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

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Hoganman1 said:

Hey. I get it. I'm old. My fifth grade English teacher would smack me on the knuckles for typing roll instead of role. Anyway, Hoagy was great; don't you think?

Is that teacher still living? (he asked not really knowing just how old Hoganman is) And maybe not if he/she happened upon FaceBook, which would have killed him or her once seeing "Hear" be "here"{, and "There" be "their" and "they're".  and etc. over and over again and again.  ;) 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hoganman1 said:

Hey. I get it. I'm old. My fifth grade English teacher would smack me on the knuckles for typing roll instead of role. Anyway, Hoagy was great; don't you think?

I admit it, I had to look him up on IBDb to answer; I'm old, too. I have seen him in some stuff. Earliest 5 films definitely, maybes on some of the others.

I especially remember the piano scene with Lauren Bacall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sepiatone said:

Is that teacher still living? (he asked not really knowing just how old Hoganman is) And maybe not if he/she happened upon FaceBook, which would have killed him or her once seeing "Hear" be "here"{, and "There" be "their" and "they're".  and etc. over and over again and again.  ;) 

Sepiatone

If so, she would be at least 110. However, Mrs. MacFee had a huge impact on me. To this very day I cringe when I hear a sentence that ends with a preposition. I also struggle with people who substitute "bring" for "take" and "your" for "you're".  Also, although it's still grammatically correct; I try not to substitute "no problem" for "you're welcome". I know it's probably silly these days, but that's where I'm at. (LOL)

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

If so, she would be at least 110. However, Mrs. MacFee had a huge impact on me. To this very day I cringe when I hear a sentence that ends with a preposition. I also struggle with people who substitute "bring" for "take" and "your" for "you're".  Also, although it's still grammatically correct; I try not to substitute "no problem" for "you're welcome". I know it's probably silly these days, but that's where I'm at. (LOL)

I'm with you on the "You're welcome" matter.   And too, did you notice how easy it is to call horseradish "HORSHRADISH"?  ;)   I do try to call it "horse"  which does take some diligence .

But the "no problem" matter deals with popular vernacular, which I sometimes have fun with.  Like when someone(usually a cashier)  says, "Have a good one."  I'll respond with, "I'll try for TWO."  ;)   And in places like this forum, I'll limit my "text" usage to those matters that have no corresponding emoticon.  Like, BTW(by the way) and IMHO( in my humble opinion)  And will use a laugh or "wink" emoticon instead of "LOL".  :rolleyes:  and it's variants.  ;)  But that's my choice and nothing to do with what might be considered "proper".  

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hoganman1 said:

If so, she would be at least 110. However, Mrs. MacFee had a huge impact on me. To this very day I cringe when I hear a sentence that ends with a preposition. I also struggle with people who substitute "bring" for "take" and "your" for "you're".  Also, although it's still grammatically correct; I try not to substitute "no problem" for "you're welcome". I know it's probably silly these days, but that's where I'm at. (LOL)

I'll bet this Mrs. MacFee of yours also instilled another cringe in you whenever you hear someone pronounce the word "library" as "liberry", didn't she, Hoganman?  ;)

(...and as did my 5th grade teacher Mrs. Curry)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

I'm with you on the "You're welcome" matter.   And too, did you notice how easy it is to call horseradish "HORSHRADISH"?  ;)   I do try to call it "horse"  which does take some diligence .

 

And, I'd bet the same people who call the stuff "horshradish" probably also call our nation's capital "Worshington, D.C." too, Sepia. ;)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Dargo said:

And, I'd bet the same people who call the stuff "horshradish" probably also call our nation's capital "Worshington, D.C." too, Sepia. ;)

 

 

That reminds me of one of my co-workers who always used to say "warsh" for wash. It was "warsh" this and "warsh" that with him which used to drive me crazy.

Finally one day, after hearing him say, "Time to warsh the car" I asked him, "Ron, how do you pronounce the name of the first President of the United States?"

"Lincoln," he replied.

Served me right for even trying.

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

In some parts of the South I have heard "horse relish" for "horseradish." I'm one of the ones who shudders at "No problem" rather than "You're welcome." Actually, no one has problems any more. They are now called "issues."

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/2/2021 at 5:01 PM, TomJH said:

While I enjoyed the 1964 Killers well enough nothing in the film for me comes close to the riveting power of the first ten minutes of the 1946 version when the two hit men (Charles McGraw, William Conrad) arrive in the small town searching for their target. A combination of strong black and white photography and the ominous sounds of Miklos Roza's musical score, with its famous da-de-da dum theme, tells you that something terrible is about to happen.

And then comes our first sighting of Burt Lancaster, lying in a bed but refusing to take cover when he hears that two killers are looking for him. Within minutes, Lancaster hears the sounds of their steps slowly approaching his room, with his door suddenly bursting open as the two gunmen empty their guns into him, flashes from their weapons reflecting light on their faces. The scene ends with a shot of Lancaster's hand limply falling to the side of the bed.

It is one of the most justly famous opening sequences of any film. While some may argue that nothing else in the film matches that opening (and I would agree with them) the cast's performances and tension achieved through Robert Siodmak's direction contribute to make this one of the most memorable excursions down a dark noir screen ally. Poor Lancaster, trapped in an obsession with a woman who finally proves to be unworthy of his devotion, beauteous Ava Gardner, a sensual force of destruction for weak men, great journeyman actor Edmond O'Brien who is in many ways the real star of this film as he investigates the murder of a boxer, and sleek, duplicitous Albert Dekker, mastermind behind the robbery that brings most of the cast together. These four actors all make memorable turns here.

I don't know what Ernest Hemingway thought of the '46 version. Only the opening ten minutes accurately reflects the entirety of his short story, to the extent that they even used some of his dialogue. The rest of the film was pure Hollywood invention in a production I regard as one of the key illustrations of the power of noir.

MV5BMDRkNzMxNGMtMzFiZi00ZTIyLWIyYWUtMDM3

Poor Ole. He's doomed from the first moment he sees her but it's not difficult to understand why.

Ok.  I wasn't going to do this, but after such a strong case for  Robert Siodmak's  The Killers,  I'm jumping in.  I'm not going to compare it to the 1964 version, because I'm not interested right now in doing that.  I'm just going to be perverse, since I know I'm probably a minority of one here, and state unequivocally that I don't like 1946's The Killers, I never have, and I just don't get why so many people think this is such a great noir.

First, totally agree with Tom that the opening 10 minutes are indeed fantastic. The two scary strangers who walk into that diner and more or less terrorize the poor unfortunates who happen to be there, the terse dialogue , (especially the "bright boy" thing, which I believe is taken directly from the Hemingway story), and, as Tom describes, the ensuing scene in which the killers break in on Burt Lancaster, who doesn't even try to evade them,  - all that is indeed riveting, and beautifully done.

The problem is, that's the best part of the film.  It just goes downhill from there  (yup, in my opinion.)  Agreed, Edmund O'Brien is very good, and quite sympathetic as the insurance investigator.  And I love Burt Lancaster no matter what he's in, so bonus points to the film just for having him in it.  (That face is the epitome of male beauty. Plus of course, he can act.)

But...come on, people, it's kind of boring !  It's hard to tell what's going on, and even though this is a common feature in noirs, for some reason the opaqueness of the narrative just adds to the tedium of the film overall.  Now, I've watched this thing several times, on purpose to ascertain what exactly it is that people love about it so much. I've given it quite a few tries.  The last time, I actually stayed awake through the whole thing (I've always fallen asleep at some point or other before, because it's so boring.)

I know I'm going to p-off a bunch of fans of the film, but my intention is not to offend, it's just to give a different perspective .  I think my main problem with The Killers is Ava Gardner.  I just don't understand what all the fuss is about.  I truly don't think she's as heart-stoppingly beautiful as everyone is always saying she is.  But ok, Burt's character thinks she is.  Beautiful elusive Kitty.  Here's the real problem I have with Kitty, which may not be Ava's fault:  she's not an interesting person.  She says and does very little in the film, whether with Burt or anyone else.  For a femme fatale, she's pretty passive.  Most femme fatales have, at the very least, some spirit, some wit, sometimes they're even a bit playful. Or at least mysterious. They say interesting things -  often they're not true, but at least they say something.  Kitty has to be one of the dullest femme fatales in noir I've ever seen - and I've seen a lot of noirs. Other than her looks, she's kind of mundane.

Now since the whole narrative of The Killers revolves around "Swede's" fascination for Kitty, it just doesn't work for me.  I just don't understand why so many think this movie is "one of the most memorable  excursions down a dark noir screen alley."  I'll take any number of equally famous and more deserving noirs over this one.

So sue me.😜

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

Ok.  I wasn't going to do this, but after such a strong case for  Robert Siodmak's  The Killers,  I'm jumping in.  I'm not going to compare it to the 1964 version, because I'm not interested right now in doing that.  I'm just going to be perverse, since I know I'm probably a minority of one here, and state unequivocally that I don't like 1946's The Killers, I never have, and I just don't get why so many people think this is such a great noir.

First, totally agree with Tom that the opening 10 minutes are indeed fantastic. The two scary strangers who walk into that diner and more or less terrorize the poor unfortunates who happen to be there, the terse dialogue , (especially the "bright boy" thing, which I believe is taken directly from the Hemingway story), and, as Tom describes, the ensuing scene in which the killers break in on Burt Lancaster, who doesn't even try to evade them,  - all that is indeed riveting, and beautifully done.

The problem is, that's the best part of the film.  It just goes downhill from there  (yup, in my opinion.)  Agreed, Edmund O'Brien is very good, and quite sympathetic as the insurance investigator.  And I love Burt Lancaster no matter what he's in, so bonus points to the film just for having him in it.  (That face is the epitome of male beauty. Plus of course, he can act.)

But...come on, people, it's kind of boring !  It's hard to tell what's going on, and even though this is a common feature in noirs, for some reason the opaqueness of the narrative just adds to the tedium of the film overall.  Now, I've watched this thing several times, on purpose to ascertain what exactly it is that people love about it so much. I've given it quite a few tries.  The last time, I actually stayed awake through the whole thing (I've always fallen asleep at some point or other before, because it's so boring.)

I know I'm going to p-off a bunch of fans of the film, but my intention is not to offend, it's just to give a different perspective .  I think my main problem with The Killers is Ava Gardner.  I just don't understand what all the fuss is about.  I truly don't think she's as heart-stoppingly beautiful as everyone is always saying she is.  But ok, Burt's character thinks she is.  Beautiful elusive Kitty.  Here's the real problem I have with Kitty, which may not be Ava's fault:  she's not an interesting person.  She says and does very little in the film, whether with Burt or anyone else.  For a femme fatale, she's pretty passive.  Most femme fatales have, at the very least, some spirit, some wit, sometimes they're even a bit playful. Or at least mysterious. They say interesting things -  often they're not true, but at least they say something.  Kitty has to be one of the dullest femme fatales in noir I've ever seen - and I've seen a lot of noirs. Other than her looks, she's kind of mundane.

Now since the whole narrative of The Killers revolves around "Swede's" fascination for Kitty, it just doesn't work for me.  I just don't understand why so many think this movie is "one of the most memorable  excursions down a dark noir screen alley."  I'll take any number of equally famous and more deserving noirs over this one.

So sue me.😜

Thanks for your take on The Killers, MissW, and I appreciate the fact that you're willing to give your reasons for not liking a popular film.

Just as you find Gardner an uninteresting character in the '46 version, I can say the same for John Cassavetes in the '64 remake. I can't say that I much care about his character or what happens to him, in contrast to poor Ole (Burt Lancaster) in the Siodmak take. Burt is a slightly dim but decent sort and really open faced in his adoration for Gardner. I suspect a lot of guys may identify with Lancaster allowing himself to be taken advantage of by a sensual beauty like Gardner (we'll just have to agree to disagree about her looks, MissW, since I think she's one of the great beauties of the movies - in any era). Poor Ole, the chump even gives gives up three years of his life in prison for this dame who only takes advantage of him afterward. Yes, dumb slug that he is, I can feel for Burt's character (unlike Cassavetes) so I feel a connection there.

And, Miss W, let's give Gardner a little credit as an actress. She's got  a great final scene in the '46 version in which, knowing that she's caught, she pleads on her knees for a dying man to tell the authorities there that she's innocent. The actress in her is given a moment to emerge there, even if briefly. Aside from that just looking at Gardner smoulder in this film, leaning against a piano at a party or later coming to Ole's room to tell him that he's being set up by the gang, it's easy to understand why a man could make a fool of himself for her, especially when he thinks she came to his room because she cares about him.

I appreciate the performances of Marvin and Gulager as the killers in the Siegel version, and Angie Dickinson shows her acting credentials in the scene in which she is terrorized by the killers. Tramp that she is you feel sorry for her there. Visually, though, there is no contest between the two films. I'll take the moody Germanic photography of the '46 version (that darkness permeates, wonderfully so, the entire film) over the television bright lights look of the '64 film any day.

One more thing I'd like to add about my enjoyment of the '46 film, and it comes from the character performance of Vince Barnett as Charleston, the aging old time crook, who looks at the stars from his prison cell, and later may well mourn Ole's death more than anyone else in the film. There's a sweetness about Barnett's portrayal as he gently tries to steer crazy-in-love Ole away from a dame who owns his heart but will leave him broken. That moment, in particular, in the prison cell when Barnett tells Burt that there are reasons why a woman doesn't contact a guy in jail that have nothing to do with her being sick. Not surprisingly, Charleston will be one of the few that shows up for Ole's funeral. Truth is he's the person that should have been the beneficiary of Ole's life insurance, not that cleaning lady.

I love the '46 version's photographic visuals, a source of never ending pleasure for me:

The+Killers+1946+3.jpg

killers_46_medium.jpg

killers5.jpg?w=584

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Tom we can certainly agree about the look of the 1946  The Killers.  It is beautiful. Dark, moody, and yes, quintessentially noir. (I like that first still very much, for instance.) After all, this is a Robert Siodmak film. Speaking of whom, and also speaking of Burt Lancaster noirs, I'll take Criss Cross over The Killers; it too, has got those great noir visuals, it too has the wonderful Burt Lancaster (again, betrayed by love), and it's also got a female lead character who to me is far more interesting than Kitty Collins.

You went to some length to say why you did not prefer the 1964 version, but you didn't have to, because, as I said in my earlier post , I wasn't comparing the two, I was just talking about the Siodmak version.  They're actually so very different, there's little point in comparing them.

I tried to look up on the TCM schedule when they might be airing the 1946 The Killers again, but for some reason,  it just said  "we couldn't find anything that matches your search."  Very strange. It used to be, if you entered a film title in the search field at the upper right of the schedule page, it would give the entry about the film you typed in, synopsis, cast, etc., even if there wasn't any upcoming date scheduled for its airing.  But this had nothing at all.

The reason I wanted to see if the film were coming up soon was because I thought I'd give it yet another try, since, despite the fact that I own many noirs on DVD, The Killers isn't one of them.   Oh well, it's bound to be shown again sooner or later on TCM, I'll just watch for it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

Well, Tom we can certainly agree about the look of the 1946  The Killers.  It is beautiful. Dark, moody, and yes, quintessentially noir. (I like that first still very much, for instance.) After all, this is a Robert Siodmak film. Speaking of whom, and also speaking of Burt Lancaster noirs, I'll take Criss Cross over The Killers; it too, has got those great noir visuals, it too has the wonderful Burt Lancaster (again, betrayed by love), and it's also got a female lead character who to me is far more interesting than Kitty Collins.

You went to some length to say why you did not prefer the 1964 version, but you didn't have to, because, as I said in my earlier post , I wasn't comparing the two, I was just talking about the Siodmak version.  They're actually so very different, there's little point in comparing them.

I tried to look up on the TCM schedule when they might be airing the 1946 The Killers again, but for some reason,  it just said  "we couldn't find anything that matches your search."  Very strange. It used to be, if you entered a film title in the search field at the upper right of the schedule page, it would give the entry about the film you typed in, synopsis, cast, etc., even if there wasn't any upcoming date scheduled for its airing.  But this had nothing at all.

The reason I wanted to see if the film were coming up soon was because I thought I'd give it yet another try, since, despite the fact that I own many noirs on DVD, The Killers isn't one of them.   Oh well, it's bound to be shown again sooner or later on TCM, I'll just watch for it.

MissW, I love Criss Cross, too, a film that may not be as well known as The Killers but, for my money, is comparable to it, not only in quality, but theme, as well (Lancaster enamoured with the wrong woman again, though in this case she's not all bad, her relationship with another gang leader, the robbery, the double cross, etc.). I have always considered the final scene in Criss Cross to be as tragically dark an ending as any noir film ever gave us. And it's Siodmak again.

By the way, should you get the opportunity to view The Killers again, for suspense and real excitement, you might take another look at the scene set at the Green Cat Club when the killers reappear to try to knock off  Edmond O'Brien as Gardner goes to "powder her nose." I think it's one of the most beautifully staged sequences in the entire film. Siodmak's direction is truly remarkable here. And with that great "Dragnet" theme by Miklos Rozsa playing on the soundtrack again.

What a great professional relationship Robert Siodmak had with Burt Lancaster, not only two of the best film noirs but a couple of years later, for contrast, The Crimson Pirate, with an athletic, ever smiling Burt in one of the best tongue-in-cheek pirate films ever made.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

Ava Gardner.  I just don't understand what all the fuss is about.  I truly don't think she's as heart-stoppingly beautiful as everyone is always saying she is.  But ok, Burt's character thinks she is.

 

9 hours ago, TomJH said:

I suspect a lot of guys may identify with Lancaster allowing himself to be taken advantage of by a sensual beauty like Gardner (we'll just have to agree to disagree about her looks, MissW, since I think she's one of the great beauties of the movies - in any era).

OK sorry, but I just have to respond to this. I feel the same way as Miss W about Ava: Definitely a pretty woman, but not over-the-top beautiful like say Elizabeth Taylor was in PLACE IN THE SUN or MM on film, you can't take your eyes off them. (lighting & good camera work helps too)

But, I do think Ava was a better actress than she's given credit. I absolutely love her in ON THE BEACH. The fact that all anyone ever talks about is how beautiful she is - is testament, proof of her talent.

Remember, 99% of acting is BELIEVING you are that charactor. Ava believes she's drop dead gorgeous, she's acting.

I often illustrate this for others while walking the dog or walking through the Mall or anywhere in public, really. I ask the person I'm with to watch all eyes coming towards us. Nothing, no reaction.

I then begin to walk like on a runway, changing my posture & movement. Same person, but now every head turns to watch. People in cars driving by slow down & look. It's called "acting" and Ava Gardner was really good at making you believe no man could resist her! 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, TikiSoo said:

 

It's called "acting" and Ava Gardner was really good at making you believe no man could resist her! 

SinatraGardner1.jpg

"She sure fooled me!"

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, TikiSoo said:

 

But, I do think Ava was a better actress than she's given credit. I absolutely love her in ON THE BEACH. The fact that all anyone ever talks about is how beautiful she is - is testament, proof of her talent.

 

I agree. I think Ava brought genuine vulnerability to her role as an aging party girl who finds love one last time. I also thought she and Gregory Peck had very strong chemistry in this film, as they had in Snows of Kilimanjaro.

bc7cac2e0f6bde4dd4916142262ea1c9.gif

I can never hear "Waltzing Matilda" without thinking of them.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To revert back to Hoagy Carmichael, I read that Ian Fleming had Hoagy's physical appearance in mind while creating James Bond.  It's fairly obvious Bond and his exploits were based on Fleming's experiences during his time in  British Naval Intelligence. Fleming's career as an intelligence officer wasn't nearly as glamorous as Bond's . I believe he created the character he would like to have been.  Also Carmichael bore a striking resemblance to Fleming.  Apparently, Fleming first thought Sean Connery was all wrong for the part before the filming of DR. NO began. He eventually came around before his untimely death in 1964.  While most people (including me) think Connery was by far the best Bond, some think Roger Moore's physical appearance would have been more acceptable to Ian Fleming.  

Just another bit of worthless information from a man who clearly has way too much time on his hands. 

Hoagy_Carmichael_-_1947.jpg

th.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Dargo said:

And, I'd bet the same people who call the stuff "horshradish" probably also call our nation's capital "Worshington, D.C." too, Sepia. ;)

 

 

Some maybe, but not all.  In fact, those folks are in the minority as I really don't often run across people who say "warsh" much anymore.  In fact, saying "HORSHradish" is a common slop up to make and hard to avoid normally.   But, "sherBERT"  should be done away with altogether.( and please, no "Bert and Ernie" jokes.)

Sepiatone

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

OK sorry, but I just have to respond to this. I feel the same way as Miss W about Ava: Definitely a pretty woman, but not over-the-top beautiful like say Elizabeth Taylor was in PLACE IN THE SUN or MM on film, you can't take your eyes off them.

I'm one that doesn't view Ava as over-the-top beautiful but instead just a very pretty women that has a very sexually forward screen persona;  that as you note is based on acting (verses physical attributes).

As you also note there are more beautiful actresses,  but many of them have more reserved screen personas. 

I will say that in Pandora and the Flying Dutchman Ava never looked more beautiful and she played a more reserved character.    But a lot of that has to do with the fine cinematography of Jack Cardiff.      

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's an "eye of the beholder" thing for sure.  Like, member DARGO is really smitten with Ava, as I found others I thought more attractive.  Like Jean  Tierney, or Paulette Goddard and Jane Russell( for brunettes)   But as was stated, it's my opinion, which of course, should have no bearing on anyone else's.

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to 1946's The Killers:     MW makes some very solid points by raising the question of "why is this film viewed as one of the top noirs?";   

Looked at historically as a film released in 1946,   The Killers "packages" in very niffy ways,   some of the common motifs and noir themes used only sparingly in earlier 40s noir films.      Some of these being:

Starting a film at the ending,  with the death of the noir protagonist.     Having the story of Swede unfolding in a series of disconnected flashbacks.   The use of time, disjointed and at times overlapping.   The alienating disjunction felt by Swede and his subsequent surrender to the trap of what would become a classic femme fatale.   

The film also introduces some concepts like that of the investigator using the situation of Swede to move beyond the boring routine of his job, entering into the noir world, and producing results in which nobody really triumphs.        In addition the film features a gang, and a capper, and while this was very common in early crime and gangster films it wasn't in 40s films we label today as noir.   

Now looking back today at all the noir films I have seen,   The Killers doesn't  rank higher at utilizing many of the above "traits" as other films made after it;  E.g. the gang and capper angles are better in The Asphalt Jungle.      Thus as a stand-alone film compared to others,  many may be overrating the film.    But seen as a quintessential 40s noir film,  The Killer stands out.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

Yeah, it's an "eye of the beholder" thing for sure.  Like, member DARGO is really smitten with Ava, as I found others I thought more attractive.  Like Jean  Tierney, or Paulette Goddard and Jane Russell( for brunettes)   But as was stated, it's my opinion, which of course, should have no bearing on anyone else's.

Sepiatone

First here, Liz Taylor always seemed to me to be in both looks and personally as "too delicate" for want of a better description here.

Secondly, sure, Gene Tierney had that sexy as all hell little overbite, but in my view again, she also came across as just a bit "too delicate". Goddard was an attractive lady to be sure and maybe a "9", and while Jane Russell certainly could never be called "too delicate" and exuded an earthiness about her in all of her films, sorry, that strange looking nose of hers has always turned me off a bit.

Aaaah, but now Ava, she had it all. Classic beautiful features AND that same smoldering and sultry "earthiness" which Jane Russell had.

(...and yeah, I think Ava's little chin clef is sexy as hell too...so sue me!!!)  ;)

LOL

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

OH and btw, and regarding MM here...

MUCH too phony looking, what with that damn bleached blonde hair and usually with way too much makeup on that puss of hers too. Sans all that makeup, and she isn't such-a-much lookin' at all. Just look at those early pictures of her taken when she was still "Norma Jean". She's pretty much just your pleasant looking girl-next-door type.

(...to say nothing about that breathless little "baby talk" voice she had....YUCK!!!)

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Dargo said:

OH and btw, and regarding MM here...

MUCH too phony looking, what with that damn bleached blonde hair and usually with way too much makeup on that puss of hers too.

(...to say nothing about that little breathless "baby talk" voice she had....YUCK!!!)

Yeh but what about Hoagy Carmichael? Now that's a sexy guy!

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

Back to 1946's The Killers:     MW makes some very solid points by raising the question of "why is this film viewed as one of the top noirs?";   

Looked at historically as a film released in 1946,   The Killers "packages" in very niffy ways,   some of the common motifs and noir themes used only sparingly in earlier 40s noir films.      Some of these being:

Starting a film at the ending,  with the death of the noir protagonist.     Having the story of Swede unfolding in a series of disconnected flashbacks.   The use of time, disjointed and at times overlapping.   The alienating disjunction felt by Swede and his subsequent surrender to the trap of what would become a classic femme fatale.   

The film also introduces some concepts like that of the investigator using the situation of Swede to move beyond the boring routine of his job, entering into the noir world, and producing results in which nobody really triumphs.        In addition the film features a gang, and a capper, and while this was very common in early crime and gangster films it wasn't in 40s films we label today as noir.   

Now looking back today at all the noir films I have seen,   The Killers doesn't  rank higher at utilizing many of the above "traits" as other films made after it;  E.g. the gang and capper angles are better in The Asphalt Jungle.      Thus as a stand-alone film compared to others,  many may be overrating the film.    But seen as a quintessential 40s noir film,  The Killer stands out.

 

 

 

It also has that neat little stylistic audio piece of music that goes discordant when McGraw and Conrad show up at the nightclub at the end. 

  • Like 1
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...