I saw this much later as this was before my time, but I still enjoyed
it a lot.
Not sure how it will hold up today though. :)
One episode that I really liked was "Ransom For a Dead Man". Peter Falk
was great, as usual, but I thought Lee Grant was fantastic (and
beautiful too).
I was watching this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3-mP-li_tk
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:58:55 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:44:34 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
I saw this much later as this was before my time, but I still enjoyed
it a lot.
Not sure how it will hold up today though. :)
One episode that I really liked was "Ransom For a Dead Man". Peter Falk was great, as usual, but I thought Lee Grant was fantastic (and beautiful too).
I was watching this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3-mP-li_tk
They had both William Shatner and Johnny Cash as the villains on separate occasions. Excellent television.
Probably the best was Jack Cassidy. I think they used him three times. Nichol Williamson also was great.
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:44:34 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
I saw this much later as this was before my time, but I still enjoyed
it a lot.
Not sure how it will hold up today though. :)
One episode that I really liked was "Ransom For a Dead Man". Peter Falk was great, as usual, but I thought Lee Grant was fantastic (and
beautiful too).
I was watching this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3-mP-li_tk
They had both William Shatner and Johnny Cash as the villains on separate occasions. Excellent television.
I saw this much later as this was before my time, but I still enjoyedit a lot.Not sure how it will hold up today though. :)One episode that I really liked was "Ransom For a Dead Man". Peter Falkwas great, as usual, but I thought Lee Grant was fantastic(andbeautiful too).I was watching this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3-mP-li_tk
On 9/21/23 4:31 PM, Gracchus wrote:the villains would end up free via acquittals, mistrials, or dismissals.
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:15:23 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:58:55 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:Must say, though, that as fun as those episodes were (and they are still highly enjoyable), you see them today through a different lens after years of greater exposure to trial coverage. Many of Columbo's "gotchas" would never hold up in court and
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:44:34 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote: >>>> I saw this much later as this was before my time, but I still enjoyed >>>> it a lot.Probably the best was Jack Cassidy. I think they used him three times. Nichol Williamson also was great.
They had both William Shatner and Johnny Cash as the villains on separate occasions. Excellent television.
Not sure how it will hold up today though. :)
One episode that I really liked was "Ransom For a Dead Man". Peter Falk >>>> was great, as usual, but I thought Lee Grant was fantastic (and
beautiful too).
I was watching this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3-mP-li_tk
confession once police confront them with an inconsistency in their story. They either do this without a lawyer present or disregard their lawyer's explicit warning to shut up. It makes for an easy cut-and-dried ending, however incredibly stupid theBut I'd still rather watch these any day than the "Law and Order" crap which more often than not follows a more convoluted version of the Perry Mason template wherein the villains--no matter how clever--go into a fugue state and make a full
This implies that much of the difference is in the viewers.
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:15:23 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:villains would end up free via acquittals, mistrials, or dismissals.
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:58:55 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:Must say, though, that as fun as those episodes were (and they are still highly enjoyable), you see them today through a different lens after years of greater exposure to trial coverage. Many of Columbo's "gotchas" would never hold up in court and the
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:44:34 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:Probably the best was Jack Cassidy. I think they used him three times. Nichol Williamson also was great.
I saw this much later as this was before my time, but I still enjoyedThey had both William Shatner and Johnny Cash as the villains on separate occasions. Excellent television.
it a lot.
Not sure how it will hold up today though. :)
One episode that I really liked was "Ransom For a Dead Man". Peter Falk >>>> was great, as usual, but I thought Lee Grant was fantastic (and
beautiful too).
I was watching this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3-mP-li_tk
But I'd still rather watch these any day than the "Law and Order" crap which more often than not follows a more convoluted version of the Perry Mason template wherein the villains--no matter how clever--go into a fugue state and make a full confessiononce police confront them with an inconsistency in their story. They either do this without a lawyer present or disregard their lawyer's explicit warning to shut up. It makes for an easy cut-and-dried ending, however incredibly stupid the scenario, and
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:58:55 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:44:34 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
I saw this much later as this was before my time, but I still enjoyed
it a lot.
Not sure how it will hold up today though. :)
One episode that I really liked was "Ransom For a Dead Man". Peter Falk
was great, as usual, but I thought Lee Grant was fantastic (and
beautiful too).
I was watching this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3-mP-li_tk
They had both William Shatner and Johnny Cash as the villains on separate occasions. Excellent television.
Probably the best was Jack Cassidy. I think they used him three times. Nichol Williamson also was great.
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:38:03 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:the villains would end up free via acquittals, mistrials, or dismissals.
On 9/21/23 4:31 PM, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:15:23 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:58:55 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:Must say, though, that as fun as those episodes were (and they are still highly enjoyable), you see them today through a different lens after years of greater exposure to trial coverage. Many of Columbo's "gotchas" would never hold up in court and
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:44:34 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote: >>>>>> I saw this much later as this was before my time, but I still enjoyed >>>>>> it a lot.Probably the best was Jack Cassidy. I think they used him three times. Nichol Williamson also was great.
They had both William Shatner and Johnny Cash as the villains on separate occasions. Excellent television.
Not sure how it will hold up today though. :)
One episode that I really liked was "Ransom For a Dead Man". Peter Falk >>>>>> was great, as usual, but I thought Lee Grant was fantastic (and
beautiful too).
I was watching this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3-mP-li_tk
confession once police confront them with an inconsistency in their story. They either do this without a lawyer present or disregard their lawyer's explicit warning to shut up. It makes for an easy cut-and-dried ending, however incredibly stupid the
But I'd still rather watch these any day than the "Law and Order" crap which more often than not follows a more convoluted version of the Perry Mason template wherein the villains--no matter how clever--go into a fugue state and make a full
This implies that much of the difference is in the viewers.
That's true. I may be speaking for myself in the different view of "Columbo" then versus now.
On 9/21/2023 6:41 PM, Gracchus wrote:the villains would end up free via acquittals, mistrials, or dismissals.
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:38:03 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/21/23 4:31 PM, Gracchus wrote:
Must say, though, that as fun as those episodes were (and they are still highly enjoyable), you see them today through a different lens after years of greater exposure to trial coverage. Many of Columbo's "gotchas" would never hold up in court and
confession once police confront them with an inconsistency in their story. They either do this without a lawyer present or disregard their lawyer's explicit warning to shut up. It makes for an easy cut-and-dried ending, however incredibly stupid the
But I'd still rather watch these any day than the "Law and Order" crap which more often than not follows a more convoluted version of the Perry Mason template wherein the villains--no matter how clever--go into a fugue state and make a full
This implies that much of the difference is in the viewers.
That's true. I may be speaking for myself in the different view of "Columbo" then versus now.
I have enjoyed Law and Order (original series only) a lot over the
years. But I also knew in reality that defendants almost never take the stand; yet in the show it seemed to happen almost 100% of the time.
Perhaps it was to 'conclude' a concrete win at the end of the show so
the viewer isn't left hanging. Regardless, it's not accurate to real
life trials, from what little I know about them.
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:15:23 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:villains would end up free via acquittals, mistrials, or dismissals.
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:58:55 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:44:34 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
I saw this much later as this was before my time, but I still enjoyed it a lot.
Not sure how it will hold up today though. :)
One episode that I really liked was "Ransom For a Dead Man". Peter Falk
was great, as usual, but I thought Lee Grant was fantastic (and beautiful too).
I was watching this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3-mP-li_tk
They had both William Shatner and Johnny Cash as the villains on separate occasions. Excellent television.
Probably the best was Jack Cassidy. I think they used him three times. Nichol Williamson also was great.Must say, though, that as fun as those episodes were (and they are still highly enjoyable), you see them today through a different lens after years of greater exposure to trial coverage. Many of Columbo's "gotchas" would never hold up in court and the
But I'd still rather watch these any day than the "Law and Order" crap which more often than not follows a more convoluted version of the Perry Mason template wherein the villains--no matter how clever--go into a fugue state and make a full confessiononce police confront them with an inconsistency in their story. They either do this without a lawyer present or disregard their lawyer's explicit warning to shut up. It makes for an easy cut-and-dried ending, however incredibly stupid the scenario, and
On 9/21/2023 6:15 PM, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:58:55 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:44:34 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
I saw this much later as this was before my time, but I still enjoyed >>> it a lot.
Not sure how it will hold up today though. :)
One episode that I really liked was "Ransom For a Dead Man". Peter Falk >>> was great, as usual, but I thought Lee Grant was fantastic (and
beautiful too).
I was watching this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3-mP-li_tk
They had both William Shatner and Johnny Cash as the villains on separate occasions. Excellent television.
Probably the best was Jack Cassidy. I think they used him three times. Nichol Williamson also was great.Columbo was an awesome show! Amazing how the viewer knew the actual
villain within the first two minutes and yet the suspense was incredible until Detective Columbo finally presented his findings to the villain.
No other show, that I am aware of, did that back then (and usually to
this day). Superb television!
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:31:50 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:the villains would end up free via acquittals, mistrials, or dismissals.
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 4:15:23 PM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:58:55 PM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 3:44:34 PM UTC-7, Shakes wrote:
I saw this much later as this was before my time, but I still enjoyed
it a lot.
Not sure how it will hold up today though. :)
One episode that I really liked was "Ransom For a Dead Man". Peter Falk
was great, as usual, but I thought Lee Grant was fantastic (and beautiful too).
I was watching this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3-mP-li_tk
They had both William Shatner and Johnny Cash as the villains on separate occasions. Excellent television.
Probably the best was Jack Cassidy. I think they used him three times. Nichol Williamson also was great.Must say, though, that as fun as those episodes were (and they are still highly enjoyable), you see them today through a different lens after years of greater exposure to trial coverage. Many of Columbo's "gotchas" would never hold up in court and
Doesn't matter. His pestering was so annoying that they confessed rather than having to keep listening to him :-)confession once police confront them with an inconsistency in their story. They either do this without a lawyer present or disregard their lawyer's explicit warning to shut up. It makes for an easy cut-and-dried ending, however incredibly stupid the
"Oh yeah, one more thing."
But I'd still rather watch these any day than the "Law and Order" crap which more often than not follows a more convoluted version of the Perry Mason template wherein the villains--no matter how clever--go into a fugue state and make a full
yes also why would they end up mistrials when the "boys down the lab" often proved stuff too? would just need to get Quincy to help out a bit.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 4:53:45 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 3:50:46 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
the guy into custody. A good defense attorney would have loads to work with in those situations. But hey, I still love the lieutenant.yes also why would they end up mistrials when the "boys down the lab" often proved stuff too? would just need to get Quincy to help out a bit.Sometimes they did have stuff like fingerprint and ballistics evidence, yes. I just remember a lot of Columbo endings where he trips the villain up on his story and then explains the chain of logic solving the mystery before uniformed officers take
You are right, but Columbo never gave up.
Did you know that Peter Falk had a glass eye? Rumor has it that was playing baseball and the ump called him out, and Peter Falk looked at the umpire, took his glass eye out and handed it to him, saying "You need this more than I do".
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 3:50:46 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
guy into custody. A good defense attorney would have loads to work with in those situations. But hey, I still love the lieutenant.yes also why would they end up mistrials when the "boys down the lab" often proved stuff too? would just need to get Quincy to help out a bit.Sometimes they did have stuff like fingerprint and ballistics evidence, yes. I just remember a lot of Columbo endings where he trips the villain up on his story and then explains the chain of logic solving the mystery before uniformed officers take the
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:16:37 AM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 4:53:45 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 3:50:46 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
the guy into custody. A good defense attorney would have loads to work with in those situations. But hey, I still love the lieutenant.yes also why would they end up mistrials when the "boys down the lab" often proved stuff too? would just need to get Quincy to help out a bit.Sometimes they did have stuff like fingerprint and ballistics evidence, yes. I just remember a lot of Columbo endings where he trips the villain up on his story and then explains the chain of logic solving the mystery before uniformed officers take
You are right, but Columbo never gave up.
Did you know that Peter Falk had a glass eye? Rumor has it that was playing baseball and the ump called him out, and Peter Falk looked at the umpire, took his glass eye out and handed it to him, saying "You need this more than I do".Falk, Gazzara and Cassavetes were three good pals, fine actors!
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:19:57 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:the guy into custody. A good defense attorney would have loads to work with in those situations. But hey, I still love the lieutenant.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:16:37 AM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 4:53:45 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 3:50:46 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>
yes also why would they end up mistrials when the "boys down the lab" often proved stuff too? would just need to get Quincy to help out a bit.Sometimes they did have stuff like fingerprint and ballistics evidence, yes. I just remember a lot of Columbo endings where he trips the villain up on his story and then explains the chain of logic solving the mystery before uniformed officers take
You are right, but Columbo never gave up.Falk, Gazzara and Cassavetes were three good pals, fine actors!
Did you know that Peter Falk had a glass eye? Rumor has it that was playing baseball and the ump called him out, and Peter Falk looked at the umpire, took his glass eye out and handed it to him, saying "You need this more than I do".
Peter Falk was in an interesting Wim Wenders movie called Wings of Desire, which included Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds.
bmoore kirjoitti 22.9.2023 klo 17.30:take the guy into custody. A good defense attorney would have loads to work with in those situations. But hey, I still love the lieutenant.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:19:57 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:16:37 AM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 4:53:45 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote: >>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 3:50:46 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>
yes also why would they end up mistrials when the "boys down the lab" often proved stuff too? would just need to get Quincy to help out a bit.Sometimes they did have stuff like fingerprint and ballistics evidence, yes. I just remember a lot of Columbo endings where he trips the villain up on his story and then explains the chain of logic solving the mystery before uniformed officers
You are right, but Columbo never gave up.Falk, Gazzara and Cassavetes were three good pals, fine actors!
Did you know that Peter Falk had a glass eye? Rumor has it that was playing baseball and the ump called him out, and Peter Falk looked at the umpire, took his glass eye out and handed it to him, saying "You need this more than I do".
Peter Falk was in an interesting Wim Wenders movie called Wings of Desire, which included Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds.Horrible, horribly pretentious movie.
There's also a Hollywood remake, with two of the most luminous stars of
20th century...
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120632/
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:42:26 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:take the guy into custody. A good defense attorney would have loads to work with in those situations. But hey, I still love the lieutenant.
bmoore kirjoitti 22.9.2023 klo 17.30:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:19:57 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:16:37 AM UTC-4, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 4:53:45 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 3:50:46 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote: >>>>>>
yes also why would they end up mistrials when the "boys down the lab" often proved stuff too? would just need to get Quincy to help out a bit.Sometimes they did have stuff like fingerprint and ballistics evidence, yes. I just remember a lot of Columbo endings where he trips the villain up on his story and then explains the chain of logic solving the mystery before uniformed officers
Heh. Maybe you would enjoy the In-Laws, then? Peter Falk and Alan Arkin.Horrible, horribly pretentious movie.Peter Falk was in an interesting Wim Wenders movie called Wings of Desire, which included Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds.You are right, but Columbo never gave up.Falk, Gazzara and Cassavetes were three good pals, fine actors!
Did you know that Peter Falk had a glass eye? Rumor has it that was playing baseball and the ump called him out, and Peter Falk looked at the umpire, took his glass eye out and handed it to him, saying "You need this more than I do".
There's also a Hollywood remake, with two of the most luminous stars ofHollywood doesn't do pretentious as well as the Germans do :-)
20th century...
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120632/
On 9/22/23 11:15 AM, bmoore wrote:take the guy into custody. A good defense attorney would have loads to work with in those situations. But hey, I still love the lieutenant.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:42:26 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 22.9.2023 klo 17.30:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:19:57 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:16:37 AM UTC-4, bmoore wrote: >>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 4:53:45 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 3:50:46 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
yes also why would they end up mistrials when the "boys down the lab" often proved stuff too? would just need to get Quincy to help out a bit.Sometimes they did have stuff like fingerprint and ballistics evidence, yes. I just remember a lot of Columbo endings where he trips the villain up on his story and then explains the chain of logic solving the mystery before uniformed officers
Heh. Maybe you would enjoy the In-Laws, then? Peter Falk and Alan Arkin.Horrible, horribly pretentious movie.Peter Falk was in an interesting Wim Wenders movie called Wings of Desire, which included Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds.You are right, but Columbo never gave up.Falk, Gazzara and Cassavetes were three good pals, fine actors!
Did you know that Peter Falk had a glass eye? Rumor has it that was playing baseball and the ump called him out, and Peter Falk looked at the umpire, took his glass eye out and handed it to him, saying "You need this more than I do".
There's also a Hollywood remake, with two of the most luminous stars of >> 20th century...Hollywood doesn't do pretentious as well as the Germans do :-)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120632/
I never had any connection, at all, to Wenders' stuff.
FWIW, I can easily connect to Werner Herzog's body of work, which is
sort of an idiosyncratic exploration of the strange and quirky aspect of humans--maybe a sort of meta exploration of quirkiness? First one I saw
was Aguirre, and I could connect in some fashion to all of the others, although he is often too self-indulgent (he likes approach and I don't
like it so much).
I think he did that film about a guy who saw himself as a grizzly bear
at heart--perhaps mis-assigned at birth to the wrong species by the delivering physician.
A truly tragic case of inappropriate self-identification.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:40:57 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:take the guy into custody. A good defense attorney would have loads to work with in those situations. But hey, I still love the lieutenant.
On 9/22/23 11:15 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:42:26 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 22.9.2023 klo 17.30:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:19:57 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:16:37 AM UTC-4, bmoore wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 4:53:45 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 3:50:46 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
yes also why would they end up mistrials when the "boys down the lab" often proved stuff too? would just need to get Quincy to help out a bit.Sometimes they did have stuff like fingerprint and ballistics evidence, yes. I just remember a lot of Columbo endings where he trips the villain up on his story and then explains the chain of logic solving the mystery before uniformed officers
The bear movie!I never had any connection, at all, to Wenders' stuff.Heh. Maybe you would enjoy the In-Laws, then? Peter Falk and Alan Arkin. >>>Horrible, horribly pretentious movie.Peter Falk was in an interesting Wim Wenders movie called Wings of Desire, which included Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds.You are right, but Columbo never gave up.Falk, Gazzara and Cassavetes were three good pals, fine actors!
Did you know that Peter Falk had a glass eye? Rumor has it that was playing baseball and the ump called him out, and Peter Falk looked at the umpire, took his glass eye out and handed it to him, saying "You need this more than I do".
There's also a Hollywood remake, with two of the most luminous stars of >>>> 20th century...Hollywood doesn't do pretentious as well as the Germans do :-)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120632/
FWIW, I can easily connect to Werner Herzog's body of work, which is
sort of an idiosyncratic exploration of the strange and quirky aspect of
humans--maybe a sort of meta exploration of quirkiness? First one I saw
was Aguirre, and I could connect in some fashion to all of the others,
although he is often too self-indulgent (he likes approach and I don't
like it so much).
I think he did that film about a guy who saw himself as a grizzly bear
at heart--perhaps mis-assigned at birth to the wrong species by the
delivering physician.
A truly tragic case of inappropriate self-identification.
Yes, another example of weird directors. A weird and poignant story. And yes, quite tragic.
On 9/22/23 1:49 PM, bmoore wrote:take the guy into custody. A good defense attorney would have loads to work with in those situations. But hey, I still love the lieutenant.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:40:57 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/22/23 11:15 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:42:26 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 22.9.2023 klo 17.30:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:19:57 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:16:37 AM UTC-4, bmoore wrote: >>>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 4:53:45 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote: >>>>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 3:50:46 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
yes also why would they end up mistrials when the "boys down the lab" often proved stuff too? would just need to get Quincy to help out a bit.Sometimes they did have stuff like fingerprint and ballistics evidence, yes. I just remember a lot of Columbo endings where he trips the villain up on his story and then explains the chain of logic solving the mystery before uniformed officers
The bear movie!I never had any connection, at all, to Wenders' stuff.Heh. Maybe you would enjoy the In-Laws, then? Peter Falk and Alan Arkin. >>>Horrible, horribly pretentious movie.Peter Falk was in an interesting Wim Wenders movie called Wings of Desire, which included Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds.You are right, but Columbo never gave up.Falk, Gazzara and Cassavetes were three good pals, fine actors!
Did you know that Peter Falk had a glass eye? Rumor has it that was playing baseball and the ump called him out, and Peter Falk looked at the umpire, took his glass eye out and handed it to him, saying "You need this more than I do".
There's also a Hollywood remake, with two of the most luminous stars of >>>> 20th century...Hollywood doesn't do pretentious as well as the Germans do :-)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120632/
FWIW, I can easily connect to Werner Herzog's body of work, which is
sort of an idiosyncratic exploration of the strange and quirky aspect of >> humans--maybe a sort of meta exploration of quirkiness? First one I saw >> was Aguirre, and I could connect in some fashion to all of the others,
although he is often too self-indulgent (he likes approach and I don't
like it so much).
I think he did that film about a guy who saw himself as a grizzly bear
at heart--perhaps mis-assigned at birth to the wrong species by the
delivering physician.
A truly tragic case of inappropriate self-identification.
Yes, another example of weird directors. A weird and poignant story. And yes, quite tragic.I heard they found little bits of his pecker, cached up for later, under
a fallen tree.
;^)
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:55:40 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:take the guy into custody. A good defense attorney would have loads to work with in those situations. But hey, I still love the lieutenant.
On 9/22/23 1:49 PM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:40:57 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/22/23 11:15 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:42:26 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 22.9.2023 klo 17.30:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:19:57 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:16:37 AM UTC-4, bmoore wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 4:53:45 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 3:50:46 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
yes also why would they end up mistrials when the "boys down the lab" often proved stuff too? would just need to get Quincy to help out a bit.Sometimes they did have stuff like fingerprint and ballistics evidence, yes. I just remember a lot of Columbo endings where he trips the villain up on his story and then explains the chain of logic solving the mystery before uniformed officers
Yes.Really? Ick. No, you are kidding.I heard they found little bits of his pecker, cached up for later, underThe bear movie!I never had any connection, at all, to Wenders' stuff.Heh. Maybe you would enjoy the In-Laws, then? Peter Falk and Alan Arkin. >>>>>Horrible, horribly pretentious movie.You are right, but Columbo never gave up.Falk, Gazzara and Cassavetes were three good pals, fine actors! >>>>>>> Peter Falk was in an interesting Wim Wenders movie called Wings of Desire, which included Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds.
Did you know that Peter Falk had a glass eye? Rumor has it that was playing baseball and the ump called him out, and Peter Falk looked at the umpire, took his glass eye out and handed it to him, saying "You need this more than I do".
There's also a Hollywood remake, with two of the most luminous stars of >>>>>> 20th century...Hollywood doesn't do pretentious as well as the Germans do :-)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120632/
FWIW, I can easily connect to Werner Herzog's body of work, which is
sort of an idiosyncratic exploration of the strange and quirky aspect of >>>> humans--maybe a sort of meta exploration of quirkiness? First one I saw >>>> was Aguirre, and I could connect in some fashion to all of the others, >>>> although he is often too self-indulgent (he likes approach and I don't >>>> like it so much).
I think he did that film about a guy who saw himself as a grizzly bear >>>> at heart--perhaps mis-assigned at birth to the wrong species by the
delivering physician.
A truly tragic case of inappropriate self-identification.
Yes, another example of weird directors. A weird and poignant story. And yes, quite tragic.
a fallen tree.
;^)
That was a hard movie to watch. Especially cuz it's true.
Ever seen the piranha movie with severed dick ? The one with Richard Dreyfuss getting devoured at the start was great.No, but if Dreyfus was eaten sooner rather than later, that recommends
On 9/22/23 2:10 PM, bmoore wrote:officers take the guy into custody. A good defense attorney would have loads to work with in those situations. But hey, I still love the lieutenant.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:55:40 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:
On 9/22/23 1:49 PM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:40:57 AM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote: >>>> On 9/22/23 11:15 AM, bmoore wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:42:26 AM UTC-7, TT wrote:
bmoore kirjoitti 22.9.2023 klo 17.30:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:19:57 AM UTC-7, gap...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:16:37 AM UTC-4, bmoore wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 4:53:45 AM UTC-7, Gracchus wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 3:50:46 AM UTC-7, The Iceberg wrote:
yes also why would they end up mistrials when the "boys down the lab" often proved stuff too? would just need to get Quincy to help out a bit.Sometimes they did have stuff like fingerprint and ballistics evidence, yes. I just remember a lot of Columbo endings where he trips the villain up on his story and then explains the chain of logic solving the mystery before uniformed
Yes.Really? Ick. No, you are kidding.I heard they found little bits of his pecker, cached up for later, under >> a fallen tree.The bear movie!I never had any connection, at all, to Wenders' stuff.Heh. Maybe you would enjoy the In-Laws, then? Peter Falk and Alan Arkin.Horrible, horribly pretentious movie.You are right, but Columbo never gave up.Falk, Gazzara and Cassavetes were three good pals, fine actors! >>>>>>> Peter Falk was in an interesting Wim Wenders movie called Wings of Desire, which included Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds.
Did you know that Peter Falk had a glass eye? Rumor has it that was playing baseball and the ump called him out, and Peter Falk looked at the umpire, took his glass eye out and handed it to him, saying "You need this more than I do".
There's also a Hollywood remake, with two of the most luminous stars ofHollywood doesn't do pretentious as well as the Germans do :-)
20th century...
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120632/
FWIW, I can easily connect to Werner Herzog's body of work, which is >>>> sort of an idiosyncratic exploration of the strange and quirky aspect of
humans--maybe a sort of meta exploration of quirkiness? First one I saw >>>> was Aguirre, and I could connect in some fashion to all of the others, >>>> although he is often too self-indulgent (he likes approach and I don't >>>> like it so much).
I think he did that film about a guy who saw himself as a grizzly bear >>>> at heart--perhaps mis-assigned at birth to the wrong species by the >>>> delivering physician.
A truly tragic case of inappropriate self-identification.
Yes, another example of weird directors. A weird and poignant story. And yes, quite tragic.
;^)
That was a hard movie to watch. Especially cuz it's true.Yeah it was.
You could see that he wanted desperately to believe in an alternate
reality for some strange reasons of personal insecurity or low self esteem--he needed something that just plain wasn't there in his life,
and he was filling it this way. You could see that it was going to end badly.
As I recall from the film (although you should not trust Herzog too far
on anything) he was getting along OK with the bears, but a young male
joined the ursine community and thought he was some being kind of a
smart alec and so he shredded him.
I saw this much later as this was before my time, but I still enjoyedit a lot.Not sure how it will hold up today though. :)One episode that I really liked was "Ransom For a Dead Man". Peter Falkwas great, as usual, but I thought Lee Grant was fantastic(andbeautiful too).I was watching this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3-mP-li_tk
"Shakes" <kvcshake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:rfantastic (andbeautiful too).I was watching this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3-mP-li_tk
I saw this much later as this was before my time, but I still enjoyedit a lot.Not sure how it will hold up today though. :)One episode that I really liked was "Ransom For a Dead Man". Peter Falkwas great, as usual, but I thought Lee Grant was
What about "Barnaby Jones", "McCloud" and his horse racing in SF streets, "Police woman", "Rockford", etc?
This is what I wasted my teen's hours on.
Then I got my first home computer, TI 99/4A :)
I got this one for its advanced graphics over the popular ones: sinclair and commodore :)
What about "Barnaby Jones", "McCloud" and his horse racing in SF streets, "Police woman", "Rockford", etc?
and like you guys, they kept going on about how he was mentally ill, totally disagree
On 9/22/23 5:34 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:> "Shakes" <kvcshake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> I saw this much later as this was before my time, but I still enjoyedit a lot.Not sure how it will hold up today though. :)One episode that I really liked was "Ransom For a Dead Man". Peter Falkwas great, as usual, but I thought Lee Grant was fantastic (andbeautiful too).I was watching this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3-mP-li_tk> What about "Barnaby Jones", "McCloud" and his horse racing in SF
PeteWasLucky kirjoitti 23.9.2023 klo 15.54:> Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On 9/22/23 5:34 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:> "Shakes" <kvcshake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> I saw this much later as this was before my time, but I stillenjoyedit a lot.Not sure how it will hold up today though. :)One episode that I really liked was "Ransom For a Dead Man". Peter Falkwas great, as usual, but I thought Lee Grant was fantastic (andbeautiful too).I was watching this clip: https://www.
PeteWasLucky kirjoitti 23.9.2023 klo 20.14:enjoyedit a lot.Not sure how it will hold up today though. :)One episode that I really liked was "Ransom For a Dead Man". Peter Falkwas great, as usual, but I thought Lee Grant was fantastic (andbeautiful too).I was watching this clip: https://www.
TT <T...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:r
PeteWasLucky kirjoitti 23.9.2023 klo 15.54:> Sawfish <sawfi...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> On 9/22/23 5:34 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:> "Shakes" <kvcs...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> I saw this much later as this was before my time, but I still
They had many great games then. They had great graphics since it had graphics processor. Also you could buy speech synthesizer.
This was a good game
https://youtu.be/C8o_Wj7BkIo?si=cILliZRPh3KDbnz7
Looks ok.
It's obviously inspired by Scramble... https://youtu.be/3Vc-RIkpk40?si=B2N5Rk8JsLdsYByB
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 22:56:18 UTC+1, Sawfish wrote:you guys, they kept going on about how he was mentally ill, totally disagree, he just seemed plain stupid and like some idealist type who thought he could live with wild animals and they would be friends to him like dogs + he thought others might come
As I recall from the film (although you should not trust Herzog too far
on anything) he was getting along OK with the bears, but a young male joined the ursine community and thought he was some being kind of a
smart alec and so he shredded him.
no it wasn't cos of the young male, all the bears liked him or rather didn't care about him until winter came along and food became more scarce, then they got hungry! cos they're friggign bears!! watched it with friends back when it came out and like
Heh. Maybe you would enjoy the In-Laws, then? Peter Falk and Alan Arkin.
There's also a Hollywood remake, with two of the most luminous stars of 20th century...
"Shakes" <kvcshake@gmail.com> Wrote in message:rfantastic (andbeautiful too).I was watching this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3-mP-li_tk
I saw this much later as this was before my time, but I still enjoyedit a lot.Not sure how it will hold up today though. :)One episode that I really liked was "Ransom For a Dead Man". Peter Falkwas great, as usual, but I thought Lee Grant was
What about "Barnaby Jones", "McCloud" and his horse racing in SF streets, "Police woman", "Rockford", etc?
This is what I wasted my teen's hours on.
Then I got my first home computer, TI 99/4A :)
I got this one for its advanced graphics over the popular ones: sinclair and commodore :)
On 9/23/23 4:42 PM, Gracchus wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:15:45 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
Heh. Maybe you would enjoy the In-Laws, then? Peter Falk and Alan Arkin.A classic written by Andrew Bergman (I think) and still is very funny. Falk and Arkin had great chemistry.
There's also a Hollywood remake, with two of the most luminous stars of >>> 20th century...
Made for no good reason with no link to the original and no value.
Diverting, did you buy Arkin as Yossarian?
I didn't. AS poor an actor as Elliot Gould is, I think he would have
been better.
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:15:45 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:
Heh. Maybe you would enjoy the In-Laws, then? Peter Falk and Alan Arkin.A classic written by Andrew Bergman (I think) and still is very funny. Falk and Arkin had great chemistry.
Made for no good reason with no link to the original and no value.There's also a Hollywood remake, with two of the most luminous stars of
20th century...
Made for no good reason with no link to the original and no value.There's also a Hollywood remake, with two of the most luminous stars of
20th century...
No strong feelings about Elliott Gould. I've seen him in things where he was OK
Gracchus kirjoitti 24.9.2023 klo 7.01:
No strong feelings about Elliott Gould. I've seen him in things where he was OKI don't think I have. One gets tired pretty quickly of his blabbering characters.
Maybe he was ok at The Long Goodbye, but I didn't like film.
Maybe he was ok at Capricorn One, don't remember, but that was a decent
film at least.
Somewhat good, or at least fitting for the role at "California Split".
Gracchus kirjoitti 24.9.2023 klo 2.42:
There's always some value with Meg Ryan romantic comedies.Made for no good reason with no link to the original and no value.There's also a Hollywood remake, with two of the most luminous stars of >>> 20th century...
Definitely better than Michael (1996), the angel film with Travolta.
Then again that's not saying much.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 9:59:31 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 24.9.2023 klo 7.01:
No strong feelings about Elliott Gould. I've seen him in things where he was OKI don't think I have. One gets tired pretty quickly of his blabbering characters.
Maybe he was ok at The Long Goodbye, but I didn't like film.
Maybe he was ok at Capricorn One, don't remember, but that was a decent film at least.
Somewhat good, or at least fitting for the role at "California Split"."OK" wasn't meant as high praise. :)
Gracchus kirjoitti 24.9.2023 klo 7.01:
No strong feelings about Elliott Gould. I've seen him in things where he was OKI don't think I have. One gets tired pretty quickly of his blabbering characters.
Maybe he was ok at The Long Goodbye, but I didn't like film.
Maybe he was ok at Capricorn One, don't remember, but that was a decent
film at least.
Somewhat good, or at least fitting for the role at "California Split".
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 12:59:31AM UTC-4, TT wrote:> Gracchus kirjoitti 24.9.2023 klo 7.01: > > No strong feelings about Elliott Gould. I've seen him in things where he was OK> I don't think I have. One gets tired pretty quickly of hisblabbering > characters. > > Maybe he was ok at The Long Goodbye, but I didn't like film. > > Maybe he was ok at Capricorn One, don't remember, but that was a decent > film at least. > > Somewhat good, or at least fitting for the role at "California
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 8:28:03 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:him in things where he was OK.
On 9/23/23 4:42 PM, Gracchus wrote:I haven't seen that film. Certainly he's not right for every role, but he's versatile. Bergaman conceived and wrote the script for "The In-Laws" with Falk and Arkin in mind. Naturally everything fit. No strong feelings about Elliott Gould. I've seen
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:15:45 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:Diverting, did you buy Arkin as Yossarian?
Heh. Maybe you would enjoy the In-Laws, then? Peter Falk and Alan Arkin. >>> A classic written by Andrew Bergman (I think) and still is very funny. Falk and Arkin had great chemistry.Made for no good reason with no link to the original and no value.
There's also a Hollywood remake, with two of the most luminous stars of >>>>> 20th century...
I didn't. AS poor an actor as Elliot Gould is, I think he would have
been better.
One case was "The Long Goodbye." I didn't like the idea of Philip Marlowe in a then-contemporary setting at all. Yet the result is kind of fun.
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 06:06:33 UTC+1, Gracchus wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 9:59:31 PM UTC-7, TT wrote:isn't Elliot Gould like Robert de Niro, he always plays himself? worked really well in Capricorn One and the Oceans Eleven films.
Gracchus kirjoitti 24.9.2023 klo 7.01:"OK" wasn't meant as high praise. :)
No strong feelings about Elliott Gould. I've seen him in things where he was OKI don't think I have. One gets tired pretty quickly of his blabbering
characters.
Maybe he was ok at The Long Goodbye, but I didn't like film.
Maybe he was ok at Capricorn One, don't remember, but that was a decent
film at least.
Somewhat good, or at least fitting for the role at "California Split".
Gracchus kirjoitti 24.9.2023 klo 7.01:
No strong feelings about Elliott Gould. I've seen him in things where
he was OK
I don't think I have. One gets tired pretty quickly of his blabbering characters.
Maybe he was ok at The Long Goodbye, but I didn't like film.
Maybe he was ok at Capricorn One, don't remember, but that was aMASH was OK, but he didn't talk much. He was basically Sutherland's 2nd
decent film at least.
Somewhat good, or at least fitting for the role at "California Split".
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 8:28:03 PM UTC-7, Sawfish wrote:him in things where he was OK.
On 9/23/23 4:42 PM, Gracchus wrote:I haven't seen that film. Certainly he's not right for every role, but he's versatile. Bergaman conceived and wrote the script for "The In-Laws" with Falk and Arkin in mind. Naturally everything fit. No strong feelings about Elliott Gould. I've seen
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:15:45 AM UTC-7, bmoore wrote:Diverting, did you buy Arkin as Yossarian?
Heh. Maybe you would enjoy the In-Laws, then? Peter Falk and Alan Arkin. >>> A classic written by Andrew Bergman (I think) and still is very funny. Falk and Arkin had great chemistry.Made for no good reason with no link to the original and no value.
There's also a Hollywood remake, with two of the most luminous stars of >>>>> 20th century...
I didn't. AS poor an actor as Elliot Gould is, I think he would have
been better.
One case was "The Long Goodbye." I didn't like the idea of Philip Marlowe in a then-contemporary setting at all.
Yet the result is kind of fun.
Gracchus kirjoitti 24.9.2023 klo 2.42:Don't particularly like her, or the genre.
Made for no good reason with no link to the original and no value.There's also a Hollywood remake, with two of the most luminous
stars of
20th century...
There's always some value with Meg Ryan romantic comedies.
Definitely better than Michael (1996), the angel film with Travolta.Best left unsaid.
Then again that's not saying much.
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 05:49:12 UTC+1, TT wrote:like boring trash like Arrival said it was, Starship Troopers was almost the same film in fact.
Gracchus kirjoitti 24.9.2023 klo 2.42:only reason people didn't like Michael is cos the media were upset at Travolta and all his Sciento stuff when it came out, was like Battlefield Earth, which wasn't that bad either, least nothing like as bad as the paid-off stereotypical critics who
There's always some value with Meg Ryan romantic comedies.Made for no good reason with no link to the original and no value.There's also a Hollywood remake, with two of the most luminous stars of >>>>> 20th century...
Definitely better than Michael (1996), the angel film with Travolta.
Then again that's not saying much.
Anyway didn't care about any of that and found Michael quite an amusing film, thought Travolta worked well with Andi McDowell.Yep. I tend to ignore film critics, who are a lot like
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 12:59:31 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:Yep.
Gracchus kirjoitti 24.9.2023 klo 7.01:
No strong feelings about Elliott Gould. I've seen him in things where he was OKI don't think I have. One gets tired pretty quickly of his blabbering
characters.
Maybe he was ok at The Long Goodbye, but I didn't like film.
Maybe he was ok at Capricorn One, don't remember, but that was a decent
film at least.
Somewhat good, or at least fitting for the role at "California Split".
MASH
The performances have a lot to do with the movie's success. Elliott Gould and Donald Sutherland are two genuinely funny actors; they don't have to make themselves ridiculous to get a laugh.In Sutherland's case, he is funny-looking, to start with. Just like
They're funny because their humor comes so directly from their personalities. They underplay everything (and Sutherland and Gould trying to downstage each other could eventually lead to complete paralysis).The golf course scene in Japan impressed me so much that I wanted to
Strangely enough, they're convincing as surgeons. During operations, covered with blood and gore, they mutter their way through running commentaries that sound totally professional. Sawing and hacking away at a parade of bodies, they should be drivingus away, but they don't. We can take the unusually high gore-level in "MASH" because it is originally part of the movie's logic. If the surgeons didn't have to face the daily list of maimed and mutilated bodies, none of the rest of their lives would make
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 05:49:12 UTC+1, TT wrote:like boring trash like Arrival said it was, Starship Troopers was almost the same film in fact. Anyway didn't care about any of that and found Michael quite an amusing film, thought Travolta worked well with Andi McDowell.
Gracchus kirjoitti 24.9.2023 klo 2.42:
There's always some value with Meg Ryan romantic comedies.Made for no good reason with no link to the original and no value.There's also a Hollywood remake, with two of the most luminous stars of >>>>> 20th century...
Definitely better than Michael (1996), the angel film with Travolta.
Then again that's not saying much.
only reason people didn't like Michael is cos the media were upset at Travolta and all his Sciento stuff when it came out, was like Battlefield Earth, which wasn't that bad either, least nothing like as bad as the paid-off stereotypical critics who
On 9/23/23 9:59 PM, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 24.9.2023 klo 7.01:
No strong feelings about Elliott Gould. I've seen him in things where
he was OK
I don't think I have. One gets tired pretty quickly of his blabbering
characters.
Maybe he was ok at The Long Goodbye, but I didn't like film.
I'm now thinking that you'd have to know and like LA--the Santa
Monica/Sunset corridor--to find anything in it, at all.
For my 21st birthday, my college roommate took me to a bunch of topless
bars on Santa Monica. Great birthday present!
The Iceberg kirjoitti 24.9.2023 klo 13.52:If not Travolta, which actor might have been more convincing with wings?
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 05:49:12 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 24.9.2023 klo 2.42:
There's always some value with Meg Ryan romantic comedies.Made for no good reason with no link to the original and no value.There's also a Hollywood remake, with two of the most luminous
stars of
20th century...
Definitely better than Michael (1996), the angel film with Travolta.
Then again that's not saying much.
only reason people didn't like Michael is cos the media were upset at
Travolta and all his Sciento stuff when it came out, was like
Battlefield Earth, which wasn't that bad either, least nothing like
as bad as the paid-off stereotypical critics who like boring trash
like Arrival said it was, Starship Troopers was almost the same film
in fact. Anyway didn't care about any of that and found Michael quite
an amusing film, thought Travolta worked well with Andi McDowell.
Battlefield Earth has been chosen for a reason multiple times as one
of the worst films ever. But I knew there was somewhere an audience
for it. :))
Yes, I think "Michael" is watchable for the actors. The idea of
Travolta having wings isn't the greatest ever.
Arrival is brilliance.
Sawfish kirjoitti 24.9.2023 klo 18.58:
On 9/23/23 9:59 PM, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 24.9.2023 klo 7.01:
No strong feelings about Elliott Gould. I've seen him in things
where he was OK
I don't think I have. One gets tired pretty quickly of his
blabbering characters.
Maybe he was ok at The Long Goodbye, but I didn't like film.
I'm now thinking that you'd have to know and like LA--the Santa
Monica/Sunset corridor--to find anything in it, at all.
For my 21st birthday, my college roommate took me to a bunch of
topless bars on Santa Monica. Great birthday present!
I've been to LA. Stayed for a week within walking distance of Santa
Monica, hotel at Venice Beach. Didn't really do naughty rounds there.
Then a few days at Las Vegas.
Then a week at Hollywood Hills.
Great trip!
On 9/24/23 10:12 AM, TT wrote:
The Iceberg kirjoitti 24.9.2023 klo 13.52:If not Travolta, which actor might have been more convincing with wings?
On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 05:49:12 UTC+1, TT wrote:
Gracchus kirjoitti 24.9.2023 klo 2.42:
There's always some value with Meg Ryan romantic comedies.Made for no good reason with no link to the original and no value.There's also a Hollywood remake, with two of the most luminous
stars of
20th century...
Definitely better than Michael (1996), the angel film with Travolta.
Then again that's not saying much.
only reason people didn't like Michael is cos the media were upset at
Travolta and all his Sciento stuff when it came out, was like
Battlefield Earth, which wasn't that bad either, least nothing like
as bad as the paid-off stereotypical critics who like boring trash
like Arrival said it was, Starship Troopers was almost the same film
in fact. Anyway didn't care about any of that and found Michael quite
an amusing film, thought Travolta worked well with Andi McDowell.
Battlefield Earth has been chosen for a reason multiple times as one
of the worst films ever. But I knew there was somewhere an audience
for it. :))
Yes, I think "Michael" is watchable for the actors. The idea of
Travolta having wings isn't the greatest ever.
"gap...@gmail.com" <gap...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:rblabbering > characters. > > Maybe he was ok at The Long Goodbye, but I didn't like film. > > Maybe he was ok at Capricorn One, don't remember, but that was a decent > film at least. > > Somewhat good, or at least fitting for the role at "California
On Sunday, September 24, 2023 at 12:59:31 AM UTC-4, TT wrote:> Gracchus kirjoitti 24.9.2023 klo 7.01: > > No strong feelings about Elliott Gould. I've seen him in things where he was OK> I don't think I have. One gets tired pretty quickly of his
I was like wow, guppy wrote a full paragraph instead of his usual 2-5 words. But then realized it was a copy and paste, not bad, guppy learned new skills :)
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/mash-1970#:~:text=Strangely%20enough%2C%20they're%20convincing,%2C%20but%20they%20don't.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 116:03:18 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,176 |