Well, best to start with "Dr. No" then 😊 Thanks for sharing~

I see, so it was referring to Charles Addams from the Addams family. I know of it, but not familiar with it since I've never watched The Addams Family. Thanks for pointing that out 😊

Luck was on Roger's side, the conductor got careless. So it was a special key, and not a "can opener"? (That's what Eve referred to it as) OH, now I understand! She said "can opener" because Roger referred to himself as a "sardine"! Honestly thought that a can opener could fit into the hole to access the bed. Thanks for sharing~ 😂

Since there were no ATMs, he really did carry a lot of cash. He tipped almost every worker in the movie 😂 Wealthy guy.

@@henryellowTips would have been a dollar or two at most.😂 💵

It was such a tense scene too. I was too tense to even chuckle at Vandamm's "That wasn't very sporting, using real bullets". I only let it sink in after the fact. Glad they got a happy ending 👍

Indeed. I would like him react to The Big Sleep and see how much of the plot he can discern. The pre-release version of that movie is one of my all time favorites, except for the moment regarding the bookkeeper's glasses.

Happy to hear that you enjoyed the reaction, and thanks for sharing~ 😊 Yes, seems like Roger has a habit of tipping.

Lots of reactors miss that important detail; they don't grasp Why he's mistaken for Kaplan. I'm only 51, and didn't grow up with telegrams - but I totally grasp why he was trying to click his fingers for the hotel telegram boy to come and take down his message - the 1950s version of a text.

Grant was born in 1908 and Jessie Royce Landis in 1896, so she was not much older than he but not two years younger.

Thanks 😊 I'm glad you enjoyed it!

Great observation. I didn't even consider it was one of the two henchmen piloting the plane. Most likely it's that guy Leonard talked to (after he comes out of the phone booth, at the same time as Eve). I didn't recognize the guy because he wore glasses while reading the newspaper, but it must've been him. Sure, I'll add Charade to my list. Thanks for your suggestion 👍

@@henryellow There is a lot of debate about the title (detailed on Wikipedia).

When puberty and hormones hit you, anything works 😂

I was a little younger than you. I bought a copy of the Goldfinger novel and carried it around with my schoolbooks at age 11.

A bit too late to watch Hitchcock movies in chronological order 😂 I'll consolidate his movies once I've watched most of them 👍 I can still do that for the Bond series, since I've never watched any.

Guess they got too close to the ground and didn't expect the vehicle to stop then (as another commenter mentioned) That's a good thing for Thornhill 👍🏻

I do have "The Man Who Knew Too Much" in my list. Not sure when I'll watch it, but I'll get to it eventually 😉 (I could've sworn I replied to this comment, but it disappeared) (If my comment appears twice, just ignore the other one 😂)

@@henryellow Incidentally, composer Bernard Hermann (the same guy you mention early in your reaction) actually has a cameo in this version of The Man Who Knew Too Much. He is seen conducting an orchestra and also did the score for that movie as well.

Perhaps influenced by the work of Saul Bass, Maurice Binder did the original Bond opening credits for many years.

Sure, I'll add that to my list. Thanks for your suggestion! 😊

Cash was big back in the day -- $100, $500, $1,000, etc. bills. A wealthy New York advertising executive would likely be well heeled. Especially one who supported several bartenders.

I didn't get the meaning the first time 😂

Of course I enjoyed it~ 😊

I'll add them to my list, thanks for your suggestions! 😊

The movie is pretty good, but the mini-series of Tinker Tailor with Alec Guinness is much better.

Gibsons are not sweet. Dry vermouth and gin. Neither are sweet.

@@catherinelw9365 Sigh... sweet as in 'very good, ' not like a Manhattan (sweet, dry or perfect).

@@wpl955g9 Sigh. Could have used a better word to avoid confusion.

@@catherinelw9365 Could brush up on your common idiomatic expressions! Anyhow, drinks are on me, friend.

@@wpl955g9 I know the idiom. The context of your usage of it made it confusing. I’ll buy you a thesaurus.

Hitchcock made some great movies, and of course credit must be given to the actors too 👍🏻 Ah yes. Polanski's Rosemary's Baby was a great movie. Let's not forget Chinatown too. Do you have any of his other films you would suggest? I've not watched the Bond films or Dirty Harry yet. I'll get to them someday 😊

@@henryellow Roman Polanski is the master of suspense carried to its extremes of claustrophobia and paranoia. "This is what is coming and you'll see it a mile away but you won't be able to stop the oncoming no matter how many red herrings I throw out and how many breadcrumbs of hope I feed you. And you'll hate me for keeping my promise I made when I said this is what will happen. You hated me for Rosemary's Baby when Rosemary chooses motherhood over infanticide and you hated me for Chinatown when Evelyn Mulwray gets killed and Noah Cross gets his daughter/granddaughter. But I warned you throughout both movies that this would end badly but you hung onto your belief in Hollywood endings. While I kept my promise." That is Polanski and that is Holocaust Horror: you see plainly what is coming but nothing saves you. Polanski's The Pianist is THE Holocaust movie because it is about the incremental tightening of the screws that are on Europe's Jews. It is much more profound and horrible than Schindler's List. No Oscar Schindler saves anyone here. That is not the Holocaust. The protagonist survives by sheer dumb luck in The Pianist and it does show him being helped by the odd random gentile and German soldier. But they don't save him; the few good Aryans merely prolong the main character's life by a day or week at most. And the good Aryans are balanced by and swamped by the number of bad Aryans (and yes bad Jews) who try to give him up. Schindler is a gentile. He saved Jews. Great. Fine. He is praiseworthy and deserves the immortality of film BUT Oscar Schindler is not the face of the Holocaust. Neither are the white Abolitionists who set up the Underground Railroad the face of Slavery in America. But a movie about the founders of the Underground Railroad would probably make a fortune. And Spielberg would probably direct and produce it. Because Spielberg has an instinctual problem with History. He always GETS IT WRONG BY FOCUSING ON WHAT WOULD APPEAL TO THE WIDEST AUDIENCE. saving Private Ryan goes off the rails once the Omaha Beach scene is over. Then it becomes a Quest Movie that has nothing to do with WW2 and EVERYTHING to do with the hundreds of patriotic war movies made during that war. Saving Private Ryan is a bloody and gory version of The Fighting Seabees..it even has the propaganda trope of having the squad consist of a cross-section of Americans, right down to the guy from Brooklyn. If blacks had been allowed to join the Rangers Spielberg would have included one. The true horror of Omaha Beach was that it was repeated daily until the end of the war. And you were as likely to die from the Army Air Corps of the US or American artillery as you were from German guns. The,6,weeks before and 6,weeks after D-DAY included nearly 300,000 French civilians dead. Ryan also defied physics by showing German rounds continuing on their deadly path AFTER they hit water. It also showed a sniper shooting through the scope of a German sniper instead of the American sniper having to adjust and compensate for a rifle's bullet after the first 50 yards. Our sniper would have to fire slightly above the scope or watch the flat trajectory fall,off after the first 50 yards. If only slightly. Which means he could kill the German sniper by shooting the scope if the bullet entered from the top of the scope and immediately exiting to possibly hit the German's neck. But both scenes are exciting cinematically. And Munich was not about the slaughter of the Israeli athletes in 1972, not after the first few minutes. It was instead about the Israeli government's RESPONSE to that tragedy. And how bad-ass the Israelis we're/are, which most of us already knew. The 72,Olympics were merely a,jumping off point for Israeli tough guyhood. Why did Black September attack the Israelis? What were their issues? For that matter, why did the Nazis hate the Jews? What were the roots of anti-Semitism? Why is there such a thing as black anti-Semitism? Jews were the biggest supporters and volunteers, so why is there such strong anti-Semitism in the black Northern cities? Spielberg doesn't care about the reasons for hatred that leads to violence if it can't be filmed. Violence is wrong and that is that. But Mark Fucking Twain answered that question half a,century or so before WW2. People don't like Jews because they're smarter than non-Jews. What? Sorry but you can measure academic achievement. The Jews win. But...why? Because they weren't allowed to own land in Medieval Europe, Jews developed a culture of education that allowed them to become doctors and lawyers and accountants. No land? Okay, we'll find another way to advance in society. So hatred began by jealousy which began by Medieval Christian hatred of Jews as Christ-killers. Does that knowledge solve anything? Not now. The time to act was 100 years ago. But at least the face behind the mask of hate is visible. And black anti-Semitism? That started with the belief that Jews were behind the slave trade. Wrong. Warring African sub-Saharan tribes sold prisoners of war to mostly Arab traders who in turn sold them to Western traders, some of whom were Jews but most of whom were wealthy gentiles. And then there is the belief that slum lord's are Jewish. Have to tell you that only some were/are? From The Amistad to Munich to Saving Private Ryan Spielberg gets it wrong by concentrating on a good old fashioned Hollywood story with clear heroes and villains, the heroes usually being white male gentiles. And I know Spielberg is Jewish but he is really more a creature invented by Hollywood and Hollywood movies. Polanski is Jewish as well, but he is a child of the Holocaust, literally escaping from a labor camp when his father pushed him under the barbed wire so he could roam the Polish and then French countryside. THAT is the superiority of Polanski to Hitchcock and Spielberg. Claustrophobia terrifies him because of the Holocaust and getting caught by the Nazis. And he knows what the Nazis said and what they did. They kept their word. He knows they said "we'll get rid of the Jews and everything will be great" and the world thought that they wouldn't really do that. But they did. And when the world was shocked, they (the Nazis) were themselves shocked. Did you think we were kidding? Go on KZfaq and look at the videos of reactors to Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown. They make reactions to Psycho and Vertigo and The Birds look like weinie roasts. People set their hair on fire. But Rosemary Woodhouse took on motherhood like she demonstrated all through the movie as being the only thing she wanted. And her one attempt at escape was ruined by...her. She spouted off a ridiculously accurate story to Dr. Hill and REACTORS GOT MAD AT HIM FOR DOING THE "RIGHT" THING AND NOT SENDING HER TO A NUTHOUSE!!! IF someone told them a similar story they'd smile politely and then run like hell from an obviously crazy person. Evil usually wins in a Polanski film but Evil EARNS their victory by not lying or being duplicitous about their plans. And woe to you if you don't take Evil seriously because Evil promises woe. The Pianist is based on an autobiography so you know upfront that the hero survives. But that's all he does. He survives. Is that a triumph over evil? I guess it's a draw. The Fearless Vampire Killers was a very entertaining comedy. Repulsion was his first English language movie and the first of his apartment trilogy. Catherine Deneuve slowly goes crazy when she apartment-sits for a weekend. Of course ANY movie with Deneuve is top tier and she is always worth watching. The Ghost Writer, Frantic, Death And The Maiden are all worth watching and are equal to anything by any other director....except for my fave, Howard Hawks. Two great movies for you are Blow-up, a much imitated murder mystery and art house film that looks absolutely normal and un-artistic from 1966. It is set in London and contains an appearance by the 1966 Yardbirds (Jeff Beck, Jimmy Page) doing "Stroll On" in a club. And it shook the movie world in 1966 with depictions of very matter of fact nudity and marijuana use. And it also inspired Austin Powers. Mike Myers stole shamelessly from it, but so did Coppola in The Conversation and Brian DePalma in Blow-out. Blow-up was visual and Blow-out was about a sound effects guy. The Conversation was also about sound. The other great movie you should do is DELIVERANCE, from 1972. It's about a weekend rafting trip in north Georgia. It's also about the American experience of Europeans on this continent from the earliest settlers to Vietnam. And yet it is also nothing more than a weekend trip for four suburban guys and what happens to them. It was the #2 movie in 1972, upstaged by a little film called the Godfather. You should really make David Lynch another priority. He tries to be unique in his filmic language but deep down he is as.much a born storyteller as Howard Hawks. And Mulholland Dr. might be the best movie so far of the 21st century. Bourne not Bond. Or Harry Palmer in Funeral In Berlin, starring the great Michael Caine. Who also played him in the Ipcress File and the Billion Dollar Brain. Thank you for your support

Wow, I did not expect such a long read. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on Polanski and Spielberg, as well as their movies. Based on what you said about Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown (those are the only two Polanski films I've watched, anyway) I do agree that they aren't movies that give the audience a "happy ending" or a "hero that saves the day". In fact, you could even say that they are realistic, in the sense that "good" and "right" doesn't always win. Spielberg may focus on making Hollywood stories that isn't necessarily the truth, but you can't deny that he makes entertaining movies. I, for one, did enjoy Saving Private Ryan. Spielberg and Polanski view things differently and do things differently. There is no right or wrong in that, just different, in my opinion. I'm here to enjoy all kinds of movies, regardless whether they are realistic, absurd, or pure entertainment. I'll add the movies you recommended. Thanks for your suggestions and thanks for sharing your thoughts 😊

​@@henryellowThx for reading my book. About Spielberg, he really does catch it when he takes on historical issues. He got hit up on Amistad by taking on Slavery and putting the focus squarely on the white lawyers. Schindler's List tackles the Holocaust by putting the focus squarely on...the gentile savior of 1200 (?) Jews and the camp commander. But guess what? He offered it to Polanski as soon as he aquired the rights. Polanski declined, saying he wasn't ready. He had already revolutionized horror with Rosemary's Baby taking cues from the Holocaust: bad things are coming, you can see them a,mile off, but you won't believe me because you cannot imagine things will get THAT bad, and so you'll be shocked when I show you what I said I would. Like the Nazis. They told the world their plans but no one believed how bad things would get. After all, this was the 20th century, not the 15th. And this was Germany, home to the birth of nearly everything holds dear - philosophy and classical music. And so,Polanski began Holocaust Horror, which redefined suspense by showing what was coming but no one could stop the inexorable advance of Evil.

@@henryellow Polanski really took the reins from Hitchcock. The only living director with his talent is David Lynch. Blow-Up is European neo-suspense, and led directly to The Conversation and DePalma's Blow-Out. They were sound where Blow-Up was visual. I'd LOVE to see someone react to that movie, meaning Blow-Up. Especially someone who has seen Austin Powers.

It's a memorable scene, that's for sure.