AndyM108
-
Posts
4,255 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
18
Posts posted by AndyM108
-
-
Just to belatedly nitpick what was probably just a typo, it was Cregar, not Burr, who died at a very young age. Cregar left us at the age of 31, but Burr made it to 76.
Which is why I bolded
I also love Laird Cregar.
in CaveGirl's post.
Sorry, but that wasn't clear to me when I read it, though I couldn't imagine you were confusing the two actors.
Also, Burr wasn't in The Lodger.
Of course not, but that only added to my confusion when I read what you wrote the first time around. My bad.
And Burr wasn't nearly as talented as Cregar, he was just good at being evil and creepy. But he was memorable in the tacked-on scenes in Godzilla, I have to give him that.
Bill James the baseball stat maven makes the distinction between "Career Value" and "Peak Value". That may be what we're seeing here with Burr and Cregar. I do agree that there's a dimension of evil that Cregar exhibited in several films that Burr never quite reached, great as Burr was in the many roles he played.
-
CaveGirl, on 29 Jul 2015 - 3:55 PM, said:
I also love Laird Cregar.
I just got to thinking about what an interesting movie "American Graffiti" would be if Raymond Burr had been playing the Wolfman Jack role.
He did have a great voice for radio!
primosprimos
Posted Yesterday, 08:45 PM
Same here. He was excellent in The Lodger.
Shame. I didn't know he died when he was only a kid. What a waste of talent.
Just to belatedly nitpick what was probably just a typo, it was Cregar, not Burr, who died at a very young age. Cregar left us at the age of 31, but Burr made it to 76.
-
That's my favorite line from the trailer.
I love the distinction being made between the cheap honkytonks and the sophisticated ones.
Somewhat along those lines, I'll never forget the early 70's radio commercial for one of those dessert wines, either Mogen David or Manischewitz, whose punch line was "It's as modern as a peace demonstration".
-
There aren't many (successful) films that mix comedy & action so deftly.
1st, an enthusiastic second to the films jamesjazzguitar named, especially "Murder He Says" (1945), & "The Trouble With Harry" (1955).
2nd, some films I especially enjoy:
"Across the Pacific"--(1942)--Humphrey Bogart & Mary Astor reteamed in a film that can't decide if it wants to be actioner, comedy, or mystery--it goes for all 3, & somehow works--a delightful surprise.
"To Have and Have Not" (1944)--Bogie & Bacall actioner where wisecracks reign supreme--great fun.
"Charade"--(1963)--Cary Grant, Audrey Hepburn comedy thriller-Wonderful.
"How to Steal a Million"--(1966)--Audrey Hepburn & Peter O'Toole--more comedy than actioner--but Audrey & O'Toole have Chemistry,
Of course there's the Daddy of All Such Films: The Thin Man.
-
2
-
-
Who the hell is Tom the cop? Oh.....Ward Bond? You think he's likable?
I love all the characters in the 1941 Maltese Falcon (except maybe for Tom the cop.) Gutman and his merry band are all hilarious.
How come you always want movie characters to be moral? Morality in characters has a direct correlation to dullness.
Which may be why I've always found Gary Cooper and Gregory Peck to be among the dullest actors imaginable.
-
1
-
-
Raymond Burr always reminds me of Laird Creegar; big burly guys with smoldering dark features, very dramatic actors. I like them both and wish they did some comedic or romantic roles. Hollywood was so narrow minded.
Cregar had a bit more edge to him than even Burr, which is saying a LOT. While Burr's characters usually assumed the sort of serious thuggish determination and somewhat psychotic behavior we associate with classic noir criminals, Cregar's often seem to walk the line between uninhibited evil and some sort of mental illness, as in his famous Ed Cornell role in I Wake Up Screaming, or in his horrified-by-violence, rather effeminate Nazi enabler in This Gun For Hire. And in his final two movies, The Lodger and Hangover Square, he enters realms of darkness that Burr never quite approaches.
But all that said, Burr is such a perfect noir archetype that I can think of nothing better than to make him a SOTM or at the very least, feature him in an all-noir SUTS day. He never mails it in, and his presence alone makes any movie a must-see.
-
3
-
-
Interesting, but I disagree. In one way or another, the world we live in is controlled by the issues that are addressed in horror films. Those issues have controlled and obsessed us for millennia; they are our religions, or have moved us to create our religions; they control politics today, through the impact of religion and the concept of evil on the human mind. The two-bit antics of Phyllis Dietrichson and Walter Neff and their friends have made for some great stories; but they pale in comparison to the issues addressed, sometimes in an OTT fashion, in horror films -- issues that are with us and preoccupy us every day.
I dunno, sometimes a cigar is just a smoke, and sometimes a man with the head of a fly is just a man with the head of a fly. And the two-bit antics depicted in noir movies are far more reflective of life in the world we actually live in, which in my subjective opinion is far more interesting than the depiction of endless parallel universes.
Now obviously some horror / sci-fi films do achieve greatness by their sheer skill of storytelling: Metropolis; Frankenstein; Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; House of Wax; Them!; Night of the Living Dead; etc. But films on that level are rare birds indeed within that category. Too many of the others simply overload us with special effects and other gimmicks as a substitute for coherence.
-
I haven't been part of this argument/discussion and haven't read all of the posts yet, but I will say that horror and science fiction are more important than film noir. They get a bad rap, but they are the folk tales, myths, and fairy stories of the 20th and 21st centuries. Some of the films delve into that part of the human psyche to find where evil dwells; others deal in the externalization of evil. Their equivalents in the 19th century were the subject of a lot more serious scholarship than that century's noir stories.
Noir does seem more important to TCM, and to posters here; but although I enjoy it, I think in the scheme of things it's a lesser genre than horror, a genre that has been obsessing people's minds for millennia.
"More important" is a completely subjective categorization that exists solely in the mind of the viewer, so I won't argue with that. Some people probably think that those 1950's technicolor musicals are "more important" than any other category, and who am I to argue? Different strokes for different folks.
But I'll tell you why in my equally subjective opinion, classic film noir is a far more compelling category than fantasy, horror, or science fiction.
The answer is simple: Noir is set in the here and now, and it's far more representative of the real world than any of those other three categories, however implausible some of those noir plot lines may be.
We don't live in a world of witches, elves, gnomes, disfigured monsters, or aliens from Mars. We live in a world that's full of the sort of characters I see depicted in film noir: A world of greed, two-timing, insane ambition, and general lowlife behavior.
It's not a pretty world in spite of all those gorgeous nightclub singers and adrenaline rushes, but it's one that's far more reflective of the real world than a bunch of Martians or little green men enhanced by special effects and Oscarworthy costume designers. I don't think it's a coincidence that the core audiences for those movies are primarily teenagers and overaged adolescents of the type you see populating comic book conventions. Harmless, but not that interesting.
To each his own, but I'm grateful for the Summer of Darkness, and would retch at the thought of devoting that much air time to fantasy or horror or Sci-Fi. Featuring horror movies in October is fine, but one month a year for special emphasis is enough. There's nothing particularly wrong with those other three categories, but only in VERY small doses.
-
1
-
-
Timothy Carey
I'll take your word for it, but although he'd certainly qualify for a "Brand" award for his role in The Killing, I can't place him in any of his other movies. He was in Crime Wave, but where?
-
Neville Brand sure cornered the market for creepy thugs....
I've been racking my brain trying to think of another actor who's so completely defined by his signature creepiness, but I'm drawing a blank. The closest I've come is Jack Lambert, who played "Dum-Dum" in The Killers, but there's something about the glow of Brand's radioactive teeth that makes him the winner of the gold medal. Other sadistic thugs like Lee Marvin, Richard Widmark, Rudy Bond and Mike Mazurki are too well known in other types of roles to have them meet Brand's almost Ivory Soap level of 99.44% evil.
-
2
-
-
Jack Elam got his - mostly the beginning of the movie, when he met with Mr. Big. That opening - with those closeups of that face - wonder what audiences thought of that mug? Both he and Lee Van Cleef were skinny guys!
I was taken aback at how Preston Foster looked. I had just seen him last week in The Harvey Girls, and it looked as though he had aged 30 years in the 6 years between the two movies. I guess hair dye and less weight really do make a difference. I only recognized him from his voice and then his eyes, not seeing the credits beforehand. I would say he did not let vanity get in the way of playing this role.
Another actor in Kansas City Confidential who looked like he'd aged 10 years in two is the perennial two bit thug, Neville Brand. Just look at his face in D.O.A., (immediately below) which was made in 1950, and compare it to Kansas City Confidential from 1952, in the picture at the bottom.
-
1
-
-
Hello. I don't remember the name of the movie. I just remember some of the plot, and that I liked it. It could have been Joan Crawford? Any way the plot goes... This couple have a son. They love playing practical jokes on their son. Their son is just waiting for his chance to get them back. "all in good fun" So he comes up with the idea of bringing home the girl he is going to marry. His girl friend is in on the gag. She acts like a stuck up snob. His mother falls for it hook line and sinker. She is horrified her son wants to marry this awful girl. They string her along for a while. Then the son lets in on the joke. His girl friend is really a sweetheart. The son is so glad he finaly get's payback for all the jokes they played on him. Does this ring a bell with anyone? Thanks. Filix
Never heard of such a plot, but it sounds like a movie I could go for.
-
I'm pretty sure that a skin is a dollar, and a deuce is two.
You're right, of course. Here's what the authoritative Dictionary of Underworld Lingo has to say about it. The book was published in 1950, just two years before the movie.
Skin. 1. (P) A one-dollar bill. "The screw (guard) wants a skin for his end (share) to bring in stickers (contraband stamps)." 2. Loose women or degenerates generally; a loose woman; a degenerate; (A hunk of skin.) 3. (Pickpocket jargon) A wallet. "Week (take the money out of) that skin and whip (get rid of) it."
Deuce. 1. Two dollars. 2. A two-year prison term. "Bits (prison terms) was tough in the old days, but you got a deuce then whee you get hit with a sawbuck (ten years) now."
-
I watched THE NARROW MARGIN LAST NIGHT.
While I would still rate it **1/2 stars out of a potential four, I have to say I was wrong in being dismissive of McGraw. He's really good....and although I don't care for the farcical scenes near the middle (re: the breakfast tray and the ANNOYING KID)- he handles them well and would have been great at comedy. I in particular can only imagine what he could have done in with the Tracy Role in FATHER OF THE BRIDE.
I love Charles McGraw more and more as an actor the more I see of him. He's almost the Platonic ideal of two Hollywood archetypes---the sadistic thug and the lockjawed cop---and yet as you hint at, he could also have stepped into many Spencer Tracy-like roles with characters that were variants of those two. When you get right down to it, Tracy himself was pretty much of an archetype pigheaded Irishman throughout his entire career, only with an ability to adapt that basic character to play anything from judges to sportswriters to lawyers to seamen to gruff but doting fathers. I can't think of any particular reason why given the opportunity, Charles McGraw couldn't very well have done the same.
-
2
-
-
…and which is the noirest film of all?
One word answer with only one letter: M
-
1
-
-
Just watched Kansas City Confidential, and I have to wonder whether poor Lee Van Cleef got some kind of bonus for the number of times during the course of the movie he was disarmed, punched out, and / or shot by John Payne. I don't think even the great William Bendix used Alan Ladd as that much of a punching bad in The Glass Key, and brother that's saying something.
-
3
-
-
Incidentally, is there ANY film in which ALL the characters have as unattractive personalities as does GILDA?.
"Personalities?" I ain't gotta show you no stinkin' personalities!
-
1
-
-
I can only tape 8 hours worth of films on Friday and want to tape the best of the best
noirs. Recommendations, please.
Leaving out the only one I haven't seen (Roadblock), here's how I'd fill up the 8 hours, with a few shorts included to fill up the tape:
1:05 PM I Love Children, But -8 min.
1:15 PM Kansas City Confidential - 99 min.
6:03 PM Nostradamus Says So! - 11 min.
6:15 PM Split Second - 86 min.
8:00 PM The Narrow Margin - 72 min.
11:45 PM The Locket - 85 min.
1:21 AM Getting Glamour - 8 min.
3:13 AM The Future Is Now - 15 min.
3:30 AM Elevator to the Gallows - 91 min.
That's 7 hours and 55 minutes of entertainment for the whole family. Pot 'n' popcorn not included.
The absolute Essentials™ are The Narrow Margin and Elevator to the Gallows, though in truth if you could record the entire 24 hours you couldn't really go wrong on any of them.
-
3
-
-
You want her to be a fatale in every role???
Well, in The Company She Keeps, Greer plays the bad girl while Scott plays the goody two shoes. It's an all-around clinker of a movie in any event, but three guesses which character is even more uninteresting.
Moral: Bad girls not named Barbara Stanwyck should generally stick to playing bad girls.
-
My point was that if that money had never arrived in the couple's car, DeFore would have confronted Jane and got nowhere, than confronted Andy, and got nowhere (most likely Andy would have punched him for implying his wife was 'evil'), and DeFore would have left town accomplishing nothing expect getting something off his chest (which I assume is all DeFore expected he would be accomplish).
Instead the 1 in a million chance of the money ending up in the car, gave DeFore his 1 in a million chance to bring Jane down once he learned that Andy was 'missing'.
Hey, Corpse #2 was Alan, not Andy. Hope that wasn't a Freudian slip.
Your point is logical and well taken, but of course without Duryea's suitcase being thrown into the car there wouldn't have been any movie to begin with. DeFore's suspicions were enough to bring him to look up Scott, even if his entry story was shaky, and from that point on I don't see the plot development being much more risible than the countless number of impossible things we're supposed to believe before breakfast we can find in most any Hollywood film, such as the casting of Audrey Hepburn with Gary Cooper in Love in the Afternoon.
In real life, if Alan had still been alive, I doubt if that would have lessened DeFore's suspicions about Scott, since they were already strong enough to make him concoct his WW2 story to enable him to get into Scott's apartment in the daytime, when presumably a live Alan would have been at work. In real life, I suspect DeFore would have continued digging into Scott's character even after that punch in the jaw, and when that real life merged with Hollywood, the screenwriter simply would have invented another impossible to believe turn of events that would have led to Scott been electrocuted by lightning or run over by a horse in Central Park, with the horse winding up being the guest of honor at DeFore's and Kathy's inevitable wedding ceremony. Those screenwriters are always an imaginative lot.
-
You're correct that is what DeFore's character said, so like I said Jane wasn't directly responsible for her first husband's death (i.e. directly to me means she had a direct hand in the killing. Either way DeFore had no legal case against Jane. Jane had nothing to fear from him. Therefore this part of the plot was a dead-end EXCEPT that he was lucky with his timing.
I dunno if I'd take everything quite so literally. My read is that DeFore was absolutely convinced that Scott was morally responsible for her first husband's death, regardless of whether was legally responsible, and inferred with very good reason that she might well have bumped off Kennedy.* He then figured that by proving her role in Kennedy's death, she would be in effect punished for the death of her first husband. IMO all of that hangs together pretty well, although it is true that he had fortunate timing in having that second case fortuitously drop into his lap.
* That's Arthur Kennedy, not JFK
-
1
-
-
Some good ones coming up July 24. I highly recommend Kansas City Confidential, Macao, The Narrow Margin and His Kind of Woman.
Charles McGraw is in Narrow Margin and His Kind of Woman. He is also in Roadblock, but I haven't seen that one yet.
Robert Mitchum is in Macao and His Kind of Woman. Also in The Locket and Angel Face, but not as good as others in my opinion. Jane Russell also in Macao and HKOW.
The Narrow Margin is one of best Film Noirs and also features Marie Windsor and Jacqueline White. One of the best "train" movies out of Hollywood, but there are some accuracy glitches. Still very entertaining. Was remade in 1990 as Narrow Margin with Gene Hackman and Anne Archer. A very good neo-noir (whatever that is). It is probably a better "train" movie.
Some other very good actors spread across all of these movies.
John Payne, Coleen Gray, Neville Brand, Lee Van Cleef and Jack Elam do very well in KCC. The role in this one seems to fit Payne' acting style better than some of his others.
There's not a cough in that entire lineup's carload, but I'm most looking forward to Roadblock (1951), because (1) it's the only one I haven't seen; and (2) For a nice change of pace, Charles McGraw is playing an ordinary man turned crook, rather than a pure thug or a sadistic cop.
-
2
-
-
They don't use the term "rest home" anymore. It's either "nursing home", "continuing care community" or "enhanced care community".
Whatever it is today, it sure beats what they used to call this joint in upper NW Washington that was around until well into the second half of the 20th century, before changing its name to "The Washington Home" for obvious reasons. We used to visit it every day during Summer vacations in the early 1960's because it was also the home of the last nickel Coke bottle machine.
And then there was this. At least they didn't call it The Washington Bughouse. It's now just called St. Elizabeth's.
-
She's also a good girl in THE RACKET.
In that case she's a scared good girl who only certifies her goodness in the end when it became safe to do so. Not exactly a profile in courage.
But in any event that particular role of Scott could have been played by any actress with a minimally torchy look, and The Racket belongs to Robert Ryan from start to finish, It's seldom that any actor can make Robert Mitchum almost seem like an afterthought, but Ryan does it rather easily, just as he did in Crossfire.
October Schedule UP * David Niven SOTM
in General Discussions
Posted
Me, too. And I look forward to seeing them discuss the issues on the evening of August 6th.