misswonderly3

I'm with slayton on this one, I hardly ever like a movie that's longer than two hours. "That said", there are loads of exceptions, including, as Lawrence and Dargs mention, The Best Years of Our Lives. I love it and never notice how long it is. There are others that run considerably over that two hour duration that I really like, but off-hand I can't name any. Here's the thing about movies: I like it when they get in, tell their story, and get out. All those long movies zea mentioned, I can't stand. Doctor Zhivago, to me, just goes on and on. I always want to dump a Russian samover of tea over Lara's head by about the 100th time I've seen her smiling sadly into the sunset, or Omar Sharif's eyes, or whatever. In fact, I hate epics. They bore me, I lose interest in the characters - there are so many characters. And I just can't get with the rapid passage of time in these things; one minute we have, say, a family with children and a happily married couple, the next, the aforementioned children are all grown up and the happy couple are divorced. I'm not basing that on any particular epic film, it's just an example. It's disorienting for me, and it's hard for me to connect with a story and character that changes 180 times in as many minutes (ok, slight exaggeration.) Maybe that's why I don't mind the length of Best Years of Our Lives - the story's all told within a few months of when the soldiers return. It doesn't have that "What ? But they just started university and now they're experiencing middle-aged angst ?" syndrome so many so-called epics have. Anyway, point made, I'd better get out myself before this post becomes an epic.

What do you think of my suggestion re: The Two Mrs. Carrolls ?

I just watched The Two Mrs. Carrolls last night. I'd say it also fits into that "off noir" category you're talking about. (But it's not as good as those other movies.)

Airprose or whatever your name is: I know I'm doing what everyone advises people NOT to do when they feel someone has picked them out on some social media forum and is deliberately trying to annoy them: I'm taking your bait. First, why on earth would you click the "sad" emoticon in reaction to that post I wrote about noir and how it's quite common for different people to have different responses to it? I said nothing critical, either directly or indirectly, about you or anything you'd said on this thread. In fact, I think it's quite an interesting idea, what our fellow poster cigarjoe says about film and the "tuning fork" idea. Makes sense to me. Second, I can only conclude that for some reason you now see me as an enemy here, or if that's much too strong a word to describe it ( and I think it is), someone who you've decided you just disagree with on principle. So, how 'bout we both just start all over again? I am extending an olive branch to you. It's just a silly waste of time for people to try to pull each other's chains, just because they may have started out that way, especially over the internet.

Well, as I said earlier in response to this perception you have about too much Noir on TCM, for some reason film noir seemed to be rediscovered in the first 10 years or so of this century, and a lot of people started paying attention to it, creating blogs about it, and otherwise talking about it on social media, etc. Much more so than, say, Westerns or musicals or what used to be called "women's pictures" or screwball comedies or pretty much any other genre from the classic movie era. So, I suppose if there's more active interest out there when it comes to film noir movies as opposed to other film genres, that would be why TCM decided to schedule more dedicated time to noir.

Hmm. Wonder how you define "very good quality". There's no question that most noirs are distinctly low-budget, and not big on what is called "production values". But that's partly why I like them. However, what kind of movies one likes is extremely individual and personal, so there's no point in trying to argue that film noir movies are "good" - it all depends on what one considers to be "good" in film. I will say, though, that for me, noirs have a fascination, an attraction that I'm not sure I can even put into words. Even a relatively mediocre noir can engage my interest. I won't go into it in this post (it would take too long), but there's something about this kind of movie, especially the ones from the "classic" noir period, that has a tremendous emotional appeal for me. It's like what cigarjoe here says: Every movie is kind of like a tuning fork, and if the viewer is attuned to what that movie is sending, they'll make a connection. Not everyone is "attuned" to every cinematic "tuning fork"...oh what the hell, cigarjoe, it would be better if you explained this theory.

If you think "the whole noir thing is being overplayed by TCM", I'm curious to know why you're reading this thread. Still, I must admit, sometimes I think a lot of people have jumped on the noir bandwagon in the last few years .I don't mean on TCM, just in general. I first discovered film noir back in the '80s. I absolutely loved it, and watched everything noir I could find (like on TVO's "Saturday Night at the Movies", and also, searching out video rental places that had noirs- those were the days ! ) So, I'm not claiming I'm any kind of expert on this subject, I still have a lot to learn and many more unwatched as yet noirs to see. But I have noticed that, over the past 10 years or so, and especially with the almost exponential crazy increase in internet and social media use, a lot more people seem to have discovered this type of movie and almost all of them seem to have something to say about it. I am glad that noir is getting its due and is now recognized and appreciated in a way it wasn't until, oh I don't know, maybe around 2006 or so ( that's an arbitrary date I picked). All this is by way of saying, if your point was that you think film noir has become kind of trendy and cool, I'd have to agree. But that doesn't take away from what good , interesting, unique movies they are. And as for Turner Classic Movies, I'm really happy that they show a lot of film noir movies, and am extremely grateful for Eddie Muller and Noir Alley.

Perhaps he was trying to figure out a way to make a new size-enhancing bra stuffed with coal.

Oh, I love all those noirs you mentioned ! That bizarre, semi-nightmarish, disorienting, or as you say "colourfully existential stuff" is one of my favourite kinds of movie. I suppose you could add to that list, Night of the Hunter (don't know if it's technically a noir, but it's definitely "colourfully existential" and nightmarish ) along with Decoy (doesn't get much weirder than that), and Kiss Me Deadly, just to name a few. However, that's not to say that I don't really enjoy the less macabre, surrealistic noirs. I think they're fun, too. As I've said on these boards, several times I think, the only kind of so-called noir I dislike are the ones that present a psycho-killer as the protagonist. I'm not talking about noirs that just have a psycho -killer in them (there are a lot of them ), I mean, movies that kind of give the viewer the story through the psycho's point -of-view. I don't hold with psycho-killers as people I can empathize with, unless it's in the Talking Heads song. Qu'est ce que c'est?

Count me in on the pro-Eddie Muller camp. I really enjoy his "wraparounds" for Noir Alley. I agree, I think he's funny, in a light touch, droll sort of way. Sometimes it's not even what he says, it's the expression on his face that makes me laugh. I have difficulty understanding why some people dislike him, especially when they claim that he's a fake who doesn't know much about movies let alone film noir. Upon what is this negative assessment of him based? I always get the impression he loves these movies, has studied them for years, and absolutely knows what he's talking about. Yay, Eddie ! And many thanks to him and TCM for bringing us Noir Alley !

So, you stopped watching it partway through? Well, we're all different, of course, and there are probably lots of movie fans who do the same thing when they really can't stand a film, or even one particular actor in it. Me, I tend to stick it out no matter what. A movie has to be incredibly horrible for me to abandon it. Usually once I've committed to watching a film, I'll watch it till the end. Especially with a noir, first because I just love them, even the bad ones or the ones with bad actors, and second, because almost all noirs are mercifully short. That's one of the things I like about them: they get in, tell their tale, and get out. It's rare for a noir to be any longer than 90 minutes, many of them aren't even that long. Re: Joan Dixon: I know what you mean about her, I guess we can all understand why her acting career went nowhere. Too bad Howard Hughes always had to insist on sticking whatever his latest crush/lover/protegee into whatever movie project he was involved with at the time. As Eddie has said more than once, Hughes did this a lot. Another noir that comes to mind where the female lead has no charisma and I start thinking about who would have been better cast in their role is, Where Danger Lives. As for her being "very generic in the femme fatale department", I attribute that to the fact that after about the first half hour, she's not really much of a femme fatale at all. (See my earlier post about this.) That's not Joan Dixon's fault, that's the writing....but still, I think I know what you mean when you say she's "wooden". And I imagine everyone else at that studio felt the same way, since I'd never heard of her before I watched Roadblock this morning, and since as far as I can tell she wasn't in much else. (looked her up in wiki and it's a very short list....)

Ok, more about Roadblock: Joan Dixon: Right, I must admit, I'd never seen her in anything else, never heard of her. Still, I was willing to give her a chance. I did end up kind of liking her, but a tough self-centred femme fatale she aint. First, she has this little-girlish voice that just didn't work - when women say lines like "I need someone playing for the World Series, and you're in the Bush Leagues", you want them to say it tough. Joan just isn't tough enough.Which is ok, because it turns out that her character is NOT a classic femme fatale; in fact, I'd argue that she's not really a ff at all. Look, what about that Christmas eve scene, where she's all by herself in some lonely bar and rushes away in tears. I think we're supposed to think that that lonely Christmas eve experience is a "deal breaker" for her, and she has a complete ( and not entirely plausible) change of heart. She goes to Joe and tells him she loves him and no longer cares about "playing in the Big League". After that, Joan's character (Diane) doesn't really seem to matter anymore. Once she becomes a nice girl and loving wife, I'm afraid she's sympathetic but not that interesting anymore, and apparently the writer and director feel the same; I mean, you could almost film the entire rest of the movie without her and it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference. (Compare that to good old Phyllis in DI . ) Other notes: I love the ostensible bad guy, Kendall Webb. I enjoy Lowell Gilmore's performance as Webb, for one thing. There's something very classy about this guy, he reminded me a little of Claude Rains. And he's depicted as , in his own bad guy underworld leader way, honourable. He's very straightforward with Joe about the train heist, and he even sends Joe his share of the money, even though it would have been fairly easy for him to "forget" to do this. Webb's "honour among thieves" character is made clear when Joe says, "I know enough about you to know you'll come through", or something like that. So when Joe decides his only way out is to meet him in a lonely roadside place and off him, I'm disappointed in Joe and genuinely sorry for Webb. Hey, the guy didn't deserve this ! You know Joe's really gone off the rails ( no pun intended) when he kills this guy.

I agree with Looney...Roadblock is not a great noir by any means, but it's pretty darn good, and certainly entertaining and sufficiently noirish to please my noir-loving heart. Unlike the thing they showed last week (but that horse has been flogged enough...) So, as usual, "a few observations": First, I'm getting tired of people mentioning Double Indemnity every time there's a crime movie with an insurance agent. Even Eddie, who ought to know better, said Roadblock bore some similarities to DI. No, not really. The comparison ends with that, the fact that the main character is an insurance investigation detective. Other than that, not like Double Indemnity at all. Let me count the ways: the so-called "femme fatale" (but she's not !) does not try to get her lover to murder anybody, she never mentions the word "insurance", and she has a change-of-heart about how she wants to live her life less than half-way through the movie. In fact, there's no murder plot whatsoever, which is a huge part of the story in Double Indemnity. Ok, there is a murder, but it's not carefully planned step-by-step the way Babs and Fred do ; in fact, it's more like a move of desperation on the part of the hero (or anti-hero.) The only similarity to Double Indemnity that Roadblock bears is the suspicious partner. The loyalty, trust, and friendship between Peters and his partner (hey, it's Joe Brody !) makes the ending of this film all the more moving, just as the friendship between Fred and Edward G.'s characters does so in DI. Yikes, I've blathered on so much about that, I'm going to save the rest for another post !

Well, I thought it was kind of funny...this thread used to get a lot more response than it apparently does now. Ah well, it's an old thread, actually left over from at least 2010, amazed it's carried on for as long as it has. (and yes, this comment was partly just to bump it back to page one, just in case...)

I've always thought of White Heat as more a really good crime movie, with psycho leader Cody Jarrett making it something unique. "That said", I won't argue with anyone who says it's a film noir; I can see that, it's got enough noir elements to deserve that label. I think when you say "it just lacks something that I think would put it in noir territory", that "something" is the overall mood of alienation, isolation, nihilsim, desperation, entrapment, ...whatever you want to call that particular warped feeling that so many noirs of that period have. White Heat's story is told pretty much from the point of view of the undercover cop (Edmond O'Brien) assigned to basically ingratiate himself into Cody's gang and forward information about them to the police authorities. As such, it doesn't have some of the features of hopelessness,discontent, exclusion, and ennui that many noir characters evince in classic noirs. What would have made White Heat an even better movie than it already is ( and it's already pretty fantastic, don't get me wrong, I love this film ) would be if the Edmond O'Brien character had shown more feelings of disorientation and inner conflict in his double-edged position as similtaneously spy for the police, and confidante of Cody Jarrett. Anyway, it's a great film, and I won't disagree with anyone who wants to call it a film noir.

Try watching "The Killers". I know, I know, it's supposed to be one of the greatest noirs ever, blah blah, but I swear, every single time I've endeavoured to watch it, I've fallen asleep. Right about the time Burt sees Ava standing by the piano at that boring party.

I don't know what the movie is like, but the book has to be one of the most dismal ever written.?

Hibi, a while ago I saw this really interesting documentary about colour in nature, and it said that the least common colour in the natural world is blue. (well, except for the sky, I guess...) It said that the colour blue in plants and flowers is the rarest colour of all, and that there were very few flowers that were blue;and actually, a lot that are blue were developed to be so by botanists doing hybrids and science-y experiments. But blue occurring naturally in the plant world is unusual. Interesting, eh?

Sequel in the works: "Potty -Mouth Gangsters of Chicago".

POTTY GIRL Cyd Charisse and Robert Taylor star in this unusual crime drama. Cyd's character has tired of her nightclub dancer job, and seeks to begin a new career as a professional toilet-trainer. She and Bob figure all they need is to advertise to parents of toddler-age children that their potty-training woes are over, all they need is Vicki Gaye to instruct the kiddy on the advantages of potty use versus diapers. Problem is, neither of them know any families or people with young children. So Cyd decides to go back to her showgirl job, but with a new dance routine that intergrates a potty into the act. "Tommy, I 'm wondering if we could throw a potty into the number right about here. Whad'dya think?" As a back-up plan, Cyd and Bob figure they can always branch off into curbing gangsters given to potty-mouth language, starting with Lee J. Cobb.

Right. Like I said, Cyd's character is a bit of a goody-goody. I mean, cocoa? really? I think the screenwriter had her offer Taylor cocoa to show that she was a "good" girl who wasn't about to invite any hanky-panky activity with offers of alcohol. I suspect that had more to do with the cocoa thing than Prohibition. "That said", I actually quite like a nice cup of cocoa now and then. But in the winter time, not now, with 35 degree heat.

Well, I was just going by what she said in that one post, which doesn't mention any of that stuff. I did go back and read her earlier post, the one you quote her on. So, I don't know, I'm not sure if she was talking in general, or speaking specifically about Turner Classic Movies. One thing she did say in the post you're referring to which I profoundly disagree with is this: "For instance, research on your own why a picture like "Birth Of A Nation" was considered racist by some and an actual truth by others not only when it was released in 1915 but even to this day." Now, zea is not saying the actions and attitudes depicted in that film are an "actual truth" for her personally. However, it's hard to imagine anyone thinking anything shown in "Birth of a Nation" is any kind of truth. Maybe in 1915. Maybe that's what she was saying.

Was she truly scrumptious?

Cid baby, shirley you know I was just teasing you. Friendly teasing.