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

Recommended Posts

Murder My Sweet is on at 2:00PM ET, July 18.  I have all three movie versions, MMS, The Falcon Takes Over and Farewell My Lovely (1975).  Each one is good, but different. FML is my favorite.

LEONARD MALTIN REVIEW:    

 

😧 Edward Dmytryk. Dick Powell, Claire Trevor, Anne Shirley, Otto Kruger, Mike Mazurki, Miles Mander. Adaptation of Raymond Chandler's book Farewell My Lovely gave Powell new image as hardboiled detective Philip Marlowe, involved in homicide and blackmail. Still packs a wallop. Scripted by John Paxton. Story previously used for THE FALCON TAKES OVER; remade again as FAREWELL, MY LOVELY in 1975.

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

After I've seen a movie, it's then that I sometimes read their opinions.

I don't want to be influenced in any way at all before I see the movie. 

TopBilled a few years back had a thread going for quite a while in which he'd post James Agee's Time magazine film reviews written during the 1940s-1950s.

I found Agee to be a terrific wordsmith who seemed to almost always peg what feelings I would hold about various individual films.

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

Murder My Sweet is on at 2:00PM ET, July 18.  I have all three movie versions, MMS, The Falcon Takes Over and Farewell My Lovely (1975).  Each one is good, but different. FML is my favorite.

LEONARD MALTIN REVIEW:    

 

😧 Edward Dmytryk. Dick Powell, Claire Trevor, Anne Shirley, Otto Kruger, Mike Mazurki, Miles Mander. Adaptation of Raymond Chandler's book Farewell My Lovely gave Powell new image as hardboiled detective Philip Marlowe, involved in homicide and blackmail. Still packs a wallop. Scripted by John Paxton. Story previously used for THE FALCON TAKES OVER; remade again as FAREWELL, MY LOVELY in 1975.

Interesting I didn't know The Falcon Takes Over was based on the Chandler novel.        Reading about the plot of this Falcon film I see that key scenes were not included but I still wonder how the director and screenwriters were able to tell the story in 65 minutes.        I need to pay more attention when TCM shows Falcon films! 

 

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

Interesting I didn't know The Falcon Takes Over was based on the Chandler novel.        Reading about the plot of this Falcon film I see that key scenes were not included but I still wonder how the director and screenwriters were able to tell the story in 65 minutes.        I need to pay more attention when TCM shows Falcon films! 

 

The Falcon Takes Over is fairly good, but not one of the best Falcon movies.   You can recognize Farewell My Lovely components in it, but not a whole lot.  At least I don't.  You are right, they left a lot out to keep it at 65 minutes and still have the necessary Falcon stuff.  Makes it a little confusing.

Unfortunately, you just missed the Falcon marathon a couple of days ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, SadPanda said:

After I've seen a movie, it's then that I sometimes read their opinions.

I don't want to be influenced in any way at all before I see the movie. 

I don't know if reading a review before seeing a movie would influence me that much, perhaps a

bit. I really don't read a lot of movie reviews anymore. I used to enjoy the late Stanley Kauffmann,

who reviewed movies for the New Republic for many years. They were well-written, witty, and informative.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vautrin said:

I don't know if reading a review before seeing a movie would influence me that much, perhaps a

bit. I really don't read a lot of movie reviews anymore. I used to enjoy the late Stanley Kauffmann,

who reviewed movies for the New Republic for many years. They were well-written, witty, and informative.

Kauffmann was usually considered the best critic of actors. His reviews were collected in book form, and some libraries may still have them. I always enjoyed his work, too.

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

Kauffmann was usually considered the best critic of actors. His reviews were collected in book form, and some libraries may still have them. I always enjoyed his work, too.

That would be a book worth reading. After all this time I don't remember specifics, but I do remember

his general tone and style. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Three Strangers looked pretty good I caught Eddies intro. Saw a bit of the beginning, dozed off, picked it up again near the 3/4 to the end and Eddies outro. Ill be watching it again this morning lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw Three Strangers many years ago, I did not recall much, just re watched this morning. The beginning was intriguing, the middle dragged a bit and the ending was very good. The main reason I saw it was because of Peter Lorre. Here he is given an unusual part for him, he is actually the most decent character among the three leads. He is even given a very cool name "Johnny West", much better than the "M'sieu Pig" he played in Strange Cargo (1940). I found out that his role in Strangers was actually meant for Bogart, surely the only time they would be considered for the same part. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thoroughly enjoyed THREE STRANGERS. The story was interesting and the acting was great. Also, it was nice seeing Peter Lorre win (sort of) for a change. He didn't get the money, but he got the girl. His character was so easy going. I have a hard time seeing Bogart playing it that way.  Greenstreet was great too. The scene where he realized the company books would reveal his crime was classic.  Geraldine Fitzgerald was good in her role as well. It was easy to see in her eyes she was quickly descending into madness over being rejected by her husband. All in all a great film. John Huston was a national treasure in both writing, directing and acting.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Three Strangers is an oddly told story. After that intriguing opening we are suddenly ensconced in the middle of what seems like another movie, what with no real exposition. It's not hard to figure out what's going but there is for me a dissatisfaction with that long sequence that follows. Sidney Greenstreet's story is much shorter and more compact and overall a little more satisfying for that reason (although The Lorre sequence excells later on). I've never seen Sidney act like this. He is required to abandoned type and do some real emoting. He shows a wonderful spontaneity of reaction that has little to do with his normal statue-que staidness. Curiously, in this movie Sidney acts more like Lorre usually does, and Lorre acts like Greenstreet usually does. Somewhat, anyway. Lorre is such a fine actor. Near perfect. He doesn't usually have anywhere near a serious love interest but he seems perfectly comfortable in that role. He is so breathtakingly sanguine throughout, even when he is jailed and may hang.  Geraldine Fitzgerald is drop dead gorgeous with those superbly dark features and penetrating eyes. Terrific cast overall, Eddie had fine things to say about Rosalind Ivan (wow, she was Adele in Scarlet Street!). Joan Lorring is a sweetie but a pretty tough cookie too. She should keep Lorre  entertained for awhile. Stay out of trouble, Peter. Fat chance.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched it again (mainly because nothing else was on). I've seen it a few times before. Preposterous, contrived plot, but well acted. Esp. Lorre and Lorring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

laffite is right. Greenstreet's character does show a lot more emotion that normal. Conversely, Lorre's character is very happy-go-lucky. That is a role reversal for both. Think back to THE MALTESE FALCON.  Cairo was a nervous wreck while Guttman only got upset when he realized the falcon was a fraud.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Hoganman1 said:

laffite is right. Greenstreet's character does show a lot more emotion that normal. Conversely, Lorre's character is very happy-go-lucky. That is a role reversal for both. Think back to THE MALTESE FALCON.  Cairo was a nervous wreck while Guttman only got upset when he realized the falcon was a fraud.

Well,  if "happy-go-lucky" means unconcerned about what happens to him, then yes, that describes Lorre's character in this film.  But he certainly is not a happy or hopeful person as such.  There's that very telling scene where Lorre  (Johnny) and Gabby are hiding out under that bridge, or dock, or whatever it is  (very atmospheric and noirish , that scene), and Johnny confides to "Icey"that he drinks because he has something wrong with his "psyche", something missing.  He may be outwardly cheerful and accepting of whatever life hands him, but on some level he is a sad person.

I do really like this character of Johnny West, and I think Lorre does a great job portraying him.  He is by far the most interesting and likable character in the film. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Hibi said:

I watched it again (mainly because nothing else was on). I've seen it a few times before. Preposterous, contrived plot, but well acted. Esp. Lorre and Lorring.

I do agree that the plot was maybe a bit unusual, even "far-fetched".  But it's also extremely original, and, in my view anyway, fascinating.  It did not strike me as preposterous or contrived, although it's certainly not a typical story.  That very point,  the  unusual nature of the plot,  is one of the things about "Three Strangers" that I  like. And odd though the story is,  for some reason I accept it and its premise and am engaged in it, interested in all three stories and their characters.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this to be a very odd film.  Intriguing premise and I liked all of the performances but I found myself thoroughly bored midway through the film.  It was interesting to watch Greenstreet display a greater range of emotions than we normally see.  Whether he is a hero or a villain, he is generally "in control" but, not so here. Fun to watch.  Geraldine Fitzgerald was an effective villainess and Lorre can almost do not wrong in my book but it just didn't "hang together" for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The sweepstakes ticket plot was interesting, but the three individual stories were a mixed bag. 

They were mostly rather cliched movie plots, but they were helped by the talent of the actors

and a few twists here and there, such as the wife in intimate communication with her deceased

hubby. I was a little surprised that the three strangers didn't pay more attention to the sweepstakes

and the fact that the ticket was being held by just one of them. At any other time Greeenstreet would

have camped outside Fitzgerald's apartment or else hired someone to do so. Maybe they figured

it was such a long shot that it wasn't worth thinking about. I'd give this one a B-. The idea sounds better

than the actual execution of it. 

 

The theory that Michael Lindsay-Hogg is the son of Orson Welles might not be that clear cut. One

Welles' biographer says that Fitzgerald went to Ireland in May 1939 and did not come back to

the U.S. until October of 1939 and was already pregnant at that time. Welles was not out of the U.S.

during that time. So by the timeline Welles could not have been his father. That's assuming that

the timeline is correct. Intriguing subject.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

The sweepstakes ticket plot was interesting, but the three individual stories were a mixed bag. 

They were mostly rather cliched movie plots, but they were helped by the talent of the actors

and a few twists here and there, such as the wife in intimate communication with her deceased

hubby.  .....

 

I do not believe for one moment that  that old lady really thought the spirit of her dead husband was communicating with her.  To me it was clear that she was making the whole thing up because she suspected Greenstreet  of embezzling her investments and was using the dead husband story to catch him.  She was just pretending to believe her husband's spirit visited her as a means of tripping Greenstreet up.  This took some fine acting on the part of Rosalind Ivan--she had to convey to the audience,  without saying anything, that this was what she was up to.    You could tell she was stringing Greenstreet along, for instance,  the way she told him she couldn't marry him because her husband would be jealous.  The expression on her face, her tone of voice -- it all indicated to me that she knew what Greenstreet was up to and was playing with him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

I do not believe for one moment that  that old lady really thought the spirit of her dead husband was communicating with her.  To me it was clear that she was making the whole thing up because she suspected Greenstreet  of embezzling her investments and was using the dead husband story to catch him.  She was just pretending to believe her husband's spirit visited her as a means of tripping Greenstreet up.  This took some fine acting on the part of Rosalind Ivan--she had to convey to the audience,  without saying anything, that this was what she was up to.    You could tell she was stringing Greenstreet along, for instance,  the way she told him she couldn't marry him because her husband would be jealous.  The expression on her face, her tone of voice -- it all indicated to me that she knew what Greenstreet was up to and was playing with him.

I agree and she was one of the high points of this film.  And, I remembered her as the "Wife from Hell" in "Scarlet Street."

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Vautrin said:

The sweepstakes ticket plot was interesting, but the three individual stories were a mixed bag. 

They were mostly rather cliched movie plots, but they were helped by the talent of the actors

and a few twists here and there, such as the wife in intimate communication with her deceased

hubby. I was a little surprised that the three strangers didn't pay more attention to the sweepstakes

and the fact that the ticket was being held by just one of them. At any other time Greeenstreet would

have camped outside Fitzgerald's apartment or else hired someone to do so.

They did all three sign the back of the ticket.

Anyway it was an entertaining enough film for me. Made a bit more interesting with the Irish Sweepstakes tiket angle. I remember the Irish Sweepstakes when I was a kid. My folks had purchased a ticket and got a horse just like in the film. The big day of the race their horse didn't run so they ended up getting a consolation prize, I was too little to remember any details but it was enough money to take an extended trip to Europe. 

We were going to take the SS United States y father was at  one point in life a sailor (his brother was captain for many years) but he drug my mother up to the Bronx to see A Night to Remember (1958) at a drive in theater, lol and that put the kibosh to a sea voyage. We ended up flying a three tailed Lockheed Constellation from Idlewild NYC to Gander Newfoundland filled the tanks flew to Shannon Ireland, refilled again to fly to Orly Paris

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

I do not believe for one moment that  that old lady really thought the spirit of her dead husband was communicating with her.  To me it was clear that she was making the whole thing up because she suspected Greenstreet  of embezzling her investments and was using the dead husband story to catch him.  She was just pretending to believe her husband's spirit visited her as a means of tripping Greenstreet up.  This took some fine acting on the part of Rosalind Ivan--she had to convey to the audience,  without saying anything, that this was what she was up to.    You could tell she was stringing Greenstreet along, for instance,  the way she told him she couldn't marry him because her husband would be jealous.  The expression on her face, her tone of voice -- it all indicated to me that she knew what Greenstreet was up to and was playing with him.

Devils' Advocate here : I though she did really think that she was in communication with her dead husband, but was savvy enough to see the obvious play for her hand in marriage to get her money, and only then became suspicious. No? You're probably right as I am not remembering clearly the earliest scenes between the two. i'm just throwing this out, it's not quite an item of contention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I kept thinking while watching Three Strangers on Noir Alley,  and after having had previous watched The Maltese Falcon on The Essentials, damn, what a shame it was that John Huston couldn't get his first choice, Geraldine  Fitzgerald, to play the  femme fatale in HIS movie, and as Eddie mentioned in his intro.

Sure, I know Mary Astor has her defenders here, but now after watching Fitzgerald's performance in Three Strangers, it showed me she might've been even better cast opposite Bogie in Huston's movie.

(...a devious woman with even greater sex appeal, is what I'm thinkin' here)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Dargo said:

and after having had previous watched The Maltese Falcon on The Essentials, damn, what a shame it was that John Huston couldn't get his first choice, Geraldine  Fitzgerald, to play the  femme fatale in HIS movie

She would have been an excellent choice. She had better looks for the part but Astor was so astonishingly good, it's hard to "replace" her.

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...