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

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Vautrin said:

Miss W, I called Van a heel, not a cad. A cad is a heel with better dialogue, though I admit it's a

thin line. I do give him credit for telling Joan that he didn't love her. I didn't mind that he came

late for her marriage and then chowed down on the free food and drink. Rather humorous.

It was a little creepy when he set his sights on Ray's daughter and also admitted her money was at

least part of the attraction. What Van should have done was build a time machine, go into the

future and come back with a copy of He's Just Not That Into You for Joan. Might have solved

some problems. 

He was a cad to the point that the height of my anxiety in that film was that Joan would stop shooting after just one bullet and not empty the gun into him. Good riddance!  He broke up with her - that was his right. She was obviously obsessed with him. He got that. And yet the next day after breaking up with her he marches into her employer's house and arranges for a job. And then keeps popping into and out of her life, always needling her like their relationship was one big joke. He should have given her time and distance to heal, but he didn't care. And then he woos her stepdaughter so he will be .... her son-in-law??? The guy had no regard for anybody but himself. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dargo said:

Hey, i just remembered here...

Nobody's answered my earlier quesiton as to how Joan got to L.A. from D.C. in this flick?

Or is it even ever explained?

(...and if NOT, how can I be the only one here who thinks it strange that it wasn't ever explained?)

Wasn’t the house by the lake in Los Angeles? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, speedracer5 said:

Wasn’t the house by the lake in Los Angeles? 

Nope, not at least according to the following synopsis of this film in the IMDb website anyway, speedy:

A woman wanders the streets of Los Angeles in some sort of emotional distress. She is also under some delusion as she approaches many men, strangers who she calls "David." Eventually, an ambulance is called, the attendants who take her to the hospital, where she is eventually placed in the psychiatric ward. Placing her under some medication to help her remember, Dr. Harvey Willard, the psychiatrist on duty, is able to get some semblance of a story out of her over the ensuing days. This phase of her life begins just over a year ago when she, single RN Louise Howell, is employed by wealthy Dean Graham to take care of his chronically ill and largely bedridden wife, Pauline Graham, at their lake house outside of Washington, D.C. Due to her circumstances, Pauline believes that Dean and Louise are having an affair behind her back. Louise can see that Dean does have feelings for her that way in his loneliness. The "David" in question is David Sutton, a civil engineer who lives across the lake from the Grahams, and who has been having a secret affair with Louise. That relationship was meant to be casual, but David tries to break it off with her when he sees that she has fallen in love with him to an obsessional state. Louise begins to manipulate the situation to be in David's life, even if only peripherally. Louise also begins to feel that if she can't have David, nobody else should. Louise is eventually diagnosed with schizophrenia during this time--something she does not mention to anyone in her life--which places her story to Dr. Willard in some context, including what of the story is real and what is all part of her delusion.

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

He was a cad to the point that the height of my anxiety in that film was that Joan would stop shooting after just one bullet and not empty the gun into him. Good riddance!  He broke up with her - that was his right. She was obviously obsessed with him. He got that. And yet the next day after breaking up with her he marches into her employer's house and arranges for a job. And then keeps popping into and out of her life, always needling her like their relationship was one big joke. He should have given her time and distance to heal, but he didn't care. And then he woos her stepdaughter so he will be .... her son-in-law??? The guy had no regard for anybody but himself. 

Yeah, he was definitely looking out for number one, however haphazardly at times. His arrogance was perhaps

the reason he thought Joan was not going to pull the trigger. Slight miscalculation. I found him amusing at times,

but overall a pretty bad piece of work.

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

Hey, I just remembered here...

Nobody's answered my earlier quesiton as to how Joan got to L.A. from D.C. in this flick?

Or is it even ever explained?

(...and if NOT, how can I be the only one here who thinks it strange that it wasn't ever explained?)

I think it’s a damn shame too, Dargo.  You just don’t go from place to place without the Greyhound bus, or the train, or a plane, or a motorcycle.  Maybe Joan road a motorcycle out to LA but those scenes got cut.  

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Cigarjoe cellph said:

In 'Vicky" the remake of "I Wake Up Screaming", and "The Garment Jungle" and maybe "I Bury The Living"

Richard Boone was also in the remake of The Big Sleep (1978), a neo-noir reset to England.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I first came to appreciate Van Heflin in The Strange Love of Martha Ivers.  While I like Lisabeth Scott, Barbara Stanwick and Kirk Douglas, for me Van Heflin made this movie.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Vautrin said:

These rumors seem to be a common topic of gossip back in the studio era. As least Ireland had something

going for him. He didn't age very well. Then many people don't.

Yeah, he didn't. I'd forgotten Ireland reteamed with Joan later in I Saw What You Did!

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

Okay, though I don't think he romanced the daughter expressly to irritate Louise. He had had quite enough for her to do that. Nor is there any indication that he married expressly for the money. This latter was more opportunism than rank calculation. It did not appear to me that he particularly was interested in marriage, at first anyway, there was no immediate calculation to that purpose ... was there?  Didn't that come about incrementally? Maybe I'm being to easy on him. But even at the end he seemed genuine when urging her to return to her father, etc. He is a bit rough around the edges and perhaps insensitive and inconsiderate in some ways, but he is not an ogre. IMO. He did not deserve plugging. He was a sacrifice to the plot, the object of Louise's going over the top.

Maybe he didnt deserve plugging but he was still a cad. And I enjoyed seeing him get it!!!! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

Dargo, I've watched this one several times. It's actually one of my favorite Joan Crawford films. And yesterday, for the first time, I actually noticed she was in L.A. It was when she was looking in the bank window at the beginning and the window said something about the bank being in L.A. And no, I don't remember anything being said as to how she got there.  If she was in such a catatonic state after she shot David, you'd think it would take some heavy lifting for her to find a plane to L.A., get a ticket, get on the right plane, sit through the multiple hours it takes to get to LA from DC, etc. 

One of several plot lapses. I think they used the downtown location, but did not mean it specifically to BE L.A. in the plot.......

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LsDoorMat said:

He was a cad to the point that the height of my anxiety in that film was that Joan would stop shooting after just one bullet and not empty the gun into him. Good riddance!  He broke up with her - that was his right. She was obviously obsessed with him. He got that. And yet the next day after breaking up with her he marches into her employer's house and arranges for a job. And then keeps popping into and out of her life, always needling her like their relationship was one big joke. He should have given her time and distance to heal, but he didn't care. And then he woos her stepdaughter so he will be .... her son-in-law??? The guy had no regard for anybody but himself. 

I couldn't have said it better!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, ElCid said:

Richard Boone was also in the remake of The Big Sleep (1978), a neo-noir reset to England.

The less said about that one, the better.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Vautrin said:

To me Frank looked best back in the 1940s with that greasy kid's stuff and semi-pompadour look.

After that era nothing much to brag about. I always thought Dino was the best looking of the rat

pack.  

I read that all those bobby-soxers who were so crazy about Frankie were just planted in the audience by Ole Blue Eyes' publicists to increase his popularity.  

I agree about Dino.  Just saw him in RIO BRAVO yesterday and thought he looked especially fine, considering his character was a drunkard.

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

I first came to appreciate Van Heflin in The Strange Love of Martha Ivers.  While I like Lisabeth Scott, Barbara Stanwick and Kirk Douglas, for me Van Heflin made this movie.

I did have a bit of a problem with Lisabeth though, but I chalk that up to her dialogue.  "You were looking for trouble but it was a good kind of trouble"

Van and Barbara are excellent but Kirk really impressed me in his role, especially after such a different character in OUT OF THE PAST.   Superb in both.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bronxgirl48 said:

ODDS AGAINST TOMORROW isn't a remake of FIVE CAME BACK.   

Sorry, I have the title wrong! I'll look it up!~

 

It's BACK FROM ETERNITY! That's what I get for relying on my brain......

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just looked it up -- BACK FROM ETERNITY, 1956, with Robert Ryan and Anita Ekberg, is the remake of FIVE CAME BACK.   Plane crashes in South American jungle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bronxgirl48 said:

Hibi, no problem.   I can't rely on my memory, but occasionally it comes to life.

I know the feeling! :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Bronxgirl48 said:

 Kirk really impressed me in his role, especially after such a different character in OUT OF THE PAST.   Superb in both.

Should make myself clear -- THE STRANGE LOVE OF MARTHA IVERS was Kirk's film debut, followed by OUT OF THE PAST.    That he could essay in such believable fashion those two wildly disparate characters are a testament to the man's often overlooked (imo) talent.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bronxgirl48 said:

Should make myself clear -- THE STRANGE LOVE OF MARTHA IVERS was Kirk's film debut, followed by OUT OF THE PAST.    That he could essay in such believable fashion those two wildly disparate characters are a testament to the man's often overlooked (imo) talent.

Maybe I was just to used to the Kirk film persona to see him as being a good "fit" for Martha Ivers;      E.g.  we see the character as a teen;  wimpy,  geeky,  clumsy,  with glasses,  etc.

We then see the character,  Kirk,   as an adult;    I just don't see the same teen as reflected by Kirk.    But like I said I have seen so many Kirk-the-man roles that it is hard for me to see Martha rejecting Kirk for Van Heflin (or Kirk not being able to handle himself physically with a man like Heflin).       Kirk as a meek man wasn't very common after this first film   (he is somewhat like that in A Letters to Three Wives).

     

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

Maybe I was just to used to the Kirk film persona to see him as being a good "fit" for Martha Ivers;      E.g.  we see the character as a teen;  wimpy,  geeky,  clumsy,  with glasses,  etc.

We then see the character,  Kirk,   as an adult;    I just don't see the same teen as reflected by Kirk.    But like I said I have seen so many Kirk-the-man roles that it is hard for me to see Martha rejecting Kirk for Van Heflin (or Kirk not being able to handle himself physically with a man like Heflin).       Kirk as a meek man wasn't very common after this first film   (he is somewhat like that in A Letters to Three Wives).

     

I think "Champion" was his break out role where we primarily see "angry Kirk" from that point forward. 

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

Yeah, he didn't. I'd forgotten Ireland reteamed with Joan later in I Saw What You Did!

He soldiered on in movies and TV almost up to the bitter end, so I give him credit for that.

Very few actors can stay on top for decade after decade. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bronxgirl48 said:

I read that all those bobby-soxers who were so crazy about Frankie were just planted in the audience by Ole Blue Eyes' publicists to increase his popularity.  

I agree about Dino.  Just saw him in RIO BRAVO yesterday and thought he looked especially fine, considering his character was a drunkard.

I've read in a number of places that some of the bobby-soxers were plants, maybe even paid, to go into hysterics

when Frankie sang. I wouldn't be surprised, though I'm sure some of them were genuinely excited. I guess Dino

had experience looking good drunk or sober. 

  • 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...