Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, TheCid said:

One thing he noted is that there is no credited female in the movie which was unusual for the times. 

I noticed that. I admire the restraint shown in not trying to fit one in there somehow. While at one of the stops there might have been some dish who is given a flirty scene. If they thought of something like that, it might have been rejected for trivializing the actual horror of what was going on.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Looney said:

The more details are depressing.  Just know that it is not fun to be out with such a woman and watch her rub her **** on literally every person on a dance floor, but you for hours.  Well briefly you, but only briefly.  The rest of the time she tried to get rid of you.  Until she needed you again for a ride.  And again later when she needed you to possibly bail her out of jail.  That is the briefest outline of what happened.  (This is a basic outline of Looney's entire life experience.)

 

Oooo TCM Edit.  How about "booty" TCM?

Damn. That does sound like a pretty bad "date." I thought it was bad when my husband (who works in downtown Portland) told me that a homeless woman offered to sell herself to him in exchange for money to buy beer. 

Did you bail her out? I wouldn't have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Bethluvsfilms said:

I have to give the ROAD HOUSE version with Ida Lupino a look. The only ROAD HOUSE film I've ever seen was the one with Patrick Swayze.

I'm guessing the Swayze film is NOT a remake of the earlier movie.

I have Ida Lupino's Road House but haven't seen it yet.  I bought it to add to my Fox Film Noir collection.  I've also seen the Patrick Swayze Road House.  I really wish that Swayze's Road House was a remake of the Lupino film, but I doubt it. Lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I love The Hitch-Hiker.  It's such a great film.  I appreciate that Ida resisted the temptation to stretch out the film's running time.  It's only about 75 minutes (give or take), but it's a very tight narrative.  I didn't feel like there were any scenes added for the sake of adding them.  I've seen this film about three times now, and with each successive viewing, I enjoy it as much as I did the first time.  The first time I saw this film, I watched it as part of my Edmond O'Brien kick.  I thought he was great in this film. I loved how his anger slowly built up throughout the film and how he was sick of being pushed around, but also had to try and keep it together so that he and his friend had a chance of making it out of this thing alive.  When he gives his "You Stink" diatribe, I could just imagine a more colorful version being written had The Hitch-Hiker come out post-1970. 

The William Tell scene where Frank Lovejoy has to shoot the can out of Edmond O'Brien's hand was a nail-biter.  I loved loved the addition of the detail with William Talman's eye being messed up.  That was such a great detail to add more tension to the film.  How are these guys going to escape? 

I also appreciated that Ida used real Mexican actors speaking Spanish in lieu of the Speedy Gonzalez affected accents that were often present in classic film.  I believe that Eddie Muller also mentioned this detail.

I didn't realize the absence of credited women in the film until Muller mentioned it.  I think the only females even in the film are: the woman's corpse at the beginning, the little girl to whom Lovejoy says "Vaya Con Dios" (I think that's what he said), and I think a woman might have been with a party that the men meet on the road.

I also loved how O'Brien and Lovejoy's characters aided in their own rescue by leaving behind the trail of vehicle fluids, the wedding ring containing an inscription, etc. I also loved the detail of the American and Mexican police working together to find Talman, especially with the detail about airing faux newscasts relating to the investigation.

::SPOILER:: 

I also loved the ending when the jig is up and Talman looks around with absolute fear in his eyes as he realizes that he's surrounded by the Mexican police.

::END SPOILER::

 

This is such a great film. I'm looking forward to purchasing the Ida Lupino collection that was recently released by Kino.  I believe that both The Hitch-Hiker and Ida's The Bigamist are also streaming on Amazon Prime.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, laffite said:

I noticed that. I admire the restraint shown in not trying to fit one in there somehow. While at one of the stops there might have been some dish who is given a flirty scene. If they thought of something like that, it might have been rejected for trivializing the actual horror of what was going on.

That is one of the things about lots of war movies.  They always have to rewrite things or add in something so there will be women or romance or something.

Apparently Lupino knew what she wanted to do and didn't put up with interference.  Plus the production company was hers and her husbands.

51 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

This is such a great film. I'm looking forward to purchasing the Ida Lupino collection that was recently released by Kino.  I believe that both The Hitch-Hiker and Ida's The Bigamist are also streaming on Amazon Prime.

I have The Bigamist on DVD - came with DOA.  The Bigamist is mostly a romance/drama type movie to me.  Watched it long time ago, but not since.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

I love The Hitch-Hiker.  It's such a great film. 

SPOILERS

The William Tell thing was somewhat of nail-biter as you point out, although It did seem a bit unlikely that that the guy would have been shot. That would have been too shocking for a movie of that era, yes? I think I would have been. Agree or no? And I was surprised that the bad guy was not killed in the end. Perhaps being captured was more along the same line of thought. Death was omnipresent in mind throughout but maybe it was proper to the times to avoid on screen, especially execution type.  Good point about using Mexican actors and even rather classy about having them speak Spanish without translation, we know what they're saying anyway.  And as you mention, and as I repeat, the eye thing really added to the film. I kept thinking of Robert Ryan throughout the movie, but this guy was totally convincing.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TheCid said:

That is one of the things about lots of war movies.  They always have to rewrite things or add in something so there will be women or romance or something.

Apparently Lupino knew what she wanted to do and didn't put up with interference.  Plus the production company was hers and her husbands.

I have The Bigamist on DVD - came with DOA.  The Bigamist is mostly a romance/drama type movie to me.  Watched it long time ago, but not since.

I would agree with that assessment of The Bigamist.  One thing I found interesting about that film is Edmond O'Brien's character.  Typically in films, bigamists are portrayed as kind of sleazy and immoral.  I don't think that's exactly the case with O'Brien's character.  While yes, he was married to both Joan Fontaine and Ida Lupino at the same time, which is of course bad and illegal, I also thought that O'Brien had genuinely fallen in love with both women.  Should he have gone about it differently? Of course. But I didn't think he was necessarily a bad guy.  I think he was conflicted and perhaps too weak to break things off with Fontaine if he genuinely wanted to be with Lupino.

I loved DOA, especially the scenes at the club O'Brien visits.  I didn't like Pamela Britton's character, I thought she was too saccharine.  The one thing about this film that I didn't like though was the slide whistle sound that they made every time O'Brien came across an attractive woman.  I thought that was really lame.  However, the actual story of O'Brien investigating his own murder was very interesting and I loved the film. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, laffite said:

SPOILERS

The William Tell thing was somewhat of nail-biter as you point out, although It did seem a bit unlikely that that the guy would have been shot. That would have been too shocking for a movie of that era, yes? I think I would have been. Agree or no? And I was surprised that the bad guy was not killed in the end. Perhaps being captured was more along the same line of thought. Death was omnipresent in mind throughout but maybe it was proper to the times to avoid on screen, especially execution type.  Good point about using Mexican actors and even rather classy about having them speak Spanish without translation, we know what they're saying anyway.  And as you mention, and as I repeat, the eye thing really added to the film. I kept thinking of Robert Ryan throughout the movie, but this guy was totally convincing.

SPOILERS

That would have been really gory to have Frank Lovejoy shoot off Edmond O'Brien's hand.  I thought that that scene was to show how good a shot Lovejoy was and perhaps show William Talman that he really needs to keep these guys in check.  

The scene at the end with O'Brien wearing Talman's clothes was very intense too.  We don't know if the police are going to identify Talman based on his wardrobe or if they're looking for his face.  The police know what he looks like, but I believe we hear descriptions of his leather jacket.  The first time I saw this film, when O'Brien was out walking on the pier with the police surrounding him, I was worried that the police were accidentally going to shoot him.

I liked that Talman wasn't killed at the end.  Having the look of fear on his face, and realization that he was in fact, caught, was very powerful. Suddenly, he's not that tough.  All of a sudden, he's weak and at the mercy of the police.  He also seems to have such contempt for the Mexican people, as he tells Lovejoy to "stop talking Mexican" multiple times throughout the film.  Now the Mexican police are the ones who have the power and they're the ones who will capture him.  They've outsmarted him.  Talman brags multiple times (I believe) about his crimes to O'Brien and Lovejoy.  I love to imagine the Mexican police extraditing this psychopath to the United States and him going to San Quentin for his crimes. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

He also seems to have such contempt for the Mexican people, as he tells Lovejoy to "stop talking Mexican" multiple times throughout the film. 

...though he had reasons for being uncomfortable with simply not knowing what was being said.

Yes, Talman knew when it was all up and I'm surprised he rather quietly accepted that. He was terrified to be sure but he didn't go berserk, as might be expected for a guy who is used to be in absolute control.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Looney said:

The more details are depressing.  Just know that it is not fun to be out with such a woman and watch her rub her **** on literally every person on a dance floor, but you for hours.  Well briefly you, but only briefly.  The rest of the time she tried to get rid of you.  Until she needed you again for a ride.  And again later when she needed you to possibly bail her out of jail.  That is the briefest outline of what happened.  (This is a basic outline of Looney's entire life experience.)

 

If I put my Montana hat on  we'd say that, that's sounds like a woman who wants to be rode hard and put away wet.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, laffite said:

...though he had reasons for being uncomfortable with simply not knowing what was being said.

Yes, Talman knew when it was all up and I'm surprised he rather quietly accepted that. He was terrified to be sure but he didn't go berserk, as might be expected for a guy who is used to be in absolute control.

I agree that he was also uncomfortable with not knowing what was being said, as Lovejoy could have easily conveyed a "help" message to someone.  What's also interesting was that at times, Talman needed Lovejoy's ability to speak Spanish and had to trust him that he would only say what he was being asked.  Lovejoy could have easily added in some extra words to get help for he and O'Brien.  I know that Talman was watching facial expressions and body language on the Mexican storekeeper and other persons they met, to see if something other than "When is the ferry running?" is being said. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that it matters all that much, but I don't see much of a connection, beyond the superficial,

between The Hitch Hiker and Deliverance or Straw Dogs. They're really three separate movies

with not much "cross over." Some of the psychological thriller aspect is gone when the simple

fact is that one guy has a gun and the other two don't. Of course people will react in different

ways to that fact, but the fact remains. I've seen it before a few times and enjoyed seeing it again,

though obviously a lot of suspense is lost after the first viewing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

I have Ida Lupino's Road House but haven't seen it yet.  I bought it to add to my Fox Film Noir collection.  I've also seen the Patrick Swayze Road House.  I really wish that Swayze's Road House was a remake of the Lupino film, but I doubt it. Lol.

Road House is a well made film with the 4 stars all doing a good job,  even Cornel Wilde,  who can sometimes be rather "flat" brings some juice to the film (with Ida,  Richard Widmark, and Celeste Holm).  

Made a year after Kiss of Death, Widmark is still a very, very passionate \ animated character,  but the two gals keep the film grounded.    

 Roadhouse1948.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Road House is a well made film with the 4 stars all doing a good job,  even Cornel Wilde,  who can sometimes be rather "flat" being some juice to the film (with Ida,  Richard Widmark, and Celeste Holm).  

Made a year after Kiss of Death, Widmark is still a very, very passionate \ animated character,  but the two gals keep the film grounded.    

 Roadhouse1948.jpg

Thanks! I look forward to seeing this.  I think I've maybe seen Cornel Wilde in one other film. Lupino is one of my favorites and I've also found myself liking Celeste Holm in some of the films I've seen her in.  Widmark is always very interesting.  Prior to really getting into his noir films, I only knew of him from his appearance as himself in I Love Lucy.

When I hear "Cornel Wilde," I always think of Lucy Ricardo:

"CORNEL WILDE IS IN THE PENTHOUSE! CORNEL WILDE...."

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, speedracer5 said:

Thanks! I look forward to seeing this.  I think I've maybe seen Cornel Wilde in one other film. Lupino is one of my favorites and I've also found myself liking Celeste Holm in some of the films I've seen her in.  Widmark is always very interesting.  Prior to really getting into his noir films, I only knew of him from his appearance as himself in I Love Lucy.

When I hear "Cornel Wilde," I always think of Lucy Ricardo:

"CORNEL WILDE IS IN THE PENTHOUSE! CORNEL WILDE...."

So then speedy, then I'll bet the very first time you ever watched Harpo Marx in a pantomime scene in which there really wasn't a mirror at all in it, probably wasn't in Duck Soup either, huh.

(...oh, just a lucky guess, that's all) ;)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Road House is a well made film with the 4 stars all doing a good job,  even Cornel Wilde,  who can sometimes be rather "flat" brings some juice to the film (with Ida,  Richard Widmark, and Celeste Holm).  

Made a year after Kiss of Death, Widmark is still a very, very passionate \ animated character,  but the two gals keep the film grounded.    

 Roadhouse1948.jpg

Spoiler:  One interesting aspect of the road house itself is all the types of amusements offered.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dargo said:

So then speedy, then I'll bet the very first time you ever watched Harpo Marx in a pantomime scene in which there really wasn't a mirror at all in it, probably wasn't in Duck Soup either, huh.

(...oh, just a lucky guess, that's all) ;)

I was actually familiar with the Marx Brothers prior to my discovery of I Love Lucy.  I recall the old AMC showing a Marx Brothers marathon over New Years? Maybe Christmas? But the old AMC is where I learned about the Marx Brothers, Three Stooges and Laurel and Hardy.

I Love Lucy introduced me to a lot of classic stars who I didn't know had a life outside of appearing as themselves on the show, lol! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, laffite said:

...just like about every other movie.

It's more noticeable in crime films than in some other genres. In the romantic comedy you know

that the two kids who can't stand each other will end up in love at the finale and in musicals

everything will turn out unicorns and rainbows. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched Road House yesterday and it is better than I remember.  Ironically Richard Widmark is fourth in star list.

The DVD has specials and one is interesting commentary by several people on the movie and the actors.  Eddie Muller is one and Robert Osborne is another.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have TCM now and got to see my first Muller. God, can he talk, meaning he can talk a long time. I had to hit MUTE and fast in the intro. He started explicating the movie before it even starts. Even showing clips. The outro was so long I couldn't finish it. Yes, those old movie reviews back then in 50s, so quaint. So stuffy. What does Bosley know, anyway. You could have showed him a thing or two, eh, Eddie. Payne was okay but it was nice to see the Three Amigos, those icons of character bad guys, Jack Elam, Neville Brand, and Lee Van Cleef. Wow, what mugs they have. Coleen Gray has a sunny disposition and reminded me of My Little Margie and was boring but she perked up a bit once she started bickering with her father. The set up at the Mexican resort was interesting plot-wise but there was not as much tension as I would have liked. That had great possibilities and I'm not sure that made the most of it. And Bosley was right, to many scuffles and gun pulling. The movie was not that good, but not that bad either. I might appreciate it a little more if there are comments here to react to. That helps sometimes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, laffite said:

I have TCM now and got to see my first Muller. God, can he talk, meaning he can talk a long time. I had to hit MUTE and fast in the intro. He started explicating the movie before it even starts. Even showing clips. The outro was so long I couldn't finish it. Yes, those old movie reviews back then in 50s, so quaint. So stuffy. What does Bosley know, anyway. You could have showed him a thing or two, eh, Eddie. Payne was okay but it was nice to see the Three Amigos, those icons of character bad guys, Jack Elam, Neville Brand, and Lee Van Cleef. Wow, what mugs they have. Coleen Gray has a sunny disposition and reminded me of My Little Margie and was boring but she perked up a bit once she started bickering with her father. The set up at the Mexican resort was interesting plot-wise but there was not as much tension as I would have liked. That had great possibilities and I'm not sure that made the most of it. And Bosley was right, to many scuffles and gun pulling. The movie was not that good, but not that bad either. I might appreciate it a little more if there are comments here to react to. That helps sometimes. 

Seen it awhile ago and quite a few times since. It's average, but the iconic bad guys are great. Love the chain smoking sequence with Elam. Anyway a friend in Rome had this to say:

"Kansas City Confidential (1952) I heard about this movie the first time about 30 years ago when I read Jack Shadoian's book on gangster films. He was rather enthusiastic about it. I am not. This is a rather contrived plotline which steps often into absurdity. The major absurdity is that hardened hoodlums may accept the proposition of doing a heist wirhout knowing each other and, even more absurd, that they (without knowing who the main plotter of the whole coup may be) accept to split the booty at a later time without any assurance that, as it would be only natural, the one keeping the loot may very well vanish into thin air. Then there's the whole middle part in the mexican resort which is just too long and helps not the plot to advance. Still I give it 7\10 because I like Payne and the three western stalwarts (not because they deliver great performances but just because they are given ample screen time)."     

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cigarjoe said:

"Kansas City Confidential (1952) I heard about this movie the first time about 30 years ago when I read Jack Shadoian's book on gangster films. He was rather enthusiastic about it. I am not. This is a rather contrived plotline which steps often into absurdity. The major absurdity is that hardened hoodlums may accept the proposition of doing a heist wirhout knowing each other and, even more absurd, that they (without knowing who the main plotter of the whole coup may be) accept to split the booty at a later time without any assurance that, as it would be only natural, the one keeping the loot may very well vanish into thin air. Then there's the whole middle part in the mexican resort which is just too long and helps not the plot to advance. Still I give it 7\10 because I like Payne and the three western stalwarts (not because they deliver great performances but just because they are given ample screen time)."     

spoiler

Some of the best of plots are very overly contrived. Sometimes that's what make them interesting, especially in genre pieces, which have their own conventions. But your friend in Rome has a good point in this one. It didn't even occur to me how silly it was for these guys to buy into the plan like that. But oh, here keep this half-torn card to identify yourself, and in case I can't make it, it will identify you to the person who will deliver the money to you. Yeah, right. Too bad the writers couldn't come up with a plot device that provided some assurance and recourse for the amigos. Still, and given the drawbacks the premise, the Mexican resort sequence, a I mentioned before, was ripe for a suspenseful run to the end but it failed somehow. No, they didn't give "great performances" but Jack Elam was perhaps the closest. But "screen time" was important, I agree with Rome on that too, due mainly to their bottom-of-the-barrel greasiness.  Ironic, Elam gets dispatched relatively early and he was the best ... imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...