Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

misswonderly3

Members
  • Content Count

    11,914
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

Posts posted by misswonderly3

  1. 28 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

    Yes, I was being tongue-in-cheek.

    Sorry,  I always hate it when people take something I say ironically, or "tongue-in-cheek", or whatever you want to call it  (in this case, maybe sardonic understatement)  and go all poe-faced and reprimand me.  Guess I haven't had enough coffee yet today.

    Also, full disclosure, and this is "just me"...I know The Bad Seed is a good film, and I've seen it a couple of times, but I just have a personal dislike of movies where innocent people get murdered by someone who's just having a hissy fit.  Of course, Rhoda  actually, eerily, is about a lot more than just throwing a hissy fit.

  2. On 1/9/2021 at 4:08 PM, txfilmfan said:

    The original Broadway play ending had little Rhonda surviving and her mother dying. 

    According to IMDb (which is crowd-sourced, so it may not always be accurate), three different endings were shot for the film.   I don't know how they'd ever get the Broadway ending passed by the Production Code, since Rhonda would seem to escape punishment for being naughty.   I've only seen the version with justice dispensed from the sky above, but maybe there are other versions lurking out there?

     

    ..."for being naughty"  ?  is that what deliberately killing people is called ?   Ok, I'm guessing you were being tongue-in-cheek with that phrase, sorry if I'm being too literal.  But honestly, this kid really was evil, hence the title of the film.  "Naughty" is when a kid raids the cookie jar behind their mother's back.  Slight difference.

  3. 1 hour ago, txfilmfan said:

     

    My main concern in 1964 was learning how to crawl and walk, so obviously I have no first hand experience with 1964 films when they came out. 

    I thought, like you did, that the album came first, and then the film A Hard Day's Night.   But they were released virtually simultaneously, and the Wiki articles state that Side 1 of the album is the film soundtrack, implying that the songs were written for the film.

    My guess is that the music was just too "out there" for the Academy to nominate.

    I prefer "Feed the Birds" as well.

    Another overlooked song from that year was "Goldfinger"

    I don't think the songs on the album  "Hard Day's Night" were written specifically for the film.  I believe it was the other way around, that the  songs for HDN already existed and had been recorded, and that they  (whoever "they" were) just kind of made the various songs from the album fit in appropriate spots in the movie.   "Hard Day's Night" isn't a musical in the typical sense, in that it's not like it has a story with songs that support what's going on in the plot.  They're just those great Lennon-McCartney  compositions, scattered throughout the movie at opportune moments. 

    • Like 1
  4. What?  No comments on The Glass Key, a seminal noir?  (according to Eddie.)   Maybe everyone is still trying to figure it out...it's true, the plot was even more convoluted and difficult to follow than most noirs -- and most noirs have convoluted plots !   This was maybe my fourth viewing, and it was the first time I was able to understand it - sort of.

    Still, I enjoyed it; had fun watching all the actors, especially crazy William Bendix.  I love that guy.

    • Like 1
  5. 14 hours ago, mr6666 said:
    Joan Harrison and Siodmak had planned the film to end so that both sisters had met their end (Lettie had gone to the gallows) and Harry was driven crazy by his actions
     
    :unsure:

    Interesting.  Kind of like Scarlet Street, in which the prime suspect, although innocent, is found guilty through circumstantial evidence and executed,  and the real killer goes free, even after he tries to confess to the murder.  He's not believed, and his punishment is he has to spend the rest of his life in misery and guilt.

    • Like 4
  6. Well !  Hm, is  The Strange Affair of Uncle Harry a noir or not?  I would have to say "not", and I have a pretty broad definition of noir.  It's more a family melodrama, it reminded of another family melodrama posing as a noir Eddie showed a while back,  Sign of the Ram.  Both are about manipulative, passive-aggressive women who are "invalids"  (at least the one in Sign of the Ram is genuinely confined to a wheelchair,  the horrible Geraldine Fitzgerald character is just faking her "heart trouble"), and who want to control the other members of their family, regardless of the consequences. 

    I think Eddie wanted to play this one up as a noir because it's directed by Robert Siodmak (a stalwart of noir pics), and produced by Joan Harrison - in fact, it was the Joan Harrison angle that Eddie really wanted to talk about here. 

    Anyway, noir or not,  I did find the film entertaining - was never bored, at least.

    Good things about it:  The cast.  I really like Ella Raines, I wish she'd been in more movies.  She's very unusual looking, lovely, but in a fresh unique way.  I liked the way her character stood up (sometimes literally standing up, almost nose to nose)  to the nasty Fitzgerald character.  There are a couple of scenes where Ella  (as Deborah Brown) is listening to Lettie  (Fitzgerald) blathering on about what her brother really "needs", in her unpleasant and quite transparent passive-aggressive way,  and Ella just sits there, curled up on a chair, swinging one leg.  She displays a kind of impudent body language every time she interacts with Fitzgerald, which really gets across the fact that she's not going to take any bs from this horrible phoney woman.

    Geraldine Fitzgerald:  The last time I saw this actress, it was in Three Strangers, another quasi-noir, and another film in which Fitzgerald plays a self-centred manipulative woman.   I haven't seen her in much else --- oh, she plays the supportive friend of Bette Davis in Dark Victory, so I guess she does sometimes appear as sympathetic characters.  Anyway, she's very good at what she does; she has kind of a flinty face  (I don't agree that she's "beautiful", but eye of the beholder and all that) that suits hard egotistical characters.

    and of course,  George Sanders !  as the title character.  I put the exclamation mark, because this role is so against type for George.  We are accustomed to seeing this actor playing smooth, cynical , sophisticated men; not necessarily "bad", more amoral.  Witty , sardonic.  Confident.  But Harry Quincey is mild-mannered, gentle, the opposite of the type of man Sanders usually plays.  I thought he was very good in this departure from type.  Of course, he's not as much fun to watch as his usual sarcastic self-possessed type, but he's believable and sympathetic as Harry.

    Not-so-good-things:  I get a little weary of the trope, so popular in 30s and 40s films, of the manipulative scheming head-of-the-family (-always a well-moneyed family with a ponderous social history to maintain)    who is in ill health, or who pretends to be,  and who wants to control her family members and keep them from being happy so they will stay in the musty family mansion and never marry, and they can all rot together.  This seemed to be a favourite type of story in movies back then.   And - not to get all "woke" or anything, but it seems this type of character is almost always female.

    Of course, the other huge flaw in The Strange Affair of Uncle Harry is, as others have mentioned here, the ending.  I mean,  WHAAAT? The old "it was all a dream"  thing?  At least in other films where something terrible happens and it turns out to be all a dream, we're given a clue, earlier on, the character falls asleep  ( as in Edward Robinson in Woman in the Window for instance).  But there's no scene where Sanders' character falls asleep.  It's about as artificially stuck-on an ending as you're going to see.     

    Something I found very frustrating about Eddie's "outro", with that Joan Harrison biographer, was that neither of them said what the original ending was supposed to be.  Ok, we can figure it out:  probably Harry, after hearing that horrible speech from his horrible sister  (evil to the end) about the joyless, pointless, guilt-ridden life he 'll be facing after her execution, decides to use a little of that poison on himself and end it all.  The suicide  might have been acceptable to the censors because after all, he did attempt to kill his sister.  But Eddie said there was more than one alternate ending, so what would the other one have been?  That the vile Lettie accepts his confession, and they trade places on death row in the prison? 

    Anyway,  noir or no noir, flawed fake ending or not,   I still enjoyed the film and am glad Eddie showed it.

     

    • Like 9
  7. On 12/25/2020 at 6:12 PM, LornaHansonForbes said:

    I just watched THE DEAD (1987) for the first time ever, I did not realize going into it that it was a perfect choice for Christmas, and especially Christmas 2020.

    Have any of you ever seen a film or read a book and you had, honestly and truly, no idea what it was all about (Alfie)- But you didn’t not like it?  And you didn’t think it was not good- Quite the opposite in fact, and  you even recognized it was a pretty masterfully composed work, where ostensibly nothing happens to your eye, But the people who made it are clearly so dedicated, and intelligent that there’s got to be a whole world of happenings going on in front of you that you’re not picking up on.


    That’s me and this film.


    ANJELICA HUSTON Is surprisingly absent for a good deal of this movie, but she has an absolutely amazing scene at the very end that she knocks *completely* out of the park.

    Lorna, thanks for your post about The Dead.  I love this movie; I think it's under-recognized as an outstanding film.  I believe it's the last movie John Huston made, so it's worth watching just for that.  But there's so much to it, there's so much going on underneath that seeming "nothing happens" scenario.  In fact, there's a lot going on in this story.  

    Of course you know it's based on the final work in James Joyce's book of short stories,  "Dubliners".  (more a novella than a short story, really.)  I say "of course you know", because I know you're a reader.  Even though James Joyce can be daunting  (full disclosure:  I still haven't even read "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" ),  "Dubliners" is pretty accessible.   All  the stories in it are real works of literary art  (sorry, pretentious, that.)   

    Anyway,  I think Huston did full justice to the story.  It's a great film, one that you get more out of with successive viewings.

    • Like 1
  8. 3 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

    Can you at least see that there are a handful of people that do believe, in some way,  you're bullying them?

    I.e.  What you define as being polite and respectful comes off to some as passive \ aggressive.  

    E.g.  how many have you made a similar reply to in the last few months (Larry and Cid are two I know of).

    Some folks just are very sensitive in chat forums.     We just have to accept that,  just like we wish to be accepted for are candor (which is what I really like about you!).

     

     

    1)  Nope.

     2)  It seems everyone is accused of being passive -aggressisve these days.  I actually don't like being "aggressive";  but it seems that if someone tries to express an opinion or idea that disagrees with someone else,  if they try to do it politely, they're labelled as "passive -aggressive".  

    Here's one definition of "passive-aggressive":

    pas·sive-ag·gres·sive
    /ˈpasiv əˈɡresiv/
     
    adjective
     
    1. of or denoting a type of behavior or personality characterized by indirect resistance to the demands of others and an avoidance of direct confrontation, as in procrastinating, pouting, or misplacing important materials.

     

    Now, since I am quite "direct", I don't see how that's being "passive-aggressive".  It seems to me that the current concept of "passive-aggressive" is:  disagreement plus politeness = "passive -aggressive".  I don't agree with that definition of it.  But maybe you'll see my disagreement here as passive-aggressive  !

    3)  I am genuinely sorry that Lawrence got so upset that time.  I liked Lawrence, and wish he'd come back.  But I also think he was in a mood to get upset with me no matter what I said. As for El Cid,  all I did was ask him to name a couple of noirs that he really liked a lot, since he often seems to be just "meh" about many of the ones aired on Noir Alley. I meant no offense to him, and I thought my post to him was worded quite respectfully.  As I said, I do not equate  disagreement  plus  respect    with being passive -aggressive.

    This post might be deleted, I don't know how fussy the current moderators are about mentioning other posters in this way.  I have no problem with either Lawrence or ElCid,  and I think they both must know that I mean them no offence.  

  9. 10 hours ago, Aritosthenes said:

    Kay.. ....

    _

    So Apologies if i Sound Like a fat head dweeb here....

    _

    But i am MASSIVELY Confused.. 😐😬😬😬😬😬😬😬😬

    . ... ..

    If ..

    .

    This Particular Thread .. .... ....... ..this Type of Thread is To Discuss Dissect,. .. and Mull Over Film(s) ..

     

    ..THAT ONE HAS SEEN.....

    .

    As You State Above..

    . ..... ...

    Then Maybe it will..

     

     

     

    In All Sincerity,.

     

    Help Both of Us if You View Dreamland FIRST ..... .. ,? ..

    Just clarifiying:  I never called you "a fat dweeb", nor thought of you in any insulting way whatsoever.    I was just saying, since you'd asked me, what more I would have liked to have read in your original post about Dreamland. 

    It's been recognized and discussed so many times that there's too much room for misunderstanding on internet conversations, it's just a cliche for me to reiterate it.  However,  I have to say that your response above suggests you think I was in some way bullying you, or being unreasonable  (you seem to think I was being unreasonable since I myself haven't seen the film you were talking about. )

    There's too much of this on the web:  someone just makes a sincere and respectful comment in response to a post, and the other person behaves as though they've been insulted and treated unfairly.  If you re-read what I said - actually read it, not immediately get a defensive reaction to it -  you'll see I was being polite and respectful, I was just saying,  it's more interesting and fun to read what others say about movies here if they say something a little beyond  "I liked it"  or  "I didn't like it."

     

  10. 14 hours ago, sewhite2000 said:

    I mean, when Bill Murray starts trying to kill himself in multiple ways, it gets pretty dark!

    Ok,  full disclosure:  although I have (of course)  seen Groundhog Day,  twice, I believe,  both times were many years ago, and I've obviously forgotten some key details.

    Still, I do recall that Groundhog Day is essentially a comedy, with a happy ending.  Bill just has to keep trying until he gets it right.

    The "darker" aspects of Repeat Performance involve shades of murder.

    • Like 1
  11. 19 hours ago, Lori Ann said:

    I watched "The Clock" this afternoon. Not much of a plot IMO. An Army guy on a 2 day leave is visiting NY. He meets a nice girl, by tripping her. She shows him around the city. The next day they marry. Then they're at the station saying good bye. I thought maybe Alice would go back to her apartment & then you'd see a message on the bottom of the screen with something like however many weeks or months later, Joe would be discharged & you'd see them some place, or Alice getting a letter that Joe was killed. It just wasn't much of an ending. And I'm surprised Judy Garland didn't sing in the movie. I haven't yet seen a Judy Garland movie without her singing at least one song until now.

     

    Lori

    Lori,  as the ladies below have mentioned, there are actually several movies Judy doesn't sing in.  I believe that, rightly proud of her voice though she was, she wanted to be known as a serious actress as much as a singer.  And as a movie like The Clock demonstrates,  she in fact was a good actress,  independent of her singing talent.   And if she'd sung in that scene you mention, the one in which she and Robert Walker are in the milk truck with the milk delivery guy and a song comes on the radio,  it would have taken away from the feeling of the movie, the authenticity of it, for Judy to have suddenly started singing.  In  The Clock she's just an ordinary young woman; singing plays no part in her character.

    19 hours ago, lavenderblue19 said:

     

    The Clock imo is a very good film. It's sweet and touching . I think you need to rewatch The Clock. It''s a lovely war time romance. btw, Judy in her heart wrenching Oscar nominated role for Best Supporting Actress did not sing in Judgement at Nuremburg.

    Right,  The Clock is just a sweet and touching little movie that works because it moves us without being in the least bit manipulative.  Judy and Robert Walker's characters seem very real.

    13 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

    I love The Clock! It's such a sweet film.  It's about two people who fall in love after a whirlwind romance.  Yes, it happens very quickly, as the man (Robert Walker) is a soldier on a weekend leave.  He and Judy Garland meet and fall for one another during a tour of NYC and have a myriad of other adventures together.   I can see how these different situations could bring two people together as you'd feel a certain kinship with them if you have to hitch a ride with a milkman together, get a flat tire, get punched, etc. It's after all of these mishaps that Walker realizes that he wants to be with Garland.  Then, they have to jump through all this red tape trying to get past all the waiting periods and such that would keep them from marrying.  When they finally marry, Judy declares the ceremony ugly and questions its validity.  It's only when she and Walker repeat their vows, does she consider them truly married.

    The film ends on a bittersweet note.  Walker's leave is over and he returns to the barracks.  However, we don't know that he'll come back.  Walker could come back from the war and live happily ever after with Garland or he could get killed in action.  The ending of this film could be the last time that he and Garland see each other.  

    I am happy that Judy didn't sing in this film.  Her character didn't need to sing and a song isn't needed in this film.  Judy got a chance to show off her acting chops and I felt that she was very effective in this film.  I wish she'd been given more opportunity for dramatic parts.

    I always thought The Clock is one of the very best examples of a war-time movie about a war-time romance, a young soldier on leave for a couple of days who meets and falls in love with a young woman who lives and works in New York City.   I agree with you, speedy, the fact that it ends on an uncertain note - ie, will Robert Walker's character survive the war and return to Alice  (Judy Garland),  will he be killed, will he be taken prisoner of war....who knows, that very uncertainty is partly what makes this touching little film so good.

    • Like 4
  12. A couple of other suggestions:   Three Strangers.    Technically, it's not set on New Year's Eve.  Well, not New Year's Eve in Western culture...I believe it's set on the eve of the Chinese New Year.  So still a New Year's Eve setting, in a way.  It's an unusual story, involving a beautiful,  superstitious woman who recruits two strangers,  Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre, to assist her in making a Chinese New Year's Eve wish.   Greenstreet and Lorre are great fun, as usual.  Lorre in particular plays a character against type.  It's quite a different little film,  some categorize it as a noir.  Well, maybe.  Doesn't matter, it's a cool little pic,  and stands apart from most movies set on New Year's Eve.

    Another oddball suggestion:  200 Cigarettes.  It was made in 1999, and features a lot of young actors from that time.  I really like it, I think it's a lot of fun, but it may not be for all tastes.  Basically,  a young woman throws a New Year's Eve party and then is disappointed when it appears that no one's going to show up.  The film follows the stories of some of the guests she'd invited.  It's set and shot in New York City, which also makes it kind of exciting.  Again, those who only like traditional movies from the classic era might not be crazy about it, but hey, I like movies from the classic era, but I also really enjoyed 200 Cigarettes.

    • Like 1
  13. On 12/24/2020 at 7:51 AM, TikiSoo said:

    On recommendation of another TCM forum member, I watched THE MISTS OF AVALON which was a TNT mini series in 2001. It clocks in at 3 hours, so I watched it over two evenings.

    This is the story of King Arthur told from the female character's perspective with Julianna Margulies as Arthur's sister, Joan Allen as her Aunt and Angelica Huston as Lady In The Lake.

    Much of the tension comes from the old Pagan "witch" ways of these ladies and the new emerging Christian religion. I don't know much of Arthur's story, so I'd enjoy any portrayal that fleshes them out as people and this movie delivered. It was an engrossing story centering more on the charactors & their personal situations than on history, battles, conquests, etc

    The writing was excellent, I never got confused about who was who or their motivations. I especially liked a scene where Guinevere interrupts the King's war strategy meeting with an "issue" and he drops everything to console her like any suburban husband would do. 

    The look of the movie was dark, dirty, perfect for the most part, there was some cost cutting in the sets/ backgrounds, but not too distracting. There was little CGI, mostly  "acts of magic" which is fine in my book. Costumes were as I expected -beautiful. I did like that the ladies wigs were ratty & tangly, like long hair would look back then.

    The group scenes just looked like Larpers at the Ren Faire so smaller scenes were preferable. The acting was stellar by all. I imagine lovely, dramatic Angelica Huston rolled her eyes at being cast another powerful witch sort, but she does great with it. I wasn't so enamored with Margulies, but she carried the film OK. Joan Allen was the standout for me-it was SUCH FUN seeing her play a beautiful evil conniving charactor! She's too often typecast as the goody 50's housewife/mother. Go Joan!

    250px-Mists_of_Avalon_DVD_cover.jpg

    I'm unfamiliar with the male principle actors, but definitely enjoyed the eye candy, thank you.

    Thanks, TikiSoo, for that interesting write-up of The Mists of Avalon.  I've not read the book, nor seen the movie, but the way you describe it, I might try and check it out.  It's funny, I love fantasy - at least traditional fantasy, like ancient myths and folk tales, etc, that have an element of magic in them,  but I'm only superficially familiar with the tales around  those Arthurian legends.  Maybe The Mists of Avalon is a good place to start ?

    • Like 1
  14. On 12/25/2020 at 4:43 PM, chaya bat woof woof said:

    Last night I tried to watch a bit of White Christmas but only got to see Sisters number.  Fan of Vera Ellen and Danny Kaye, but I like movies without interruptions so I switched to the second of the Night at the Museum moves for a while.  Not sure if I will watch Sabrina tonight or something else.

    What do you mean you like movies  "without interruptions"?  If you watched it on TCM, they never "interrupt" the movies they air.  Were you watching it on a different channel, and there were commercials?

  15. 9 hours ago, Aritosthenes said:

    Well.. ... Yes,.

     

    GLADLY.

    _

    Though First..

    ... .if i may.. ..... ..id Like to Counter and Raise You a Question First.

    -

    Have YOU Seen It (Yet) ?.

    I..

    ... .Dont Wish to unfairly and unjustly assume here.

     

    ..it.. ...... ..Seems (As Though) You Have (though). (?).

    _

    That In Turn.. ..... ..Might (Very Well) Influence myOwn Respective Response..

    🙏

    No, I have not seen Dreamland.  But I don't see that as relevant.  What makes participating on these TCM message boards, and maybe especially this "I Just Watched" thread, is people talking about movies they've seen,  talking about them, as in discussing not only whether they liked a film or not, but why they did or did not enjoy it.  I'm not asking for a full, professional critic style review;  that would be intimidating, and way too much work.  

    No, I'm just suggesting that when someone posts here about a movie and they just go,  "I liked it", that doesn't tell me anything at all, it' s  not particularly interesting to read.  Based on your post about Dreamland, I probably wouldn't be tempted to watch it, since you give me no information about it other than you liked it.  

    I don't need or even want a plot synopsis...just a few words , outlining in a very general way, what sort of film it is, what it's about  (but not a detailed plot description), who was in it, who directed it, and why you did or did not like it.

    This is not a template for how I expect posters here to write on this thread. That would indeed be obnoxious.  All I'm saying is, it would make your posts about movies you've seen more interesting and fun to read if you gave us a little more information about the film, especially whether and why you liked it or not.

    I dunno, to me, a discussion board is about discussion, not just a few words stating that you saw a movie and liked it. Sorry if that sounds bossy, I don't mean to be. Just replying to  you because you asked.

    • Thanks 1
    • Confused 1
  16. So, looks like it's Detour for Noir Alley this weekend.  So nice and Christmassy, that one.  And, like Tomorrow is Another Day,  it's the second time it will be shown on Noir Alley.

    Now, theoretically, I don't have that big a problem with repeats-  a good noir is always worth a second look.  But this seems to be becoming "a thing" now.  I don't recall repeats on Noir Alley happening before.   I do have a couple of problems with it: 

     Problem# 1: there are so many noirs, especially if, like Eddie, you're willing to stretch the definition of noir a bit  (something I'm fine with .)  Shirley TCM  / Eddie Muller  hasn't already run out of all the available film noirs they can show?  I know there are always "rights" issues, but still - I know Noir Alley has been running for some time now  (almost 4 years come this February , 2021), but still, there are lots of interesting crime films from the classic era and beyond that haven't been aired on the program.  Are the "rights" issues that major an obstacle?  Maybe, I don't know.

    Problem #2:  Again,  I don't mind seeing a noir previously aired on Noir Alley a second time.  But I think there should be some "transparency" around it.  Otherwise, it feels as though for some reason Eddie M.  doesn't want to come right out and say,  "Hey, I know we showed this one on Noir Alley two years ago (or whenever), but it's a good one, and bears repeat viewings."  Also,  it would be interesting if he could give us a reason why they're now doing repeats.  He could even mention some noirs that haven't yet been aired, but maybe they're working on it, trying to get the rights or whatever, stay tuned....     I would just appreciate a more forthright approach when Noir Alley shows repeats.   No reason to pretend a film that's being featured for a second time hasn't been shown before.

  17. 3 hours ago, TomJH said:

    That makes me think that there could be a great ventriloquist serial killer film in which the psycho gets off on having the victims tell him how good looking he is and the victims are going nuts, thinking, "Wait a minute, where's that voice coming from? I'm not saying that!"

    Shades of Dead of Night.

  18. On 12/15/2020 at 11:55 AM, jamesjazzguitar said:

    This message board has very few followers especially when it comes to regulars (say people that come to it every day,  a few times per day).

     

     

    Really?    That's your definition of a "regular" here ?   I  consider myself a TCM message board "regular", yet I sometimes go as long as a week without posting.  But I've been participating on these boards since 2010,  and I definitely feel I'm a "regular" here.

    • Like 4
  19. KISS OF DEATH deserves its fame as a major noir.  I love the NYC location shots,  the film really captures that place and time.  I'd kind of like to go to Luigi's Seafood Diner and have the midnight special   - too bad Nick doesn't get to eat it.

    I don't know why Victor Mature isn't taken more seriously as an actor. I like him, I think he's perfectly fine.  Liked him in I Wake Up Screaming too.

    As well, Brian Donlevy  and Coleen Grey give good performances.  As Eddie mentioned, Coleen Grey is in a few noirs,  including Nightmare Alley, where she is as sweet and innocent looking as she is in Kiss of Death.  I also really enjoy her role in Kansas City Confidential, in which she's equally appealing, albeit a little more sophisticated (studying to be a lawyer.)

    But of course, the film belongs to Richard Widmark.  I liked that bit Eddie told us about how, after the release of Kiss of Death,  Tommy Udo fan clubs sprang up at university campuses  (although...what, exactly, did they do?)   I know  this has been said hundreds of times, but it's still worth repeating:  Widmark's performance as the hyper, crazed, giggling Tommy Udu is absolutely unforgettable.  Widmark is one of those actors whose energy just jumps off the screen.  He's one of my favourite actors.

    He also belongs in the trio I've created in my mind of first-rate actors who always give a memorable performance, who are equally adept at playing good guys or bad, and who have a certain screen presence, regardless of the film they're in.  All three of these men were also exceptionally decent and nice people in their real life personal lives:  Widmark, as noted, along with Robert Ryan and last week's Noir Alley star, Dan Duryea.  As well, interestingly, all three actors could look handsome or ugly. Their faces change according to their character -  pretty good acting trick.

    Anyway, Kiss of Death is never boring, always high praise when it comes to movies (or anything, for that matter.)  Not exactly a family Christmas film - aside from anything else, the Christmassy part ends right after the jewelry robbery on Christmas Eve.  But that's ok.  

    • Like 6
    • Thanks 1
  20. On 12/13/2020 at 12:23 PM, ElCid said:

    The Burglar is one of those movies that I don't remember until I start watching it and remember as the scenes unfold.

    I'll give it a 5/10.  Not really impressed with any of the acting, although Dan Duryea did do a good job.  Interesting to see an older Martha Vickers - still looking good.  Never really impressed with the "blondes" Eddie mentions in the intro.

    Cid, I wouldn't blame you if you thought I always disagreed with you and kind of harassed you about how I disagree.  That might be the way it seems to you, and the reason you might feel that way is, fact is, I do often disagree with you about these noir movies.  I'll spell it out:  it seems to me that more often than not, you don't much like the film shown on Noir Alley.  At best you seem benignly indifferent to whatever the Noir Alley selection is, and sometimes you say you really don't find anything interesting about it at all.  I can't actually recall a post you've written here where you've said you love the film shown on N.A.

    So, I'm just curious...can you name me one or two noirs that you really love, and would be delighted if Eddie showed on Noir Alley? Honestly, I'm not trying to give you a hard time, I've just noticed that most of the time, it seems you don't much care for whatever noir is presented.  

  21. On 12/9/2020 at 10:34 AM, TomJH said:

    I went to the Ali-Foreman fight on closed circuit TV. I knew Foreman was going to win but I bet on Muhammad, who was my sports hero, and I was going to stick by him no matter what. One of the great evenings of my life as I was shocked to see  Ali shake up the world for a second time in ten years. Years later, after Foreman got over his bitterness from his loss, he and Ali became good friends and Big George has nothing but kind and gracious things to say about Muhammad today, both as a man and fighter.

    Speaking of which, why doesn't Noir Alley show any boxing noirs, Body and Soul, Champion, The Set Up? The movies have brought us some powerful dramatics in those films.

    The-Set-Up-1949-Review.gif

    Eddie has shown "The Set-Up" on Noir Alley, I think maybe even earlier this year.  Within the last 12 months or so, anyway.

    • Like 1
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...