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

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, King Rat said:

I enjoyed Villain (1971) during the Richard Burton day, a film I had never heard of. Definitely one of Burton's better post-60s films, and one that would fit into another round of Neo-Noir. Based on the real-life criminal Ronnie Kray, Burton's character is sadistic, crazy, and homosexual, but nice to his aging mum. Ian McShane plays his boyfriend, sort of a thuggish bisexual Dudley Moore. Nigel Davenport plays the policeman trying to bring Burton to justice, a difficult task because the guy has dirt on prominent people.

I don't want to oversell the film, but if you like the genre, it's competently made. Thanks to those on the board who mentioned it, and thanks to TCM for this imaginative choice for Burton's day.

I'd heard of the title, but never knew much about the film. I don't think it got much of a release. I'll try to watch for it next time it's on. Why did you change your account name? Due to a new computer?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hibi said:

I'd heard of the title, but never knew much about the film. I don't think it got much of a release. I'll try to watch for it next time it's on. Why did you change your account name? Due to a new computer?

Yes, new computer which the TCM computer didn't recognize. It seemed the easiest solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, King Rat said:

Yes, new computer which the TCM computer didn't recognize. It seemed the easiest solution.

At least it's similar so I can know who you are. Too bad you have to start from scratch, post-wise. Do you remember how many you had?

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

I didn't like that the character Anne Shirley played was eliminated entirely in the remake. Was she not in the novel? Charlotte Rampling's character was barely in the picture compared to Clare Trevor's and her first scene with Mitchum was awkward to say the least! In some ways better than the original, but in other ways WORSE!

no Anne Shirley love story in the novel, no blinding gunshot in the novel either.

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

I see. Thanks. She did seem to be "there" in the film to supply some romance (or someone for Marlowe to bounce ideas off of). I kind of liked her though. The ending I'm sure was different from the novel!

The ending takes place on the gambling ship as in the film but in it Velma gets away. The novel has a epilogue where Velma finally gets her's back East in Jersey, a few years later, if I remember it right. She is a chanteuse singing in a band and a cop makes her from a wanted poster.

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

The ending takes place on the gambling ship as in the film but in it Velma gets away. The novel has a epilogue where Velma finally gets her's back East in Jersey, a few years later, if I remember it right. She is a chanteuse singing in a band and a cop makes her from a wanted poster.

I checked the novel;   Velma shoots  a detective that is trying to capture her and than shoots herself;  I.e. she commits suicide.   The ironic part is that other detectives say that such a women (rich,  beautiful),  would have never been convicted for the shooting of Moose (since he was  a wanted killer). 

Of course with the Code the 44 version couldn't have such an ending,  and while the 70s version could  have,  it wouldn't have been as cut-and-dry as how that film ended.  

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

The ending takes place on the gambling ship as in the film but in it Velma gets away. The novel has a epilogue where Velma finally gets her's back East in Jersey, a few years later, if I remember it right. She is a chanteuse singing in a band and a cop makes her from a wanted poster.

Interesting!  I can see why they changed the ending for the code, but why not keep it for the remake? For a femme fatale she isn't in the remake that much. I wonder if some of her scenes were cut?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Charlotte Rampling seems to have cast fairly often as an attractive woman who is somehow "off" or a bit perverse, as in Farewell, My Lovely and The Verdict. She plays these roles well, and they were probably more interesting for her to play than more conventional heroines.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, King Rat said:

Charlotte Rampling seems to have cast fairly often as an attractive woman who is somehow "off" or a bit perverse, as in Farewell, My Lovely and The Verdict. She plays these roles well, and they were probably more interesting for her to play than more conventional heroines.

Yes, she had a whole series of roles like that culminating with The Night Porter. There was a period film she did during this time set in New Orleans. I forget the title. Think Mickey Rourke was in it.

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

Yes, she had a whole series of roles like that culminating with The Night Porter. There was a period film she did during this time set in New Orleans. I forget the title. Think Mickey Rourke was in it.

Angel Heart (1987). Haven't seen it in awhile.

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

Charlotte Rampling seems to have cast fairly often as an attractive woman who is somehow "off" or a bit perverse, as in Farewell, My Lovely and The Verdict. She plays these roles well, and they were probably more interesting for her to play than more conventional heroines.

Besides Georgy Girl, that early one, I liked her as Madame Lyubov Andreievna Ranevskaya, the matriarch in The Cherry Orchard (1998), and also in 45 Years (2015?), in  which she plays a "normal" person but who is victimized by a life situation (which I found disturbing, but I recommend the movie anyway) and I am currently watching her in a the miniseries Broadchurch (running currently perhaps, or if not recently completed) where she plays a lawyer out of retirement. She has done much more so I can't say I really know her, but pretty good so far.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to those who mentioned the neo-noir Twilight (1998)--not the one with vampires and werewolves, the one with actors who can act! What a starry lineup: Paul Newman, Susan Sarandon, Gene Hackman, James Garner, Stockard Channing. The supporting cast includes Giancarlo Esposito, M. Emmet Walsh, John Spencer, and Margo Martindale, who has a lot of fun playing the gal who calls herself "Mucho." Reese Witherspoon is the weakest link (though not bad), less capable than she will become in a few years, but that's probably not why she has to go topless in one scene. Her boyfriend is played by Liev Schreiber, who seems more attractive than in most of his later films.

The story follows a familiar but not unwelcome path. Newman is an ex-alcoholic ex-cop hired by movie star couple Sarandon and Hackman to bring their underage daughter and her boyfriend back from Mexico. Things do not go as planned, and a couple of years later Hackman has another task for Newman, which also does not go as planned. Is there a connection to a disappearance twenty years ago? Familiar territory, but with these actors I enjoyed seeing how it would all work out this time.

The greatest weakness is the cinematographer's fondness for darkened rooms; writer-director Robert Benton needed to keep him in check. In this film I'd rather see the actors' faces where so much is going on. There are some nice shots of LA houses. One of the pleasures of the film is how well Paul Newman and James Garner have aged and how much both actors can accomplish with just a wry smile.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it’s all the simple things, the little things, that get you, stick with you, and you can’t quite put your finger on why they get you, they just do.  And the most amazing thing of all is they get you over and over again, they never fail to get you, while other things never get you at all.  

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

Yeah, it’s all the simple things, the little things, that get you, stick with you, and you can’t quite put your finger on why they get you, they just do.  And the most amazing thing of all is they get you over and over again, they never fail to get you, while other things never get you at all.  

Yeah Thompson, I really get you here, dude.

(...and now stop bogartin' that joint and pass it over here again)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, Robert Shaw in Jaws.  That movie takes a major turn when Shaw enters the scene (on AMC now), he’s really good.  He’s an archetype.  We relate to archetypes.  It’s all about archetypes.

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

For example, Robert Shaw in Jaws.  That movie takes a major turn when Shaw enters the scene (on AMC now), he’s really good.  He’s an archetype.  We relate to archetypes.  It’s all about archetypes.

I can agree to this to a degree,  but sometimes an archetype ends up being a one-dimensional character and that is something I can't relate to.

Film vs. Film: Murder, My Sweet vs. Farewell, My Lovely | everythingnoir

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

I can agree to this to a degree,  but sometimes an archetype ends up being a one-dimensional character and that is something I can't relate to.

Film vs. Film: Murder, My Sweet vs. Farewell, My Lovely | everythingnoir

So James. Are you saying big Mike Mazurki here was "one-dimensional" as Moose in the '44 version?

(...a bit confused here with the last couple of postings in this baby)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point, yes, he can’t be stagnant, he has to move.  That’s what separates the great actors, they know how to move, or they can move instinctually.  Everything is always in motion, great actors can tune  into that and capture it and give it back to us.  Very cool.

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

For example, Robert Shaw in Jaws.  That movie takes a major turn when Shaw enters the scene (on AMC now), he’s really good.  He’s an archetype.  We relate to archetypes.  It’s all about archetypes.

Dreyfuss sure as hell ain't no archetype in that thing. But my mother thought he was just wonderful.

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

So James. Are you saying big Mike Mazurki here was "one-dimensional" as Moose in the '44 version?

(...a bit confused here with the last couple of postings in this baby)

I'm saying that in the 44 version the character of Moose,  as written and directed,  was fairly one-dimensional.    In the 70s version,  as well as the novel,  the Moose character has more dimensions.      I'm not saying Mazurki was a one-dimensional actor. 

 

   

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, King Rat said:

Thanks to those who mentioned the neo-noir Twilight (1998)--not the one with vampires and werewolves, the one with actors who can act! What a starry lineup: Paul Newman, Susan Sarandon, Gene Hackman, James Garner, Stockard Channing. The supporting cast includes Giancarlo Esposito, M. Emmet Walsh, John Spencer, and Margo Martindale, who has a lot of fun playing the gal who calls herself "Mucho." Reese Witherspoon is the weakest link (though not bad), less capable than she will become in a few years, but that's probably not why she has to go topless in one scene. Her boyfriend is played by Liev Schreiber, who seems more attractive than in most of his later films.

The story follows a familiar but not unwelcome path. Newman is an ex-alcoholic ex-cop hired by movie star couple Sarandon and Hackman to bring their underage daughter and her boyfriend back from Mexico. Things do not go as planned, and a couple of years later Hackman has another task for Newman, which also does not go as planned. Is there a connection to a disappearance twenty years ago? Familiar territory, but with these actors I enjoyed seeing how it would all work out this time.

The greatest weakness is the cinematographer's fondness for darkened rooms; writer-director Robert Benton needed to keep him in check. In this film I'd rather see the actors' faces where so much is going on. There are some nice shots of LA houses. One of the pleasures of the film is how well Paul Newman and James Garner have aged and how much both actors can accomplish with just a wry smile.

 

That was me! :D

  • Thanks 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...