pacman

Red Skelton? There's a name for fans of American comics of the mid 20th century. He had his own TV show. I don't think they named a coast line after him but if you mean the Skeleton Coast, it's somewhere around Liberia.

Ahh, William Seward. His name doesn't ring a bell so I am not upset about not remembering. And I haven't heard of the town of Seward but I suspect now I will. As for my interest in Henry I to VIII plus all the Kings & Queens who came before & after, it has nothing to do with a desire to tug the forelock & bow to my British antecedents, I too spent the first half of my life with zero interest in British monarchy. It was the many history documentaries on TV over the years that triggered my curiousity. And once the interest started there is a plethora of information available. So much of the history surrounding the Middle Ages was faithfully recorded that there are eye witness accounts to most historical events. The level of detail that survives from the 16th & 17th century really does bring the period alive. We know so much about their lives, more than we know about many modern figures of history. And the lives these Kings & Queens lived were very interesting, they are remarkable stories by any measure.

I am so over Adam Sandler's portrayal of himself as the idiot man-child. It got lame very quickly & I am also amazed that he could be invited back to make more of that shit. What would surprise me & might do his career a favour would be if he ever played a serious role where he wasn't trying to be a buffoon every 5 minutes. He may not be any good but he may just get some credibility for once in his life. I am always curious to see someone playing against type. When it was released Titanic was the most expensive movie made up to that time. I remember the story going around that it would have been cheaper to raise the Titanic than recreate the sinking of it. When I went to see it I was expecting so much more than a silly love story. It was like an overblown episode of Love Boat with a whole heap of sentimentality & pathos at the end. It was amazing that Leo was allowed to drown. In the true spirit of these things he would have been rescued at the last minute. It isn't included in the list of worst movies because it had redeeming moments. None more so than the dramatic sinking scenes which were very well done. IMO. Agree completely.I like to share my enthusiasm for a film I enjoyed but I gave up long ago trying to influence someone into seeing one of them. It is a guaranteed way of getting the opposite reaction to what you hoped for. No one wants to feel like they are being dictated to. I know well the smug satisfaction people get when they come back to rubbish a film you thought they may like. Some people have a deep seated need to criticise anything they haven't thought of first.

You shouldn't be offended by monarchy questions, a couple of the early Kings of England played an important role in the establishment of the United States. If it wasn't for mad old George III who decided to tax the hell out of his new colony, particularly tea, there would have been no Boston Tea Party, no American Revolution, no noble cause for George Washington to cross the Delaware, the American colony may have gone the same way as Canada. As for my knowledge of the US & its history, I don't profess to be a scholar on the subject but I do know more about it than some Americans I have met & I am sure I know a hell of a lot more about it than the average American knows about Australian history. I have read about Alaska being described as someone's folly but it was a long time ago & his name is long forgotten. I do know he bought Alaska from the Russians for something like two cents an acre but he was widely criticised for it. And I am fairly sure his name wasn't Fairbanks. That's one of two Alaskan towns I can recall at the moment. Fairbanks & the place Sarah Palin lives, Wassella or something like that. So sorry JD, I can't answer your question so you don't need to stress about mine.

Oh seven, you are a scallywag.... While this thread is current, here's a few movies I've seen this year - Dallas Buyers Club, Tracks, The Monuments Men, Half of a Yellow Sun, Noah & Nymphomaniac. Quite an eclectic choice even if I do say so myself. Some I enjoyed much more than others. Some I had low expectations & was pleasantly surprised, some should have been much better than they were. In the latter category was The Monuments Men. An all-star cast with a large budget should have delivered more than just another clichéd war flick. But we got all the clichés with non-military academics dressed in uniforms who despite their senior years & lack of military training were able to outsmart the Germans at every turn. Was there ever any chance it could go any other way? Of course not. In the pleasantly surprised category was Noah, a film I had been psyched up to expect a ridiculous version of an already ridiculous story. Not ridiculous if you are devout but highly unlikely given Noah was responsible for the survival of every animal on the planet. However all that aside, Aronofsky has made an entertaining romp that had me enjoying it more than I thought possible. Once I overcame my aversion to the totally implausible parts such as giant rock men called the Watchers, I just got into a rollicking yarn where good in the form of Noah battles evil in the form of Ray Winstone. And are there two better actors for delivering, no, make that bellowing their lines at the sky where they implore God to favour them? I think their casting made the film work. And I am not a big fan of Russell Crowe but credit where it is due. And Winstone is equally good. Noah won't big any major awards but I found it far better than many of the negative reviews I have seen for it. Aronofsky is an intelligent film maker & the 18 months he spent on post-production has honed this into something reasonable. IMO. Tracks was great. The simplest plot made on a small budget, it is so nicely done that once I invested in the outcome of the young girl, which I already knew as it is based on a true story, I was hooked. Amazing! I know she makes it, she wrote the book on which the film is based, but I sat there worrying for her welfare for most of the film. Mia Wasikowska carries the entire film. She is immersed in her role, I really believed she walked 2000 kilometres across the desert alone. Dallas Buyers Club was OK. Better than OK with excellent performances. I liked it but I didn't run around recommending it to everyone I know because it's the sort of film that will divide those watching it. Some will love it, some will like it (me), others will hate it. I haven't read any hate written about it but films about AIDS patients being left to die & many of them being homosexual, well you just know that it's a subject that will divide opinions. And these days it is very non-PC to say a word against anyone following a different lifestyle. Jared Leto gives the most poignant performance. It's worth the price of admission alone. Half of a Yellow Sun never had a chance to shine. Pun intended. It was let down by a soundtrack that at times was impossible to follow. I would like to watch it again on TV with subtitles so I can get the bits I missed. It wasn't all lost but when people are speaking & you don't know what they are saying, there's no chance to know exactly what's going on. It's a fascinating subject, the civil war in Nigeria that followed the granting of independence by the British & how those from different walks of life coped. If you were Biafran you didn't cope well. The last film on my list is Nymphomaniac by Lars Von Trier. The consensus is he is mad but he makes a beautifully crafted film. He doesn't set out to glorify nymphomania, in fact he shows it as the dreadful condition it is. Despite the most graphic sex scenes that wouldn't be out of place in a porno, the film is really anti-sex. I sat through Parts 1 & 2 in one sitting, all 4 hours of it! And this isn't Von Trier's original film, that goes for 6 hours. FFS! With his permission it was edited to two films which need to be seen together to fully make sense of the whole thing. IMO. I am still deciding what to make of it all. The whole thing is beautifully presented, there's no sense of being rushed, each scene is given the luxury of time though with 4 hours to play with, what else was he going to do? I am tending towards it being a masterpiece, an accolade I don't hand out lightly. I think I am leaving myself wide open to criticism especially if someone goes to see it on my recommendation. I can just hear the condemnation now but that's OK. I have more to say about it but I would really like to hear from someone else who has seen it. Please add a post even if you hated it. I can understand that, if it wasn't for some of the creativity in the film I would agree with it being shite. I will only defend it so far but as the time has passed since I saw it, I am finding the memory of it brings a smile to my weary dial.

There's a coincidence for you Willie. Many years ago I was given a video of Face Off to watch. It was given to me by a friend who swears it was the best thing he had ever seen. I wouldn't know, I never watched it & I only got around to throwing the video out a few years ago. I didn't watch it because despite paying nearly $1000 for the then best Panasonic VCR, I only ever watched one movie on it before it stopped working. I would have had it fixed but I had just heard about some new technology which had movies on CD discs. I can't remember who gave me the Face Off video. Whoever it is I haven't spoken to them in over 20 years. I wonder how they would react to your opinion of the movie. I'm sure he wouldn't agree.

Thanks Sam. I remember the adage from the TV industry - no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of their viewers. I was annoyed when I wrote my post because it irks me that so much money gets spent on crap which could have gone towards something worthwhile. The teenage son of a friend of mine likes to talk about movies & is developing a taste for some quite *high brow* releases. He is studying film in an art course & talks about getting into the industry. However whenever he catches up with his friends they go to see the worst films that rate one or two stars & get mercilessly lampooned by the critics. He then complains to me about how bad they are. I have asked him why does he go when he knows the film is going to be awful. He said that his friends won't go to see anything else. Thus the cycle of bad movies gets entrenched when half the audience haven't developed the taste to discern the difference in what they are watching.

I missed it. I never met Thpon & before I did he fell out with the webmaster of the forum we were all on at the time. A shame, he sounded a nice guy. Any idea what happened to him? Is he still posting anywhere? Speaking of which, here's my question - what's happened to Karl? Actually that's three questions.

Was that the party thrown by Thpon at Ezy Bar?

What an utterly appalling list of movies! What amazes me & what I can't understand, given how tightly controlled studio budgets are, how in God's name did any of this shit ever get the green light to be made? Is there no one working in the big studios who understand that crap won't cut it in today's world? That someone could honestly think there are people just waiting to have their intelligence insulted by such banal dribble is simply unbelievable.

Here's another monarchy question: Which King was considered a giant in his time. His life size statue sees him measured at 6' 3". There are even some reports of him being 6' 7". And here's a hint - today's Prince William is a direct descendant of one of his bastard children.

I thought it was Henry V. I looked up the answer & I'm still wrong...

Is that the religion that lays out the body & leaves it for the crows? I remember one of those obscure faiths does that.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia?

That's what I was alluding to - ".....hate being so limited, turn it over to the next....... " For those who know nothing about cricket, when a one day game (what is referred to as a Limited Over game of either 50 or 20 overs) is shortened by rain, the required number of runs to win is calculated by the Duckworth-Lewis method.

I know this, it comes up a few times every year but despite trying to brain storm the answer, I can't think of it. I asked someone who knew it immediately. I hate being so limited, I have to turn it over to the next person.

Honourable? Now what have I done? I just looked up the answer & I am sorry for guessing. I would have got the first name eventually. I wouldn't have got the number. It's a worthy question route67, keep it going till someone gets it.

Damn, I saw it on a doco recently now I can't recall. Was it James I?

William of Orange?

Archie announced Colbert as the replacement yesterday. Or earlier today depending on which time zone you occupy. I also am a fan of the Colbert Report, I like his style of humour whereas I can't take too much of John Stewart shouting. He is not subtle, everything is screamed at the camera, no wonder he has a hoarse voice all the time. Steven Colbert's challenge will be not to make the Late Show the same as his eponymous program of today. (Eponymous - I waited a long time to drop that into a post) His writing team will have to dream up new gags. Maybe they can feature a ladyboy on the show, that's always good for a laugh among those who feel threatened by them...

Ohhh, thaaat interview. Yes, he wasn't pleasant then either. The nasty side of him is self-hatred redirected at whoever is vulnerable. He has been exhibiting classic signs of it forever. Awful man, good riddance.

That's almost funny. With so many A-list celebs in the Church of Scientology, now that he's announced his retirement, he can make fun of them. I bet Tom & Co are now banned from any more appearances.

It was many years ago back when I only caught the show intermittently but Tim Roth was the guest on the program. He wasn't then a big name but he had just had his first major film released. While Dave was talking about him he realised that people were thinking "Tim who?" & he explained that some big name had pulled out & Tim had stepped in at short notice. Now I don't know if the cancellation by the other person made Dave mad but when little Tim walked out, he had none of that swagger you see popular stars carry on with. He sunk into his chair & spoke very softly. Dave wanted more & as the interview progressed he leant over him almost yelling at him. Tim didn't come back at him like he hoped, he just went quieter. It was a disaster. You could feel the hatred between the two. That was when I knew Letterman had some issues to deal with. And I have watched him reluctantly ever since.

If any of these are truly worthy why wouldn't they keep them in the show? If Colbert is as clever as I think he is, he may use them ironically. To explain, he may send them up but in a way that makes him look silly without harming Dave's legacy. To criticise Dave would be death. I suspect that Colbert will be that much better the execs will be wondering why they didn't do it much earlier. Of course I may be completely wrong.

Of course! That explains a lot. He is what is known as a "functioning alcoholic" i.e. they are people who can perform routine tasks despite being completely tanked. I know a few of them, no one would guess they turn up to work every day plastered. There was a story about Dave's drinking years ago & there have been some oblique references to it made by him. Plus it would explain why he has turned so nasty against a few guests. I remember his attack on Tim Roth, inexplicable until you consider he may not have been of sound mind.