BobO'Link

I'm tickled that the next movie selected for me in the "The Neverending Watch The Movies You Should Have Already Seen Challenge," Mrs. Miniver, qualifies for this one too! There are a couple of others in my list that also qualify so hopefully they'll get picked as well.

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi

I watched White Comanche last night. It stars William Shatner fighting his twin (good twin vs evil twin). Full version is on youtube but here's the final fight scene for those that don't care to sit through it all but want to see him .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpaVdOfuC8c

It was an interesting western yet didn't feature him and the twin on the screen at the same time but they did reuse a wolf howling audio clip a few times that I've seen in some other westerns this month, as well as the Dark Shadows tv show.

shadokitty

I just finished my first war movie of the challenge. The Great Raid was on Starz Cinema. It dealt with Lt. Col. Mulcci's raid to rescue POWs from a Japanese camp. It's from 2005 and stars James Franco as the captain who led the raid.

shadokitty

I just finished the episode of Blue Planet on the depot of the ocean. I started it yesterday morning, but never got around to getting back to it. I'm really enjoying revisiting the series.

JOE29

It took me 3 days to watch 1 movie all in pieces, Broken Arrow, because of work. That's just how my list will be looking. Except for my days off when I can at least get in a few more in a row.

shadokitty

Still gradually working my way through Blue Planet. Just finished the first episode on Disc 3, Seasonal Seas.

caligulathegod

The Challenge arose originally from a combination of ideas. First was a Western Challenge and then was a War Challenge. Ultimately it seemed to make more sense to expand it to include all Historical films regardless of whether they were based upon true stories or not. This would allow Downton Abbey and Jane Austin type films and Biographical films. Since even films based upon "true" stories are typically mostly fictional we threw out any need for films to be "true" stories. The only requirement is that films be based in an earlier time period than when they were made, with the exception of War Movies and Sports films. Then there's the Zeitgeist films that might have been contemporary but absolutely define their times for subsequent generations of viewers. Stuff like Rebel Without a Cause, Easy Rider or Saturday Night Fever which define their generations whereas other films merely take place in their time period (this is probably going to be the toughest to actually define or cause the most discussion).

The challenges are simply fun excuses to watch our collections with some kind of theme rather than be held to any strict standard. Personally, I think this is one of the most sublime concepts for a challenge. It has a very definable theme and can allow any number of films. I've been meaning to pull Apocalypse Now off the shelf and the wife is ALWAYS watching 17th and 18th Century films and shows. I was kind of beat by my Drive-in challenge, but now I've kind of hyped myself up to rejoin this challenge.

shadokitty

Glad you're joining in Caligula. Not to mention, any documentary is eligible too. As Travis even wrote in the opening post, one can watch nothing but documentaries too if one wants. I only have one episode left of Blue Planet
as I just finished the Tidal Seas episode. I haven't decided whether or not to wait the documentaries on the bonus disc.

caligulathegod

I had signed up for Epix for the Drive-in challenge as it was only $5. Turns out they have a Roku app and it vastly expands their catalog. Way more than their OnDemand channel.

Looking a little further, the app is good for iPad, iPhone, Android, Chromecast, Fire phone, Kindle fire, PS3, PS4, Roku, Windows 8, XBOX 360 and XBOX ONE.

BobO'Link

Earlier this week I watched the first two installments of Texas Rising on the History Channel. I was rather unimpressed. It absolutely annoys me they filmed it with a sepia filter over everything to force it to have a "old" look. I get the impression this was done to give it more credibility and be taken more seriously. To me it seems to have far too many "modern" ideas to be historically accurate. The script is horribly stilted/stiff and full of cliche' with little clue as to what's happening where (maybe it was just me but I felt "lost" most of the time). I expect more/better from the History Channel and doubt I'll waste time with the rest of the episodes. Did you know it was originally to be 6 hours but History Channel changed it to 10? Could that be part of the problem?

This afternoon I watched Mrs. Miniver (1942). I've had the disc for some time but just never got around to a viewing. I found it to be a fairly good representation of what most American people thought of as going on in Britain during the start of WWII. Like most war movies of its time it has lots of propaganda type themes but that also makes it a good snapshot of the times. I'm currently watching the shorts included which are outright propaganda films, but also excellent in their content.

JOE29

I haven't been impressed with it either. Although I haven't seen the first 2 full episodes yet. Only got about 3/4 through the first episode so far. I was really hyped up to view this. But so far it has been a let down.

shadokitty

While looking at war movies on Hulu, I found a very interesting documentary on Alan Turing. Without his help, the war in Europe might well have ended differently. It's called The Man Who Cracked the Nazi Code.

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi

You should look up stuff on Hitler's personal physician that got Hitler addicted to certain drugs. He wasn't in the military so he had his wife or someone make his own special uniform to wear, complete with fake awards as well.

You might also like the book Cryptonomicon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptonomicon

shadokitty

Thanks. I'll look that stuff up. I see there are a lot of aviation documentaries on Prime too.

mrcellophane

This weekend I finished rewatching the first season of Mad Men. I'd forgotten how engaging I find the show; by the end of the first episode I was rehooked. The first couple of episodes have those coy, winking-at-the-camera moments to signal the difference between 1960 and 2007, and these quickly wear thin. (We get it: 1960s people didn't understand homosexuality or plastic garment bags.) However, these types of jokes give way to both a celebration and indictment of the time period.

Many of the main conflicts between Don Draper (anti-hero protagonist) and Betty Draper (anti-hero protagonist's obligatorily shrewish wife) arise from the fundamental problem of the nuclear family. Don and Betty are told to act as one in bliss while also being told to inhabit different worlds. Don is never comfortable in Betty's domestic realm, and Betty is so out-of-place in Don's Manhattan. Betty also has the added disadvantage of not feeling at home in suburbia which makes her the shows most sympathetic character. In fact the entire show revolves around miscommunication and thwarted expectations.

BobO'Link

I watched Casablanca yesterday, mainly because it was part of a set which included Mrs. Miniver and was the last one to view (I watch everything at least once even those duplicate copies I get when purchasing a set for a title). I *think* this was the second time but it may have been the third. I *do* recall not being all that impressed the first time I saw the film, passing it off as nothing more than a standard romance film set in war time. I enjoyed it far more yesterday than I did that first viewing. Events seemed to have more meaning and played better. Yes, it's still a fairly standard romance film but having knowledge of character backgrounds/involvements going into the film makes it somewhat stronger. The club patrons singing "La Marseillaise" played better for me than during that first viewing and was more rousing/emotional. I also better appreciated the large number of well known cast members and their individual contributions. I have a feeling this is one of those that gets better with each viewing as you get a bit more "little stuff" with each which makes the whole that much more satisfying.

I followed that with "Barbarians II" a quartet of History Channel documentaries about four tribes who helped bring down Rome - The Vandals, the Saxons, the Franks, and the Lombards. While these all apparently suffered from limited production budgets I found them better, more entertaining, and certainly more informative, than some of the recent stuff foisted upon the viewing audience by the History Channel. They all suffer from a pet peeve many "modern" productions have of wasting 2-3 minutes after each commercial break recapping the last segment. I guess they feel if you've sat through a 5-6 minute commercial block you've forgotten what you were watching or have seen. Of course this also means they don't have to make a program for a one hour slot but rather a 30 minute one that is filled to time by repeated material (these all run ~42 minutes without commercials). So... enough griping about such trivialities. They had some good and interesting information with fairly good production values in spite of obvious budgetary limitations (i.e. a large group of invaders depicted by a dozen or two people and huge battles involving a couple of dozen fighters).

shadokitty

Encore Westerns is a good channel for this challenge. Besides movies, there are also classic series on. For example, I just finished my first ever episode of Life and Legend of Wyatt Earp. Though, while it has been on a lot lately, not sure if I'd count the Lone Ranger movie.

caligulathegod

I love Casablanca. I've seen it in a theater three times. It's one that I had avoided for years because so much of it gets quoted it feels like you've already seen it, but when you see it in context it really does all pull together.

I also love To Have and Have Not. It's kind of like a Casablanca lite, but it has 19 year old Lauren Bacall and she is smokin'.

shadokitty

I just finished Blue Planet, including watching the bonus documentaries on the bonus disc. All the featurettes are on the individual discs. The bonus disc is four additional documentaries. I haven't decided whether to watch a movie or another documentary series for my next DVD watch.

pacaway

Watched my first few titles... Started with The Fifth Estate, the WikiLeaks story, and Atari: Game Over, the documentary about digging up the buried E.T. 2600 game cartridges from a landfill in the dessert.

This morning I started rewatching the original UK version of the Life on Mars series, about a cop in 2006 who gets hit by a car and wakes up in 1973. Sounds hokey, but is VERY good.

davidh777

I never get tired of watching Casablanca.

Ash Ketchum

My first trip to a revival theater was sometime in 1967 when my mother took me to see a double bill of THE MALTESE FALCON and her all-time favorite film, CASABLANCA. First time I saw either of them. We then went downtown (Manhattan) to check out a parade of some sorts and we saw Robert F. Kennedy and future mayor Abe Beame marching together.

When we got a chance to see CASABLANCA on TV, we all gathered around to watch it. My siblings were eager to see what my mother liked. My mother had, of course, first seen the film when she was a high school student during the war. And as she explained its appeal to her, she said "I was Ingrid Bergman."

I've since seen it multiple times, including on the big screen. I saw it at its 50th anniversary at Loew's Tower East and in the audience, having a date, were Carl Bernstein (of Watergate fame) and Faye Wattleton, who had been famous years earlier for being the media-savvy head of Planned Parenthood. I overheard her at the candy stand telling Bernstein what she'd just told some former employer she was in a dispute with, "I'll be happy to go away, just give me the money."

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi

Have you seen Citizenfour? Thanks to http://cryptome.org/ I was able to watch it online and it was pretty interesting. It follows Snowden from before the data is released through him ending up in Russia.

The worst part about the entire thing was the crap from the director at the very beginning talking about she might be taken out by the government because of the films she makes. It was really hard to not turn it off through that stuff but she eventually shuts up and gets on with the story.

BobO'Link

I started the History Channel mini-series Mankind: The Story of All of Us last night. I've watched the first two episodes and don't quite know what to make of this one. It's moving *very* fast in a attempt to touch on many major events in human history. It seems to linger on insignificant stuff while glossing over more interesting eras/events. It's visually interesting with good production values but some of the declarative statements seem right out of Ancient Aliens fare making connections and claims I've never heard before. A comment that hit me early in the first episode was that man appeared 4 million years after the Earth was formed. I did a spit take on that one but didn't back it up to see if I'd heard correctly. I may do that this evening just to be sure. There have been other statements that just don't ring true.

In only two episodes we're already up to roughly "0" CE. I'd hoped for far more BCE material. Maybe that'll occur in other episodes as a couple have already made the jump from ancient discoveries (iron/steel) to modern times only to go back again. Yeah... it seems to bounce around a bit.

I do *not* care for Josh Brolin as the narrator. There's no passion as he just seems to be reading a script. Why do these documentary producers think a actor is a good narrator for a documentary? They are frequently poor choices and seem to have been selected for nothing more than name recognition in a effort to garner sales on the name.

shadokitty

Are you watching it on Netflix? Speaking of which, I signed up to add DVD'S to my plan. I'm on the 2 disc at a time plan.