Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Willie Oleson" data-source="post: 344020" data-attributes="member: 8">Sorry but that argument doesn&#039;t work for me because there&#039;s good and bad acting in every period.To be fair, those cheap but psychedelic-looking special effects - both sound and visuals - were quite spectacular.She played Mrs. Danvers on steroids. It was almost laughable except that it wasn&#039;t funny enough (and therefore not &quot;trashy&quot; in good kind of way).But no matter how I feel about it, it&#039;s definitely grande dame guignol. However, as with Bette Davis, the casting of Judith Anderson is very on the nose and therefore it also misses some of the shock n&#039; schlock value necessary for a good guilty pleasure.The Ultimate One would have been Marilyn Monroe as a bitter, twisted, chain-smoking old hag, screaming at her sexy bare-chested movie son to &quot;kill the whores, baby, kill them!&quot;It would add something extra to the degradation that is part of grande dame guignol.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Willie Oleson, post: 344020, member: 8"] Sorry but that argument doesn't work for me because there's good and bad acting in every period. To be fair, those cheap but psychedelic-looking special effects - both sound and visuals - were quite spectacular. She played Mrs. Danvers on steroids. It was almost laughable except that it wasn't funny enough (and therefore not "trashy" in good kind of way). But no matter how I feel about it, it's definitely grande dame guignol. However, as with Bette Davis, the casting of Judith Anderson is very on the nose and therefore it also misses some of the shock n' schlock value necessary for a good guilty pleasure. The Ultimate One would have been Marilyn Monroe as a bitter, twisted, chain-smoking old hag, screaming at her sexy bare-chested movie son to "kill the whores, baby, kill them!" It would add something extra to the degradation that is part of grande dame guignol. [/QUOTE]

Verification

What month follows July?