored version is horrible. Indeed, if you look closely, you can tell James Whale edited the movie, a form of self-censorship one could say. I'd wager large sums that he filmed the girl thrashing about in the water just before she drowns. If true, I'd argue the scene is more impactful with that included. The fact that it isn't makes me feel the Hays censoring isn't all that bad. And as I said, in subsequent viewings I found that scene humorous... and still do; it never fails to make me laugh (it has to do with how the girl flips over, falling face first, spread eagle). So, in that respect, it doesn't work. It's a perfect example of an unintentional laugh. Of course, I'm viewing it from the perspective of late 20th/early 21st century standards. Had I seen the intact version in 1931, I might have a different opinion.

[boilk]

I agree, but only to an extent. The first time I saw the movie, that scene wasn't in it. But (a) I saw that he had a child-like innocence when throwing daisies in the water, so the intent to sympathize wasn't lost, and (b) I don't think it completely changed the meaning of the scene. No, we don't see his confusion over what just happened nor do we see his remorse/panic. We do, however, fill in the missing piece. That is, that he killed her. In the censored version, the reason is a mystery. And yes, that changes the narrative a bit, but only a bit. And in one respect it also strengthens our understanding that he's an abomination, moreso than the uncensored version. Whether he kills accidentally or on purpose is, ultimately, immaterial.

When I did see the restored version, a few years after, I didn't really have any epiphany or anything. The movie does work much better with it intact – sorta. But I don't think the censored version is horrible. Indeed, if you look closely, you can tell James Whale edited the movie, a form of self-censorship one could say. I'd wager large sums that he filmed the girl thrashing about in the water just before she drowns. If true, I'd argue the scene is more impactful with that included. The fact that it isn't makes me feel the Hays censoring isn't all that bad. And as I said, in subsequent viewings I found that scene humorous... and still do; it never fails to make me laugh (it has to do with how the girl flips over, falling face first, spread eagle). So, in that respect, it doesn't work. It's a perfect example of an unintentional laugh. Of course, I'm viewing it from the perspective of late 20th/early 21st century standards. Had I seen the intact version in 1931, I might have a different opinion.

Interesting, but you are the first person that I've ever heard of who thinks that scene is a 'perfect example of an unintentional laugh'. It is, after all, a small child thrown to her death in a lake, in a serious movie. Yes, it is certainly possible to fill in the missing piece without the scene, but I don't agree at all, that whether he kills her accidently, or on purpose is immaterial. It's hugely material that the monster is only violent, when he is treated in kind; that was a crucial point. Just like with the blind hermit in Brides. He would never have killed pretty much the only friend he ever had.

James Whale may have intended for the scene to be a bit more violent, but Karloff was very much against it. I'd very much doubt that Whale filmed a more extreme version, myself.

Definitely a classic that was, to me, light years beyond Dracula in many ways.

Neil