Films/DVD Asylum

Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: Ah, the encyclopedic approach, yet again.

Posted by jamesgarvin on January 11, 2008 at 11:53:04:
Eviscerated? Hard to do when most of your responses never respond to anything. But at least in this post you gave it ol' college try. Now if you would only respond to those statements you make that recite incorrect facts, and then run for cover when called to the carpet. All in good time, I guess.

"How about DeNiro in Godfather, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Heat? Same guy, different roles? I'd say not."

You mean different guy, or same role? Frankly, my recollection of DeNiro in Godfather is vague, at best. Taxi Driver and Raging Bull were clearly different roles, as was his performance in each them. Ditto Heat. I'd call Deniro a character actor - he creates a character for most of his roles, at least the better written roles. I'd venture to guess that he considers himself to be a character, not a lead, actor. Ditto for Pacino, though I find his performances for the last ten to fifteen years to be more the same than different.

"My point about your comparing Hepburn to MG was that Hepburn's supreme talent overcame her modest looks: MG is homely so she must stand on talent alone which, in my opinion, is shaky."

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There are people who do not consider her "homely." Your writings on this subject clearly demontrate that for an actress, physical appearance is the key into the room, and, if you don't have the key, well, you better have the talent to compensate. If that does not qualify you as a male chavinist, I am not sure what does. At least wear the mantle with pride.

"Bette Davis, I always thought, immensely was attractive."

Fine. I don't. Though I have written here before that she is my favorite actress, it matters to me not a wit whether she is attractive. The point is not whether you think she is attractive, but whether you can see the woman beyond her physical appearance.

And in your response below to not being able to fool the camera, I suggest you search out some candid photos of those beautiful Hollywood starlets. The cameras don't fool people. The make-up artists do.