ElCid
-
Posts
19,340 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by ElCid
-
-
7 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:
He's referring to Blood Feast (1963), a low-budget horror movie that's generally considered the first American "gore" film.
Thanks. I think I may have seen that at a drive-in back then. Fortunately the memory has long since been lost.
-
1
-
-
49 minutes ago, Swithin said:
Oh I don't mind despicable. I just don't like that sort of character. I have liked some of the rest of Shameless, though. I should check out the British version of the series, where David Threlfall plays Frank Gallagher. I like Threlfall's work, just saw him on stage in the RSC's production of Don Quixote. Perhaps a Mancunian interpretation of the role would be more to my liking.
But I am averse to shows which feature a certain type of American deplorable scuzzy drunken character, in a major role.
I mostly agree with you about boxing and wrestling movies. However I don't mind gore or blood. Have you ever had an "Egyptian Feast?"
Egyptian Feast - No; what is it? I don't mind gore but rather the current trend in movies where it seems almost endless or massive quantities of it. My wife enjoys them. Same applies to movies where there seems to be 2/3 to 3/4 of movie devoted to torture for tortures sake.
-
On 1/2/2019 at 10:17 PM, Swithin said:
I don't like films that focus on certain types of characters. It has nothing to do with whether they are good or evil (and btw Lawrence, who doesn't love horror films?), it has more to do with my innate dislike with a character type.
An example: I would probably watch the Showtime series Shameless if it weren't for the William H. Macy character. I absolutely hate characters like that. There are plenty of examples in movies, but the Macy character is a perfect fit.
One of our favorite TV series. Have the DVD's and watch them often. While Macy's character is dispicable, it is supposed to be.
As for what I don't like, musicals, shows with children, shows with animals being abused or worked hard, horror shows that focus mostly on gore and blood, boxing and wrestling (most sports movies actually).
-
Hearts of the West at 8:00 PM on Jan 04 is a really good movie. It also gives a good presentation of what it might have been like to make "westerns" in the 30's and 40's. Several good character actors in it in addition to a good primary cast.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Hearts of the West at 8:00 PM on Jan 04 is a really good movie. It also gives a good presentation of what it might have been like to make "westerns" in the 30's and 40's. Several good character actors in it in addition to a good primary cast.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:
great as VINCENT PRICE is in [His Kind of woman], it is VERY ODD that RUSSELL and MITCHUM (two incredibly appealing stars, good actors and almost like differently-**** mirror images of one another) sit out the finale of the movie, i don't think either is present for a good 10-15 minute chunk near the end.
but still, this is what i would refer to as a great "rainy afternoon movie."
SPOILER: Think I know segment of which you speak, but not sure it is really that long. This is when Price is organizing the rescue party? Russell is out of most of it, but what role would she play? She does make a brief appearance about half-way through the segment. There are also scenes back on the yacht with Mitchum and Burr if I recall.
Personally, I think the last part is too long and that may be why even part of it seems too long.
Not only is it a good rainy day movie, but good during days in winter.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, Sgt_Markoff said:
p.s. but El Cid, your point is well-taken despite what I just said in reply to it. I will try harder to taper off any intruding into these precincts...
OK, let's see how it goes.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
El Cid helpfully cautioned:
But my reply to JamesJazzGuitar specifically addressed both the Noir alley showing of "Mitchum films" and his remark about classic noir dialog. So in all fairness it really wasn't I who derailed anything.
MissWonderley3 followed up asking me for more info. It would have probably been rude not to reply to her. As you admit, sometimes wandering occurs. (Is it just 'not okay', when Markoff does the 'wandering'?)
In any case, I don't think 'rule-mongering' ever helps anything. Every thread wends its own way. No forum guideline is being broken; and remember that no one forces you to read a lengthy post if one occasionally appears. I 'skip' lots of posts and read the ones I wish to read. In the end, doesn't everyone choose what they set their eyes on?
OK, but your posts go into far, far too much about your vague theories (or whatever) of Noir. Others stick to specifics related to the movies or actors on Noir Alley.
So, Ill just add you to my ignore list.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:
actually, one of the beauties about the publishing business in the 1990s was that they started making more expensive- but really durable "paperbacks"- where the jacket was thicker and tougher (and maybe not made out of paper?), so I still have almost all of my original copies in the BLACK LIZARD series which have held together quite nicely:
You are right about the improved quality of the covers. Unfortunately many publishers also took that as an opportunity to significantly raise prices. Still doing it.
Couldn't find Black Lizard on the Hamilton site, but did fine Otto Pennzler's compilation of stories from Black Mask, apparently a Black Lizard magazine way back when. Or maybe the title Black Lizard sounds good.
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
[TOO MUCH]
Sarge: Deleted what you said, just wanted to "quote" you so you will be notified.
This thread is for discussions of Noir Alley and while some of us tend to wander a bit in our posts, any discussions about what Noir is and is not should be carried out on the appropriate thread: http://forums.tcm.com/forum/13-film-noir-gangster/
I never go to the other thread because I am not that interested in philosophical discussions of Noir. I post here because I am interested in the movies that are shown on Noir Alley - and Noir Alley is the appropirate name for the program.
-
2 hours ago, LornaHansonForbes said:
IN THE 1990'S there were pieces of paper bound together by glue called books, and a publishing outfit by the name of BLACK LIZARD/VINTAGE CRIME INTERNATIONAL put out all the HAMMETTS and CHANDLERS and JIM THOMPSON novels they could (including a few by Thompson that they shouldn't.)
they were handsomely bound and i still have them all. have even reread a few.
I read THE MALTESE FALCON and loved it, then bought THE GLASS KEY and THE THIN MAN and waited 10 years before finally reading them.
as a novel, THE THIN MAN is slightly underwhelming (though not bad at all)- what likely sticks out to any fans of the movie reading the book is that NORA CHARLES is actually a very minor, and rather underwritten, character in the story. It's a 180 page book, she's a presence for maybe 1/8 of the proceedings, as I recall.
really, she's there as a bare outline for what the character later became- which is the world's most tolerant and perfect wife- sort of a fantasy for HAMMETT whose real life relationship with sentient ashtray LILLIAN HELLMAN with a lot more volatile
You may still be able to find some of these (or similar) books at Hamilton Books on the internet. They have a method of selecting by publisher, which brings up some very interesting titles. One caution, if you use their search program, the title or author has to be exact. These are remainder books, but some are pretty old.
-
On 1/1/2019 at 2:38 PM, Ida said:
I absolutely hate those movies --the plots are lame! They are not funny and so predictable. Plots are always about a husband who starts his day with a drink in his hand or already drunk, his wife is always richly dressed and her face is already made up and continuously befuddled and doesn't know what to do with her hands on camera and she doesn't know what to do with her movie husband either. They spend all their days drinking, smoking, visiting other rich people who are drinking. You know who was funny? Cary Grant. OMG, "Bringing up Baby" is funny physical comedy. It never gets old. Mr. Grant
moved on to serious movies with plots of twists and turns. Please excuse any typos.
Incidentally Ida, don't get discouraged from posting your views and opinions. Especially about entertainment. You may get a lot of contrary opinions, but that is what keeps this site lively.
Welcome aboard!
-
1
-
-
See below
-
3 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:
We have very similar views on the 3 Mitchum films mentioned. As for His Kind of Women and Charles McGraw; this is my favorite 'bad-guy' role of his. He is so nonchalant; a man just doing his job. OK, sometimes that job calls for murder, but hey, there is no need to ask questions! (the exchange between Mitchum and McGraw about their different 'roles' (as they relate to Burr) is classic noir dialog and to me a primary noir theme).
Just noticed on rereading this post. Typo or intentional? "His Kind of Women" Couldn't resist.
-
Not sure, The Thin Man DVD set were probably the first "classic" movies we purchased. Now we have hundreds.
My favorite is The Thin Man Goes Home. Not as sophisticated as the others, but got Nick and Nora into another setting besides LA and NYC. Song of the Thin Man has a lot going for it, but the jazz slang and the jazz music in it are off putting for me. But it has a lot of classic actors giving good performances.
I would rank Shadow of the Thin Man as my second favorite, although it really is hard to rank them.
As for the drinking and smoking, it was the times as portrayed in movies. I don't know about the books, but Nick Charles drinking was a key component to the movies. Incidentally, in The Thin Man Goes Home, Nick is on the wagon since his father disapproves of his drinking. He drinks apple cider instead.
As a train buff I always note one discrepancy in The Thin Man ( I think). The ending has Nick and Nora and the other couple going to LA on The Sunset Limited(Southern Pacific RR). Entirely possible, but they were more likely to have taken The Super Chief (Santa Fe RR). The Sunset Limited would have required going from NYC to Chicago and then to New Orleans or from NYC to New Orleans. Either would have been way out of the way.
The movies launched the TV series with Peter Lawford, Phyllis Kirk and Asta. Not as good as the movies, but entertaining in its own right. I have about half of the episodes recorded, but then they disappeared from broadcast channels.
-
15 hours ago, cigarjoe said:
It is one of the ensemble/quasi-comedy Noirs, a small sub genre of Noir. Others are Deadline at Dawn (1946), Manhandled (1949), Shack Out On 101 (1955), and even Lady In The Lake (1946), has some of this quality, there are probably a few others lurking in the Classic Noirs.
I never cared for His Kind of Woman all that much. Price for me goes a bit too much over the top and gets truly irritating with his hammy acting
I'll be interested in what Eddie has to say about it though.
His Kind of Woman is one of my favorite movies. It is up there with The Big Steal (my favorite) and Macao (another with Mitchum and Russell). Not sure I would call it a comedy, although there are comedic elements for sure.
As for Price, Just over the top enough to deliver an excellent performance. As for it being "hammy," I think that is how the writer and director wanted it - and for me it works.
SPOILER: I do believe the climatic "fight" scene at the end is far too long though. However, I have noticed that seemed to happen in many mystery type movies of the period.
James comments re: the "noir" parts is correct. The first part is very noir, as is the acting by Burr, Charles McGraw and others.
-
2
-
-
Out of curiosity, next week's feature is His Kind of Woman. Anyone object to it being considered Noir? If so, why?
-
After reading the reviews and watching a couple of clips, undecided about Turnabout. But, I will probably record it anyway and watch it tomorrow. Already recording One Million BC and Having a Wonderful Crime anyway, so why not.
Having a Wonderful Crime is really quite entertaining.
Every time I think about Landis, I dislike Rex Harrison a little more. Never really have cared for him much anyway.
-
1
-
-
After reading the reviews and watching a couple of clips, undecided about Turnabout. But, I will probably record it anyway and watch it tomorrow. Already recording One Million BC and Having a Wonderful Crime anyway, so why not.
Having a Wonderful Crime is really quite entertaining.
Every time I think about Landis, I dislike Rex Harrison a little more. Never really have cared for him much anyway.
-
23 hours ago, TomJH said:
I took a review of this thread to see if there was any one Hitchcock film that has an edge in popularity with those who decided to respond. Note: I did not include the picks of anyone who did not pick a definitive favourite or, at least, heavily leaned towards one in their comments. (So any who listed a number of his films, without a preference for one, were not included in the results below).
Three Votes Each:
Shadow of a Doubt (1943)
Rear Window (1954)
North By Northwest (1959)
Psycho (1960)
Two Votes Each:
Rope
Vertigo
One Vote Each:
39 Steps
Young and Innocent
Rebecca
Notorious
Trouble With Harry
Frenzy
So there appears to be no clear cut winner, though some of the standard Hitchcock titles got a bit of preference. I guess there's enough in the Hitchcock canon to appeal to most of us. Unlike some other directors, Hitch doesn't have one title that has kept his name still well known today. It's the variety of his work, going right back to his early days in England, that still seems to keep many of us entertained. That says something for the man's work.
You obviously went to a lot of trouble and most of us probably did not realize somebody would try to do this. I have copied my early post below. If voting, I would vote North By Northwest-1, Rear Window-2, To Catch A Thief-3 and Marnie-4. The rest -0.
"North by Northwest number one and Rear Window number two. To Catch a Thief is a pleasant movie that I watch every couple or three years. Marnie is one I'll watch every three years or so if the timing is right. The first three we have on DVD.
The rest not so much, if at all."
-
1
-
-
57 minutes ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
But here's a question back to you: what do any 'leading noir actors' (even A-list actors!) have to do with:
- the structure of noir stories?
- the low budget production where noir originated?
- the emotion you experience when you watch a noir?
- the relationship of noir to what happens outside of a movie theater?
Does noir depend on any one star, or couple of stars?
Thanks for the explanation, which I deleted to save space.
As I have often stated, the quality of any movie is primarily based on a combination of the actors, writers and director. Although the contributions of the many other people cannot be discounted.
As for A list actors specifically, there are many who can do Noir. Fred MacMurray, William Bendix, Alan Ladd, Dick Powell proved that in their Noir movies. Of course, there are probably some who cannot.
Incidentally, I disagree with your premise that characters who had suffered through wartime make superior Noir characters. How many Noir movies even make mention of the character's "wartime" service? Also, there was a lot of "suffering" in WW I as well.
-
8 hours ago, Bogie56 said:
11:15 p.m. One Million B.C. (1940) With caveman, Victor Mature.
Seeing this picture again reminds me of some of my "historical" questions.
1. How did they keep their hair from becoming greasy and unkempt? 2. How did the guys shave? 3. How did the women shave their legs and why did they?
Yes, I know it is Hollywood. The one about shaved legs goes into the 20th century. Apparently it was not a practice until about 1915. So all those Westerns with women swimming, bathing, etc. with shaved legs? Maybe the dance hall girls did, but others?
-
15 hours ago, midwestan said:
I know Eddie said it, and most people on these boards would agree, along with classic Hollywood historians that "Double Indemnity" was the first film noir to hit the big screen and knock people's socks off. My question would be: what about "The Maltese Falcon"? Could it be considered a film noir too? It has plenty of noir elements (people bumped off, an attractive but unscrupulous woman, crooks and cops, etc.). It might be a stretch, but I would consider "The Maltese Falcon" the initial entry into the film noir genre. Even if it's not considered a noir, it's still a great picture.
Eddie said it was not the first Noir, but the one that really brought attention to Noir. The one that proved to the studios and audiences that Noir was a viable commodity.
-
1
-
-
Sarge said: My first rule is probably this: I don't even start to label anything a noir unless the lead role is an American male who has been discharged from WWII military service and is now dealing with the difficulties of re-establishing himself back into an American society which seems strange, amoral, and unfamiliar to him.
Sarge: In other words, no movie made before 1945 can be considered Noir and only then if a WW II serviceman played the lead role? One that had difficulty readjusting. That is unbelievable.
Robert Mitchum served April to Oct 1945 (6 months) after being drafted. Reportedly served as a medic at an induction center.
Bogart was about 41 when the war started. He "served" in the USO.
In your opinion, two of the leading Noir actors are not qualified to do Noir?
The Thin Man movies
in General Discussions
Posted
Looked over this again and it brought to mind the covers for Hard Case Crime books. Many (most) of these are reprints of books from the above period and the 40's thru the 60's. They are publishing more new books though, but still some older ones. No Dashiell Hammetts that I am aware of. May have mentioned before, but the Hard Case covers are more enticing than the books sometimes.
Warning: Hard Case is branching out into the "comic book" realm, so some are not novels in the true sense. New euphemisim is "graphic novels," but still a comic book to me.
http://hardcasecrime.com/books_bios.cgi