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

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Moe Howard said:

Eddie's intro and outro were the best parts, particularly his shout out to byNWR.com. The film itself was slow. The wife fell asleep and I got sidetracked so started over this morning and watched the whole thing. Locations are interesting, camera work acceptable but nothing especially remarkable,  Mary Boland stole the show, not a particularly high bar. 

 

Went to the site of two different days.  No links to streaming movies or even a list of movies. Then I clicked on  Explore the Exhibition under Culture is for Everyone.  Sort of reads like a discussion/documentary but once you get in, have option to Watch the Movie.   Also there is a menu once you open the Culture.

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

If you're talkin' about El Segundo here Stallion, then you probably know this city was often referred to as "Des Moines by the Sea" back in the day, don't ya.

(...this old fellow South Bay boy here clearly remember this)

I lived in  the next town south, Manhattan Beach. El Segundo had worse references on Sanford and Son.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Stallion said:

I lived in  the next town south, Manhattan Beach. El Segundo had worse references on Sanford and Son.

Ah yes, Manhattan Beach. The town where many a scene in Against All Odds, that inferior neo-noir remake of Out of the Past, were filmed along the strand there.

(...there ya go, Cid...see how I so effortlessly got this baby back on track for ya here?...happy now?!)  ;)

LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

What part of Out of the Past was filmed on the strand in Manhattan Beach? I remember the movie being in three main places: Bridgeport, Lake Tahoe and San Francisco.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stallion said:

What part of Out of the Past was filmed on the strand in Manhattan Beach? I remember the movie being in three main places: Bridgeport, Lake Tahoe and San Francisco.

No, its remake Against All Odds (which starred Jeff Bridges in basically Mitchum's role from Out of the Past) had a few scenes filmed in Manhattan Beach along the strand.

 

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

I had no trouble getting that.  So I wonder how it sipped past STALLION?  :huh:

Sepiatone

I think it got past me as I have no clue about Against All Odds, so I only thought of Out of the Past. I definitely know of movies and tv shows shooting on the strand in Manhattan Beach but just am not familiar with Against All Odds. In hindsight, I guess it was kind of silly trying to picture Out of the Past locations on the strand. 

I went back and read the original statement and now see things clearly. I am in a running conversation with my wife whose computer is right next to mine so I claim the distraction is her fault!(haha)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2021 at 6:54 PM, laffite said:

I think it WAS bad. A bland and cliched screenplay. Zachary Scott tries really hard but it falls flat. It may not be his fault. I have seen (as we all have) good actors act badly and it is often the result of trickle-down ineptitude (e.g., badly directed or something) though I'm not sure who to blame here. Zachary proves himself elsewhere and this performance can be safely ignored. Mary Boland comes near to some really fine moments but it doesn't last. I had trouble getting through it but as often happens with me, movies can rehabilitate themselves with me through a sort of retroactive osmosis, a residual positive rehashing that gives way to an overall general feeling of "not so bad." (Although I wouldn't over emphasize that in this case).

I AGREE. Completely idiotic, unbelievable plot! Had a few good scenes and camera work/lighting, but it didnt help. This film should've STAYED LOST! I did like the Kay Medford segment, but wasnt enough of her. I'd never seen her in anything else but Funny Girl and Butterfield 8.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Hibi said:

I AGREE. Completely idiotic, unbelievable plot! Had a few good scenes and camera work/lighting, but it didnt help. This film should've STAYED LOST! I did like the Kay Medford segment, but wasnt enough of her. I'd never seen her in anything else but Funny Girl and Butterfield 8.

One thing that just occurred to me is that the boy never was really kidnapped.  He was missing in the sense that his uncle left him with a woman who ran a boarding house.  From the final scene, she appeared to be a decent woman living in a relatively nice neighborhood.  Why didn't she inform someone when the uncle never came back?  I guess she was just waiting for the uncle to show up again?

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

One thing that just occurred to me is that the boy never was really kidnapped.  He was missing in the sense that his uncle left him with a woman who ran a boarding house.  From the final scene, she appeared to be a decent woman living in a relatively nice neighborhood.  Why didn't she inform someone when the uncle never came back?  I guess she was just waiting for the uncle to show up again?

I know. Were so many holes and hard to swallow points in the plot. I gave up trying to understand it about halfway into the film.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Stallion said:

I think it got past me as I have no clue about Against All Odds, so I only thought of Out of the Past. I definitely know of movies and tv shows shooting on the strand in Manhattan Beach but just am not familiar with Against All Odds. In hindsight, I guess it was kind of silly trying to picture Out of the Past locations on the strand. 

I went back and read the original statement and now see things clearly. I am in a running conversation with my wife whose computer is right next to mine so I claim the distraction is her fault!(haha)

OK.  But I just hope your wife is OK with that explanation.  ;) 

Sepiatone

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Hibi said:

I know. Were so many holes and hard to swallow points in the plot. I gave up trying to understand it about halfway into the film.

Some movies are quite entertaining if you do that. 😀

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

Some movies are quite entertaining if you do that. 😀

True! LOL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Thompson said:

The Postman Always Rings Twice, airing now on TCM, is not really that good.  

I will say there was, to me, a lot of tension in this movie with John Garfield and Lana Turner sneaking around behind her husband's back, his attempted conquest of this bombshell of a woman, her manipulation in wrapping him around her little finger, etc.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Postman Always Rings Twice is one of the premier noirs, with dynamite sexual chemistry between Lana Turner (probably her best performance) and John Garfield. Lana is beautiful and poor doomed Garfield just can't help himself. This film adaption of one of Cain's most famous novels remains clever and emotionally compelling.

Pin on mirror & reflection

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The first shot of Turner in her “outfit” is of her knees.  Nobody can tell me her knees are sexy.  They are all blubbery and knobbed.  Now granted, you run that eye line all the way up and things look a whole a lot different. I get the sexual tension but it’s overrated and Turner is not all that hot because her hair his phony, and truth be told, she can’t act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I like James M Cain, terrific writer, loved the novel.  It’s not that the movie is bad, but the music is lame, and it’s not realistic in the dialogue, there are too many false moves to make it compelling.  Sure, all us boys are looking up Turner’s back side hoping for a peek, but that initial shot of the knobby knees and that hairdo brings us all down.

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

I like James M Cain, terrific writer, loved the novel.  It’s not that the movie is bad, but the music is lame, and it’s not realistic in the dialogue, there are too many false moves to make it compelling.  Sure, all us boys are looking up Turner’s back side hoping for a peek, but that initial shot of the knobby knees and that hairdo brings us all down.

Lana Turner | The Film Noir Report

Repulsive. I don't know why Garfield didn't throw up when he saw her.

  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Thompson said:

Repulsive for sure.  Look at those knees.  How can you be a femme fatale with knees like that?

Wear long pants?        I get that the knees do look odd and not very sexy,   but frankly I never noticed them until it was pointed out to me,  at this forum,  a few years back.

As for the film:    There are some scenes that I really enjoy but overall the film isn't one of my top 10 or even 20 noir films.      I believe the direction could have been tighter and there are few noir visuals.           Plus Cecil Kellaway couldn't play guitar! 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2021 at 8:39 PM, Bronxgirl48 said:

Moe, Zach's ears are lovely!

 

I always thought Zachary Scott was  kind of weedy-looking.  Ironically, since most of us here seem to agree that Guilty Bystander was not one of Zach's better moments,  movie-wise,  I actually thought he was more attractive in this than in some of his more famous films.  This,  even though he's supposed to be dissipated- looking due to the drinking, not an  homme fatale like the type of character he often played.

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

I always thought Zachary Scott was  kind of weedy-looking.  Ironically, since most of us here seem to agree that Guilty Bystander was not one of Zach's better moments,  movie-wise,  I actually thought he was more attractive in this than in some of his more famous films.  This,  even though he's supposed to be dissipated- looking due to the drinking, not an  homme fatale like the type of character he often played.

The sleaze look

WIRkldQ.png

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, misswonderly3 said:

I always thought Zachary Scott was  kind of weedy-looking.  Ironically, since most of us here seem to agree that Guilty Bystander was not one of Zach's better moments,  movie-wise,  I actually thought he was more attractive in this than in some of his more famous films.  This,  even though he's supposed to be dissipated- looking due to the drinking, not an  homme fatale like the type of character he often played.

"Weedy-looking" - good description.   Would you agree with pencil-necked?

He also has doe-eyes!   Like Bambi.

He is rather hairy, although it's a good kind of hairy.  (now I sound like Lizabeth Scott in THE STRANGE LOVE OF MARTHA IVERS)

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lana and John are tremendous in POSTMAN.   I love the way she struts around the ante-room.  You can't learn that in acting school.

And I think Leon Ames and Hume Cronyn are terrific as the lawyers.   The whole production is relatively steamy for an MGM film made in 1946 -- a bit ahead of its time in my opinion.

 

  • Like 5
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...