Vautrin
-
Posts
21,175 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Vautrin
-
-
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.
-
2
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, timberic said:
My favorite Roxy track from my favorite Roxy album!
Great song title too. All the Roxy Music albums are good, but if I had to pick one
I'd go with Siren.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
7 hours ago, TopBilled said:
I think Crowther is confusing tropes for cliches. A lot of films in the 40s were building on archetypes and situations that had been established in silent films. So even though they were not technically remakes, they were still alluding to and referencing the kinds of gags and scenarios that had proven popular with audiences.
Think of how many more repeated gags and scenarios Crowther had to sit through from 1942 until the end of his career as a reviewer in the late 60s. He just didn't appreciate this type of comedy, instead of allowing it to enjoyed by those who do. All of these critics/reviewers who happen to be men, seem to dislike a comedy where the woman is a central figure. They can't seem to handle the fact that a woman is driving the narrative and that despite her wackiness, she's seen as superior and invaluable to her husband. So they find other reasons to pick the movie apart and lambast it.
If anything I would say that ARE HUSBANDS NECESSARY?, which used the real-life episodic adventures of Ms. Rorick and her husband, borrows a bit from the BLONDIE formula that Columbia had found success with a few years prior to this. The main idea is that a dizzy housewife ends up doing things, chaotically, that interfere with her husband's job, but ultimately, make him more successful. If that's not your preferred brand of comedy, then fine, but leave it to those who do prefer it and find it entertaining.
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.
-
18 hours ago, Dargo said:
Exactly Vautrin, and so for me anyway, Eddie's saying the ending was "ambiguous" wasn't quite on the mark. Sure, we don't see him actually being confronted/arrested by the cops, but it seems that was the ending's intent.
And so when Eddie said Howard could be on his way to his next little threatening encounter with another unsuspecting soul, I'd say his use of the word "could" would be more than a little speculative.
(...btw, and re Eddie...I'm starting to notice a distinct similarly between his macabre intros and out-tros and his style of presenting them with those of Hitchcock when he did them for AHP, and especially during this one night night...but then again, this whole movie seemed like just a lengthier version of an AHP episode, and so maybe this is why I got that feeling)
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.
-
2 hours ago, TopBilled said:
Bosley Crowther's review for ARE HUSBANDS NECESSARY? can be found on the New York Times website. He panned it. But moviegoers in the summer of 1942 didn't let his comments dissuade them from seeing it.
In some instances it's fashionable for critics to dismiss comedies, as unworthy of serious attention. Comedies and horror movies tend to be the most maligned.
I think we have a bunch of vicious men who don't know how to lighten up and laugh when they see a movie. Fortunately they do not represent the majority.
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.
-
3
-
-
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.
-
9 hours ago, Det Jim McLeod said:
In Halliwell's Film Guide, he had a tendency to give spoilers in his reviews. His style was having the first paragraph a short synopsis and the second where he gave his critique.
Here is his synopsis of "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" (1962)
***SPOILERS AHEAD***
A tenderfoot becomes a hero for shooting a bad man, but the shot was really fired by his friend and protector.
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.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Sgt_Markoff said:
moments ago, Vautrin confided:
I privately disagree with this, but I don't want to battle about it. Just want to go on record to say that --as far as I'm concerned--there's a lot one might say to oppose such a notion.
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.
-
1 hour ago, TopBilled said:
Average films do not get negative reviews. It's usually the below-average films that get negative reviews. In this case Maltin gave it two stars. He did not give it one and a half stars, one star or label it a bomb. But yet he felt the need to disparage it?
Anyway, it's fine for there to be plenty of average films. They can't all be perfect. But as I stated previously, this particular film was a crowd pleaser. It did not flop. It was based on a best selling book, a second book was written, a radio series and a TV series came from it. It just happened to be something Maltin didn't like, but instead of resisting the urge to demean it, he kind of shows how petty he is. He went out of his way to be unenthusiastic about ARE HUSBANDS NECESSARY?, and there was no point in doing that. Unless the goal was to make himself look like an ****.
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.
-
1 hour ago, TopBilled said:
The dismissive "reviews" if we can call them that, could easily have been eliminated from his publications. If you're an enthusiast or champion for classic film, then it defeats your purpose to be unenthusiastic about any title. Better to skip the title or give it a neutral comment as opposed to giving it a negative one.
It isn't about deciding which films are best. It is about looking all the output from the studios in a broader, more historical sense. And to see that every film, even the ones not directed by renowned auteurs or written by esteemed screenwriters or performed by the most awarded thespians, still have in their own way some value.
But I don't think Maltin gets that. And as a result he and his views can be just as easily dismissed.
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...
-
3
-
-
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.
-
6 hours ago, GordonCole said:
What I liked best about Christmas Holiday was seeing Kelly as a heel. That Pal Joey type persona fit him well for obvious reasons but just like Fred MacMurray not wanting to be villainous on film, Kelly didn't play parts like that again much since he had a more likable persona he wanted to portray ostensibly.
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.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Dargo said:
And presently updated with a little different ending:
"...ask how much it'll take to keep that porn star's mouth shut."
I recall a variation on the quote from way back during the Rep. Wayne Hays' scandal.
Unfortunately it cannot be posted on this site.
-
18 hours ago, Dargo said:
Did he do a lot of that too? I know because of the terrific pain in his back, he did a lot of pain-killers, anyway.
(...btw, I said "in his BACK" and NOT in his "you-know-what"...and so what say we keep J. Edgar out of this for now)
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.
-
3 hours ago, Dargo said:
Judy and Jack compare notes on speed.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, NipkowDisc said:
well certainly jack.
Ask not what your country can do for you...
-
1 hour ago, Princess of Tap said:
The entire country was into Marilyn Monroe.
Or I should say the entire world. I can remember seeing a classic Japanese film by Ozu and an actress was imitating the way Marilyn Monroe walked.
Maybe, but not in the same way Jack and Bobby were, though not at the same time.
Enough of the tiresome airhead.
-
1 hour ago, GGGGerald said:
Careful how you phrase that
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.
Noir Alley
in General Discussions
Posted
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.