Milburn Stone

IMO, what happened before my eyes was an actor who is not adept at physical comedy trying really hard to prove, straining every ounce in his body, that he is adept at physical comedy. Which doesn't add up to laughter. Comedy requires effort, but should look effortless. On the other hand, the funniest scene in the film to me--which I thought DiCaprio brought off well enough--was the conversation between him and the FBI guy on the yacht, when Belfort so obviously believed he was getting the upper hand and so obviously wasn't. Edited to add: By the way, referencing the original post, where was Jenna Elfman in this? I didn't see her, and the IMDB doesn't list her, which inclines me to believe she wasn't there.

I'm 1000% certain it wasn't Gaad, but rather a character we haven't met before.

That makes sense.

I could be wrong, but I had the feeling that the Clark/Elizabeth assignation wasn't taking place in their own home, but in a motel room somewhere, which they had rented for the purpose of the role-playing. It just didn't look like their home or their bedroom to me. Now, just so I can get clear on something: So, Claudia had an affair with someone, and then blew her cover (which, actually, is pretty unbelievable to me--not the affair, but that she'd blow her cover). How did that lead to the murder of the agents? In addition to blowing her own cover, did she (unbelievably) also tell this lover the identity of all her sleeper agents? Why would she do that? And does this revelation clear up who did the murders? Like, can we conclude that it must be America, because there's no cover to blow as far as the Centre is concerned?

Pardon my lack of cynicism, but I think the Israelis' eagerness in the episode to make a deal to free 1500 Soviet Jews was not driven so much by the desire to gain 1500 votes for the ruling party, as by the desire to see 1500 Soviet Jews freed. Arkady said it himself, when he said that while Communists are driven by loyalty to an economic ideal, Jews are driven by loyalty to tribe. Speaking as a Jew (and of course, this show is written by Jews), I can tell you that he is not all wrong.

That is great news. There was an announcement to that effect right at the conclusion of this season's final episode--a title card which read "Episodes will be back in a new season," or words to that effect. This cheered me greatly, because in a field with a lot of good competition, Episodes IMO is the smartest, funniest comedy on television in many a year. Les Moonves (who actually had a cameo in the season finale) seems to be a TV executive of the old school--i.e., if he likes a show himself and knows it's good, he supports it.

This episode had me in incredible suspense, in particular whether Elizabeth was going to crowbar the guy at the factory. His early and gradual realization that he was in deep doo-doo was masterful. I think I was just about as nervous as he was. And the portrayal of "Aunt Helen" (first doddering and harmless, then revealed to be calculating) was positively Hitchcockian. Previous episodes have succeeded in making us "identify" with Philip and Elizabeth. But this episode (with its references to the Vietnam War, and the dominion of the rich in the Western World over everybody else) really planted some seeds to make one question who was more on the side of good in the big picture, the Americans or the Soviets. Which amazes me, because it is positively subversive. Even now.

The Honey Maid Grahams commercial--did that run on television? Or did they only have the courage to make that a "YouTube" "social media" spot? I guess I ask because I do think it would take more guts to run that on network television than in the comparatively more progressive (and more segmented) environs of the internet, and I'd be more impressed if they did. I feel the same way about the Kindle commercial, although, because it's a more niche product than breakfast cereal, its progressivism would take less courage to run on network TV than in the Honey Maid case. (I have to say I do think the guy's "let's celebrate" carries a hint of "like to get to know you better, nudge nudge wink wink"--a hint that turns out to be a red herring--so I understand why some might see a suggestion of infidelity before the even more "shocking" revelation happens.)

This was a sensational season-ender. I don't think I've ever been so happy to see "And we'll be back next year!" as I was to see it this time.

You guys might be right about the meaning of "no spoilers" in this case, but I really think we need clarification from the moderator. (Hello, moderator? Help!) Over at TWoP (which I realize is not the same place as here), the policy on the TCM thread was pretty sensible, i.e., "It is impossible to spoil something that has been in the public realm for decades!"

Interesting. Is this their first foray into television? (I can't think of anything else they've done, but that doesn't mean they haven't.)

I don't much care whether someone is a good game player, team player, or what have you. (I guess because I don't care which civilian ends up winning.) Only one thing matters to me: Do you make me laugh? Martin Short passes this test.

Nudge nudge, wink wink. :)

And yet, there is something fascinating about her. Would you agree?

Do the Coen Bros. have anything to do with this? If so, I'll give it a shot. But for some reason, I imagined that they merely sold the rights to their movie--or that they didn't need to, since the studio that produced the movie owns the rights and can do anything it wants with them. Will be happy to be wrong about that.

I'm new here myself, but I think "no spoilers" means that nothing on this thread can be considered a spoiler (since everything here will concern a movie that has been released for years); therefore you are free to discuss anything on TCM without the need for spoiler-bars. Moderators, please correct me if I'm wrong.

We checked out this show last night on the recommendation of a friend. Turned it off because of Sonya Cross's characterization. There is no way a police department would assign someone like her to do interviews in a homicide investigation. The interview of the husband was clearly not her first such, yet neither she nor, apparently, her bosses have learned anything from experience. Strained credulity big time.

Hi guys!