Aug. 4, 2008, 1:26 a.m. CST
don't think i'll see this one....
Aug. 4, 2008, 2:03 a.m. CST
by Alonzo Mosely
Video at 11...
Aug. 4, 2008, 2:15 a.m. CST
That's the beauty of the cheap bin, if they suck, you didn't pay a lot...
Aug. 4, 2008, 3:07 a.m. CST
Aug. 4, 2008, 3:13 a.m. CST
check out his performance in the late 1970s BBC TV version of Dracula. It's called COUNT DRACULA, and Jourdan is compelling in it. No idea if it's available Region 1, but you can pick it up Region 2 in the UK for about £10 / $20. Oh, and Frank Finlay plays Van Helsing. Result!
Aug. 4, 2008, 3:39 a.m. CST
What are your thoughts? Compare and contrast with '300', if you please.
Aug. 4, 2008, 10:12 a.m. CST
I remember the way he kept Maud Adam's name over and over! "Octopewssy...Octopewssy."
Aug. 4, 2008, 11:57 a.m. CST
by Lazarus Long
What kind of film review fails to mention the director? Quint you know better than this, and I'm assuming the direction in this film was the weak part, which is why the name failed to make the article. But still, we should know who MADE the film as much as who's in it. Many film fans would argue it's even more important. Keep 'em coming, I love this series, even if I've seen much of what you've missed. It's nice to see some old classics getting promoted among the basement dwellers.
Aug. 4, 2008, 12:03 p.m. CST
...that just clutters up the main page with stuff we don't care about, that has nothing to do with the up & coming news/reviews/interviews and scoops we come here for?? Jesus, talk about misjudging your demographic.
Aug. 4, 2008, 12:31 p.m. CST
by Lenny Nero
I, for one, am enjoying this column and the very broad spectrum of film with which Quint is opening up his film knowledge. It's important, in understanding cinema, to watch both the good and the bad, because if you limit yourself then you're missing the point. <p>Honestly, if you don't like the column, there are a dozen other articles each and every day.
Aug. 4, 2008, 12:31 p.m. CST
The first is to see films as products. The latest being the best. The most marketed being the most promising. The box-office reflecting the quality. I say this view of film is reductive, brain-washed and pertfectly incurious. Movies as any industry, like a candy machine where the best artificial flavor is the most seductive. Film as art. Films are declarations of creative independence. Films are the children and grand-children of what preceeded them. Films inscribe themselves in a flow, in a history, or try to shake that history up. Films that are so referenced, the neophyte eye may not understand them or films that break off every root possible like a furious child towards her parents... I believe there are as many films that are favorites of mine in both of these categories. I believe a film needs to entertain as much as it should provoke reflection and musings. So, I would say, the twain have met and should meet. But we cannot discard the treasures of the past simply because only one of our eyes is open: the one who loves eye-candy, the latest, most marketed, most world-wide grossing (BTW, it's still Gone With the Wind- 1939). Just as the other eye should not reign supreme: the eye which is only piqued when a film is unknown, underground or esoteric. Nope, I will have films shown to both mine eyes and hopefully, both will be entertained. Perhaps, Zanduga, you will open your other eye. Hell, I started my way watching Nightmares on Elm Street and I'm finishing my Bergman retrospective. I would never say one is more effective than the other: they speak to a different eye (okay, so Bergman is the 20th century's Shakespeare to me, but Freddy's the new Freud-savvy Frankenstein). But perhaps you like it this way. And so be it, if it must.
Aug. 4, 2008, 12:32 p.m. CST
by Lenny Nero
...I'm part of AICN's demographic, and I come here for the mixture between "up & coming news/reviews/interviews and scoops" as well as a geek version of film analysis and history. It has always been that way.
Aug. 4, 2008, 1:25 p.m. CST
I, too, am part of the AICN demographic. And Quint's AMAD column is my favorite feature of the site these days. "Cool" does not always equal "new". Old movies can be cool, too. Quint is doing us a service by directing us to movies that we may have missed, but are still worthy of our attention. "Misjudging your demographic"? Only a narrow-minded fool would suggest that.
Aug. 4, 2008, 1:35 p.m. CST
by Pancho Straight
who wander in to say this is not interesting to them are like the little boys who run into a room, trhow their dress up over their head and yell "Poopie!" in a room full of grownups.<p>We get it, chumpies. You don't like it when your mommy reads anything to you about anything that happened before you were born - in other words, anything before the 21st century. The thing is, your mommy reads you things you don;t like because she doesn;t like you - you were a mistake, she never meant to have you.<p>Personally I can't imagine anyone coming to AICN and reading every single article, let alone expecting every single one of them to be something they're interested in.<p>I'd think the title would usually be enough to let you know that this is a review of a movie you may not be interested in. Is the ADD that bad that you click on links before you can even read the headlines?<p>REally, children, if you don;t like it here, just go play with your games and leave the grown-ups alone. We're trying to discuss old movies here, something you don;t know anything about. And what you're doing is unworthy of the dignity of being called trollish. You're just childish attention grabbers. Now hush.
Aug. 4, 2008, 2:17 p.m. CST
by Lenny Nero
Aug. 4, 2008, 2:18 p.m. CST
All you little pussy hairs tapping away at the keys with your crotch-scratchers need to just shut your breath-holes and go back to watching fuzzy anime bootlegs on your iPuds while trying to fathom a world without mommy's tit-milk flowing over your gingivitis-riddled gums. Now I'm not a fan of every flick Quint's slogging through here. By God, some of them are about as entertaining as catching a pube in your zipper...of course, you may be into that, and I'm not here to judge. But if you little scat-clowns click on "Movie-A-Day" and consider it a waste of precious time you could be catching cum in your free hand, maybe you'd better pop on over to Movie Mom's site. Maybe then you can get a boner over someone called "Mom" without feeling Qedipal guilt you little dingleberries. Rarrrrrr too much coffee today! You pseudo-cynical Underoo-staining ass-eating trollbait! Don't touch Goulet! *note--may or may not be taken seriously. Entirely up to you, you testical-tickling spunk-slurpers. ...Ahhh, I would have been a GREAT troll.
Aug. 4, 2008, 2:20 p.m. CST
Ignore at your convenience.