Vautrin

I was watching an old episode of Burke's Law last night with one scene at an art gallery. What should appear but one of those godawful paintings from Scarlet Street, the one with the over sized snake in the city. So they kept this thing somewhere, hopefully in a dark warehouse, for twenty years. Yikes.

People can define noir any way they want to and others can agree or disagree with these definitions. This is pretty much par for the course when discussing a species of film that has no concrete definition that everyone agrees on. To each their own.

I think it's likely that so many people have seen it multiple times that there's not much left to discuss. I watched it again last night, though I'm not sure exactly why. The most exciting discovery was that Chandler had a brief cameo in the movie which wasn't widely known until recently. But that was a few years ago. It is kind of funny how ol' Walt goes back to the office after being shot to dictate the events leading up to that instead of trying to get his wound fixed and heading down to Mexico as he said he wanted to do toward the end of the movie. Maybe he didn't know one of those shady doctors who would fix him up with no questions asked. And if I were Neff I would drop Phyllis like a hot anklet and move on to Lola, who was a lot sweeter, at least she seemed a lot sweeter. Who knows. No worry about the age difference, as older men paired with younger women was a Hollywood staple back in the day. Go for it, Neff.

Great song title too. All the Roxy Music albums are good, but if I had to pick one I'd go with Siren.

There was also the late Stanley Kauffmann, film critic at The New Republic for many, many years. I don't recall any specific reviews, but Kauffmann's style was witty and urbane and he was very knowledgeable about films. He has also written some books about films.

I probably couldn't decide on one favorite, though I do like some Hitchcock movies more than others. Almost all of them are entertaining to some degree. I had something of a Rear Window situation many years ago. I lived in an old house that had a view of the rear windows of a small apartment house, much less interesting in scope and character than the one in Rear Window. We didn't see any murders, but occasionally something intriguing would come into view.

Whatever word one wants to use, Crowther was just noticing already worn out themes and situations and wasn't amused by them, at least in this movie. I really don't know if Crowther disliked comedies where a woman was a central figure and I'd hate to have to go over all his reviews to find out. He may just not have liked this particular comedy where a woman was the central figure and had nothing against that situation in general. You seem to be imputing personal motives to these film critics when we really don't know if they actually had them. I don't remember Crowther at all, but I did read Vincent Canby who, judging by the timeline, succeeded him as the main NYT movie reviewer.

Could have been the explosion of an early Hindenburg prototype. The cops arriving seemed to me a rather obvious explanation, but to each their own. Now that you mention it, it was a bit like a longer AH episode. There were a number of both the half hour and hour long versions of that show that had the theme of a woman menaced by a psycho or a criminal. Just off the top of my head there was one where John Cassavetes played an escaped criminal who invaded the home of a woman whose husband was away. Hitch's intros and outros are funnier, but he had a couple of professional writers who did them. Good eveninnnggggg.

I don't think it has anything with do with some old sourpuss men who don't like to laugh. I think it's just three men who have no problem with comedy but just think that Are Husbands Necessary? isn't that funny for their own varying reasons. People can agree or disagree with them as they see fit. It's interesting that even this relatively early in the history of talkies Crowther is already pointing out cliched situations and tired plot lines. And it's only 1942.

Hey, who cares if the psycho has a vulnerable, needy side. In the end he wants to settle your hash with extreme prejudice. This is sort of an early take on the women in distress theme with the nutcase in your house one that became popular later on. Interesting as a two people character study, though it runs the risk on going on a little too long. Then there is the time before Ryan goes full nutjob that he seems like the wordy party guest who won't leave. I don't care if you kill me just get out of here because you're boring me to death with all your whining. Eddie said the ending is ambiguous, which is so. I just took it that the telephone repairman had notified the police who rode up to the house with headlights on and Ryan, who wasn't exactly in touch with reality, just walked right ahead to meet them. But that's just my take.

I never noticed that before. Of course the reviews in Halliwell's guides are as brief as Maltin's and are just meant as a short guide to the film. I was curious about Halliwell's review of Are Husbands Necessary?. Oops, he didn't think very much of it either. Another good aspect of Halliwell's guides is that he includes brief contemporary reviews for some films. And while Halliwell's Filmgoer's Companions have been surpassed as reference works they are full of wonderful stills and film advertisements. R.I.P.

Yeah, nothing to lose sleep over. Now I am a bit curious to see Are Husbands Necessary when I have some spare time. Take it easy.

I didn't realize it rose to the confided stage. I mentioned Halliwell because he was a very enthusiastic fan of the studio era. He once wrote an old man get off my lawn type critique of the movies of the 1960s and 1970s. So if Halliwell said that a lot of those studio era films were nothing special, it carries some weight. I think this applies to a lot of entertainment forms outside of movies. A great number of plays, TV shows, books, etc. are average, with nothing special to recommend them. Are Husbands Necessary is on YT, though in a not very good print.

In Maltinland many do. Taking his two stars as average, many do get a negative, though brief, review. Others get a brief plot outline with no further comment. Of course just because this film was a crowd pleaser doesn't automatically make it a good movie. I don't see giving a movie a negative review the same as demeaning it. For whatever reason Maltin, assuming for the moment that he wrote it, didn't think much of it. His job in this case isn't to be a cheerleader but a critic. I think a cheekier review would have been The title is better than the actual film.

Of the thousands of studio era movies it's obvious that quite a number are of only average interest. Pointing that out doesn't take away from the enjoyment that the best of the lot provide. So I don't see any contradiction between being enthusiastic about studio era films while also giving some of them negative reviews. Leslie Halliwell was a champion of studio era movies and disdained many of the movies that came after, but even he said that quite a bit of the studio era output was rather mediocre. I've never seen Are Husbands Necessary, but maybe it's not that much of a picture. Saying so doesn't mean one doesn't appreciate studio era films.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I'm a DirecTV customer and don't like a price hike. On the other hand I own a few shares of AT&T, so I might benefit to a very small degree from said price hike. Six of one...

Maltin is, at least on some occasions, a critic. His movie guide reviews are obviously not the same as a long, considered newspaper or magazine review. They are just quick guides to a movie, so take them in that spirit. It should be obvious that not every studio era flick was good, so not every one of them will get a good review by Maltin or whoever wrote that review. That in no way negates the best of the studio era films or shows disrespect for that time. I have a few copies of his guides. They are interesting to look through, though I would never take the word of Maltin or any other critic about a movie. There are the occasional short dismissive reviews, but they are in the minority.

I'll probably watch it sometime next week. Just off the top of my head, Kelly did play the unlikable reporter in Inherit the Wind. Not exactly a villain, but not much of a nice guy either. I think for most people Kelly is seen as the smiling nice guy, which is certainly understandable.

I recall a variation on the quote from way back during the Rep. Wayne Hays' scandal. Unfortunately it cannot be posted on this site.

JFK had at least one "Dr. Feelgood" who would provide him with various drugs, likely with speed in the mix. Kennedy's bad health, way beyond just a bum back, was kept hidden from the public just as his horn dog sex life was. I have no use for Kennedy, just another sleazebag. LBJ likely had the best quote about Hoover--I'd rather have him inside the tent ******* out than outside ******* in.

Judy and Jack compare notes on speed.

Ask not what your country can do for you...

Maybe, but not in the same way Jack and Bobby were, though not at the same time. Enough of the tiresome airhead.

It all matters what the definition of into is.

I've read in a number of sources that the Kennedys were really into Marilyn Monroe.