JamesJazGuitar
-
Posts
35,217 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
52
Posts posted by JamesJazGuitar
-
-
2 hours ago, NoShear said:
Regarding the screening of KING RAT, I found myself wanting to trade with one of the Australians:
Nice hat but from a different rat.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, King Rat said:
I think the ending shows us who both characters are. Marlowe, in spite of himself, has become fascinated by the streetwise King, so different from the well-bred Englishmen he knows. King shows his real affection for Marlowe when he obtains the drugs his friend needs. If you listen carefully, the script implies (which the novel did not) that the two eventually have a sexual relationship. King has a room which he rents out to people seeking privacy, and Marlowe's dialogue at the end about "what we had" uses the language of love. The writer-director, Bryan Forbes, heterosexual himself, had worked for years in a milieu with many gay men, and he was sympathetic to their situation.
Marlowe would like to maintain contact with King or at least know that King also valued the time they had spent together, but for King, the world where he can be king rat is suddenly gone, and his way of coping with the new situation is to shut the old life out of his mind. I like this ending very much.
Yea, I have read about the possibility of a relationship before (likely here, maybe by you). I don't know if I agree with that; I.e. the "what we had" could have been just Marlowe's view that they have a strong and real friendship, something well-bred stuffy Englishmen don't often establish with each other.
If a sexual relationship was what Forbes was trying to imply that would be something; Prior to the 70s, writer-directors generally had to remove any reference to such a relationship contained in the original novel. I also like the ending very much as well as the entire film.
-
1
-
-
Today's L.A. Times has a nice article about Patricia Hitchcock O'Connell.
She was married for more than 40 years to Joseph O'Connell, who died in 1994 and they had 3 children.
Wow, 40 years. That is a major accomplishment!
RIP.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, hamradio said:
Next time notice the EMOJI's!!!!
Geeze what a bunch of snowflakes!!
(PS I'm not retracting - sick of too sensitive people)
No one was being sensitive. It was only you being ignorant.
You're just deflecting on others because you're too immature to admit you made a mistake.
-
3
-
-
9 hours ago, Allhallowsday said:
...rarely get anything right.
Well the Grammys, as well as Oscars etc... were not designed to get thing right but instead as a PR vehicle for the record labels \ movie studios.
I.e. if sales are increased for the companies with the most power in their industry they got-it-right (by their definition).
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, hamradio said:
I know what it is and 1% of US moms claims virgin births (CBS News / British studies)
So you have a lot of other people to be angry at.
You do NOT "know what IT is"; I.e. a virgin birth is NOT the same as the concept of Immaculate Conception.
Hey, that is OK, but don't keep doubling down.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, TikiSoo said:
So while this is a typical thriller, the great performances of the principles most definitely elevated it keeping me on the edge of my seat. I liked it, although didn't quite see it as a "black comedy" as Wiki categorizes it. Loved the quiet NYC locations. One scene had a crowd gathered, presumably because of a murder, but most likely just wanting to glimpse a star making a movie.
Well there is a good degree of comedy in most of the scenes with Steiger; E.g. hard not to smirk when one see him in his latest disguise. Also the murders are very "clean": I.e. not designed to be gruesome.
Fine film and I agree: some fine acting by the 3 stars and a good role for Steiger since his tendency to overact fit the character well (being a person of the theater).
-
1
-
-
34 minutes ago, King Rat said:
That one's available on DVD and, as you might guess, I am fond of the film.
I watched King Rat again last night. I still don't know why King treated Marlowe the way he did at the end.
Ok, maybe King never really viewed Marlowe as a friend but just as an employee and someone he could use, but even if that was the case why not let Marlowe believe they were friends?
Was this done to show that King had no compassion \ heart?
-
3 hours ago, slaytonf said:
jamesjazzguitar:
We get Kay in leather!
Yum.
Well I'm glad someone notice that. We were talking about how glamourous Kay was in her long perfectly fit gowns in 30s high fashion, so I found the contrast of her in leather to be interesting, sexy and appealing.
Rumor has it that Brando stole that look for The Wild Ones!😉
-
2
-
-
Just watched The Proud Ones (1956), a Fox western with a fine cast of Robert Ryan, Jeffery Hunter, Robert Middleton, Walter Brennan and as the love interest for Ryan, Virginia Mayo. I was most impressed with Jeffery Hunter. (of course Ryan gave his usual solid performance).
Typical western boomtown story with Ryan as the Marshall and Middleton as a corrupt saloon owner (are there any other kind other than Kitty). Still it was well directed by Robert Webb with the story moving along to the final shootout.
-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, belalonboris said:
Thanks for the suggestions! I'll look into them all. 👍
Just asking re: "but since this is a Universal film one shouldn't expect TCM to show it." -- I've seen many Universal-released films on TCM so... not sure what this means? Thanks for the insight though.
Universal has a reputation for not restoring films and not leasing them. Of all the major studios I believe TCM shows less films from Universal than any other major.
Of course the original Ted Turner library of films, that Time Warner ended up acquiring were Warner Bros. MGM and RKO and some Paramount films).
I see you have a werewolf as your avatar; TCM was able to lease the Universal horror films, as well as the Abbott and Costello films, Hitchcock films and some others but still TCM is very light on Universal films (as well as Fox, Republic , United Artist, and the majority of Paramount films that were not of the original library).
But Universal Noir films: Of course TCM gets some of these from time to time (say if that are featuring an actor or have a theme), but it is rare to see one as part of their general programming. This is one of the primary reasons TCM shows so many repeats of films from the 3 majors mentioned above.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Cigarjoe cellph said:
The ending takes place on the gambling ship as in the film but in it Velma gets away. The novel has a epilogue where Velma finally gets her's back East in Jersey, a few years later, if I remember it right. She is a chanteuse singing in a band and a cop makes her from a wanted poster.
I checked the novel; Velma shoots a detective that is trying to capture her and than shoots herself; I.e. she commits suicide. The ironic part is that other detectives say that such a women (rich, beautiful), would have never been convicted for the shooting of Moose (since he was a wanted killer).
Of course with the Code the 44 version couldn't have such an ending, and while the 70s version could have, it wouldn't have been as cut-and-dry as how that film ended.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Sepiatone said:
I never knew they WERE gowns!
I just thought they WORE them.
(couldn't resist. 
)
Sepiatone
I know you couldn't. But at least I'm not an idiot that can't see that Kay Francis isn't glamourous.
(couldn't resist).
-
12 hours ago, slaytonf said:
Not part of the celebration, but a great one is British Agent (1934), in which Miss Kay--looking fabulous--plays, wait for it, Lenin's secretary. No, really, it's great. At the beginning of the movie, a gala full of aristocrats is strafed with machine gun fire.
Glad you mentioned this one. We get Kay in leather!
-
4
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Vautrin said:
I haven't read the novel in several years so I have forgotten some of the details. Otto Kruger was always good as
the slick, well-spoken villain with a twinkle in his eye. Last night in Allotment Wives he was a little more sympathetic
than usual.
I also watched Allotment Wives and Otto Kruger was a little more sympathetic, but a lot of that had to do with how he treated Francis.
But in that early board-room scene after one of the gang makes a fuss and it is clear that he will make trouble, someone says that they need to do something and Kruger says to Francis, something like "don't worry, it's being taken care of". He said this in such a way like he was ordering a hamburger! Oh, and I would like cheese with that.
-
I believe this thread has gone as far from Australia as one could imagine.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, belalonboris said:
Curious to know any comments from Sterling Hayden fans about their top SH noir films. While Asphalt Jungle and The Killing (with that great role of Timothy Carey's) are of course among the most popular, Crime Wave is a huge favorite I'd hope no one would miss, as with Crime of Passion (featuring a good role for Raymond Burr). And to digress a little from true noir, Hayden gives a truly worthy and sensitive performance in The Star while Bette Davis chews up the sets -- a great film for its time with lots of little surpises like Paul ('The Haunted Mansion' ride narrator) Frees in his good small bit.
First, welcome newbie. As for Hayden; Since Eddie Muller showed Crime Wave, the film has received the respect it deserved. Tim Carey is in this film as well but I find his mugging in the background to be over-the-top. Hayden is solid in the film, as is the rest of the cast.
Another noir, released the year before Asphalt Jungle is Manhandled (1949). This is a good film with Hayden also as a cop. The film features Dorothy Lamour and noir bad-boy Dan Duryea. Other Hayden films I enjoy other than the ones you mention are:
The color western-with-a-noir-vibe Johnny Guitar (1954) with Joan Crawford, Suddenly (1954), with Frank Sinatra, and of course Dr. Strangelove (1964).
One film I would really like to see is Naked Alibi (1954 - again so that was a solid year for him), with Gloria Grahame, but since this is a Universal film one shouldn't expect TCM to show it.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, MovieCollectorOH said:
Then there are those selfish controlling types who don't wish to enrich others, in fact they make it their life goal to suppress. They would rather see their limited resources deteriorate than pass them on to future generations.
The good thing is that this isn't a universal concept.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, NipkowDisc said:
she was awful in picture mommy dead.
I think she was fine but I had the sound turned off.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Vautrin said:
That was an official video and you don't mess around with those.
Also In the novel Amthor was one of those con artist spiritualists that pop up in the novels,
not a very obese madam. The latter is a good excuse for showing lots of flesh, besides that
of the madam herself.
Also in the novel Amthor isn't killed by Moose but instead is caught by the police while trying to leave the country. The movie version, especially the 44 one, had Moose as a crazed killer willing to kill anyone on short notice. I call that sloppy screenwriting. I do enjoy how in the44 version Otto Kruger played the Amthor character and one of the best scenes in the film is when Marlowe and Amthor are feeling each other out. I love the Amthor line that goes something like "thanks for making it easier on me" after Marlowe hits Amthor.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Hibi said:
I didn't like that the character Anne Shirley played was eliminated entirely in the remake. Was she not in the novel? Charlotte Rampling's character was barely in the picture compared to Clare Trevor's and her first scene with Mitchum was awkward to say the least! In some ways better than the original, but in other ways WORSE!
I just re-read the novel (Farewell, My Lovey), a few months ago. The character is in the book but she isn't the daughter of the rich man and step daughter of his wife, the femme fatale (Trevor character). I really don't find her character that useful in the novel, as well as believable. I.e. she kind of shows up out of nowhere for no reason and then disappears. To me it is a flaw in the novel.
Thus I understand why both adaptations treated said character much differently. I would have removed her 100% since I don't really like add-on romances in noir films (like the 44 version), and she is just an unnecessary distraction (which for a movie verse a novel, too many characters can gum-up the works).
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Hibi said:
A lot of spoilers here for people who haven''t seen the film!
The film has an unusual plot structure. Kay doesn't appear until almost a half hr into the film.
I edited my post adding a spoiler alert; So now the only one without that is your quote of my post. You can edit your reply.
-
3 hours ago, laffite said:
Even I can be successful with hard-boiled eggs but i have never even tried a soft-boiled egg, but I doubt I could do it. If you take a soft-boiled egg, broke the shell, what would it look like? A soft sunny side up looking thing? Is a soft-boiled egg tantamount to a "rare" egg. I see people in movies soft-boil an egg and then put it in one of those egg holders, tap the egg with fork and eat it. Fascinating! The cooking must be exact. And speaking of Tea Eggs. Heavens, that is nothing less than virtuosity cooking. Amazing. I've never held a violin in my hand, yet I could probably play a violin concerto better than make a tea egg.
Don't know if you're joking but a soft-boiled egg is just a lightly cooked hard-boiled-egg: i.e. the yoke is just "soft" (and while the white part must still be cooked it shouldn't be too "solid" or rubbery). The major different is in the cooking time; to ensure soft-boiled timing is essential. E.g. one puts the eggs into already boiling water (similar concept to pre-heating an oven). Boil for 4 - 7 minutes (depending on how "soft" one wants the yoke). Remove and put into an ice-bath for a few minutes (this stops the cooking and makes it a lot easier to remove the shell).
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, lydecker said:
I'm a super-fan of Kay Francis' and so enjoyed "Kay Day." She is equally effective in light comedy and high melodrama. Lights up the screen every time she appears. I had no idea who she was until I started watching TCM. What a revelation. Love all of her films and I also love that even when Warner Brothers threw her into a lot of sub-standard fare (to get her to quit) she laughed and said: "As long as they pay my salary, I'll do 'whatever.'" She was a smart lady and didn't let WB force her out. Like Myrna Loy, she did a ton of volunteer work during WWII and later handled retirement gracefully. A class act and I never tire of seeing her films.
Spoiler Alert for Confession:
As you can see above I'm a fan of Kay Francis but with regards to "lights up the screen every time she appears", well generally I felt this way until last night when my wife and I were watching Confession. We missed the first few minutes so I don't know if Kay was shown in the film before her dance number scene. So we're watching and I see a lot of Jane Bryant but no Kay. Then comes her dance number scene. The first view of the stage is a far away shot but as it got closer I said to myself: what did they do to Kay! That blonde hair? After she shot Rathbone, and they went to the court room scene I did figure it out (based on the gray streaks in his hair); That much of the film will be a flashback featuring Kay and Basil. Ah, there was the brunette and stylish Kay I was use to!
Of course I understood that Kay was shown this way as part of the plot; I.e. her "light" had dimmed and how she is just a dance hall gal at a club that was somewhat "underground" due mainly to Rathbone (which also is why she shot him for dating his daughter).
-
2
-
(couldn't resist. 
)
Robert Charles Durman Mitchum.
in General Discussions
Posted
Glad to see you were able to watch the entire film. Like I said, that chomping at the bit scene was a great way for director Stanley Kramer to get around the Production Code.
Anyone at the time of the release (1955), that needed more clues as to what took place after that scene must have been a nun.