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

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, SansFin said:

What I noticed during this watching is that the money was mostly in stacked bundles when it was put into the sack but was all loose when he put it into the suitcase.

I am sorry to say that I am one of those people also who are affected by apparent discrepancies. Both the bag and the suitcase seem to weigh less than fifty pounds. This is based on their swing patterns and the ease with which they are picked up and are carried. Two million dollars in fifty pounds requires an average bill to be eighty-eight dollars. This suggests a mix of only fifty and one-hundred dollar bills with slight emphasis on the latter. A racetrack with that volume of high-value bills would need forklift access to their money room to accommodate the handling of pallet-loads of ones, fives and tens. 

SansFin,  I believe you are by nature one of those people who pays great attention to detail.  This is often an asset, especially if attention to detail is required in one's work.  However,  when it comes to movie-watching,  I'm actually glad I don't think about such details...or if I do,  I tend to have the same attitude as Mr. Gorman .  I'm a big believer in disbelief,  or at least the suspension of it, when watching movies.  If the film is good enough in other ways,  discrepencies such as the one you pointed out don't bother me at all.   I agree entirely with Mr. G.'s  statement below:

11 hours ago, Mr. Gorman said:

 

Speaking of "weight of the money" . . . you just have to overlook some things like that in films and television to glean more enjoyment from it.  →  Like the weight of gold in KELLY'S HEROES when Kelly & Co. pack it on the pick-up truck and the end and the '64 Bond movie "GOLDFINGER".  I just do the "suspend my disbelief" thing and take it as "this movie I'm watching takes place in a slightly altered Universe where gold doesn't weigh as much as it does in Real Life".  :) 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been a very long time since I read CLEAN BREAK and a good while since I have seen THE KILLING but as I recall it a crucial difference between the film and the novel is that- IN THE NOVEL right at the start we learn that JOHNNY CLAY (the STERLING HAYDEN character) and SHIRLEY PEATTY (the MARIE WINDSOR character) are having an affair which unfolds a whole subplot the movie doesn't touch.

(again, this is AS I RECALL.)

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

I’ve never thought of that. But yeah, I see it. 
 

However, I highly recommend to you or anyone who is interested in great works of American pulp fiction checking out the novel CLEAN BREAK by LIONEL WHITE, Certain editions have been re-titled as THE KILLING To capitalize on the fact that it is the source novel. I read it about 25 years ago and I remember absolutely loving it, although it is very very different from the movie especially the ending which is 100 times better. 
 

There’s absolutely nothing at all redeeming about anybody in the novel, no glimpses of humanity to be found at all. And the Marie Windsor character is even more evil.

Lorna,  I've noticed that like a lot of posters here, you like to read crime novels,  pulp fiction, detective stories -- however one wants to label the genre.  I'm very impressed with how many of the original novels you've read that many noirs and crime movies are based on.   I know you read other types of literature too, but crime fiction seems to be one of your favourite type of novel.

I must disclose here that I have read very few - unless you count British "cozies" -  and there's a reason for that.  Every time I've even browsed through a novel by any of the original noir writers,  there's a hardness, a nastiness, that doesn't seem to make it into the film versions of these novels.   I know a lot of people, especially fans of that genre of fiction,  are bothered by this,  by the film version being less ugly and violent than the original book.  But I dislike that ugliness, and I'm glad the cinematic adaptations are almost always toned down - sometimes just a bit, sometimes, I gather,   a lot.  Of course this probably has a lot to do with the Code and the censors and the Catholic Board of Decency or whatever they were called,   as well as the producers worrying about the commercial value of the crime film; they don't want their audience repelled by the movie they're hoping to make money from.

One example:  You may remember,  a few years ago there was a discussion on these boards about "In A Lonely Place".  A few people who'd read the original book pointed out that the Bogart character,  Dixon Steele,  was much less violent and misogynistic than his namesake in the novel.  Someone even quoted a passage from the book.  I found it so ugly, so pathologically full of hatred and sadism,  that I decided I never wanted to read it.  And I was glad they'd made the changes to that character and to the story in the film version.

So sue me, everybody .

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Moe Howard said:

Or 44 lbs in hundreds that would fit in two standard briefcases. Which means it's possible and that's the important part. We aren't required to completely ignore math basics to accept the concept.

I fear that I find it strains credulity to suppose that a racetrack at that time had that quantity of hundred-dollar bills on hand. What is shown in the money room is a reasonable amount if you consider it to be a mixture of ones, fives, tens, twenties, fifties and hundreds. It is also that much more than two briefcases' volume of bundled stacks of currency are placed into the bag.  

To put this into real-world perspective: in the robbery of Aqueduct in June of last year: "Officials say the two alleged criminals were caught on surveillance shortly after, leaving the track with 'a garbage bag and duffel bag, both of which appeared to be full.'" https://www.tmz.com/2020/06/15/aqueduct-racetrack-new-york-city-robbery-two-arrests/ Their total haul was: $280,000. To picture seven times more in half the volume is preposterous even before the denomination distribution of the 1950s is factored. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, misswonderly3 said:

SansFin,  I believe you are by nature one of those people who pays great attention to detail.  This is often an asset, especially if attention to detail is required in one's work.  However,  when it comes to movie-watching,  I'm actually glad I don't think about such details...or if I do,  I tend to have the same attitude as Mr. Gorman .  I'm a big believer is disbelief,  or at least the suspension of it, when watching movies.  If the film is good enough in other ways,  discrepencies such as the one you pointed out don't bother me at all.   I agree entirely with Mr. G.'s  statement below:

 

I watch much science fiction and fantasy where suspension of disbelief is an absolute requirement and I have no problem with lame or inaccurate depictions of scientific or magical principles which range from 'possibly maybe possible' to 'violates every known law of physics'. Such movies are set in their own universe and so are not subject to scrutiny from ours. 

I have just now finished watching: My Name is Nobody (1973) which has a scene in which it is pointed out that he has only one bullet remaining in his gun and he then fires three more times. I feel that is part of the charm of the movie and quite suitable for the character. 

What does bother me is inane inaccuracies which could have been corrected with ease if any person from the screenwriter to the prop master to the director did not need a glass bellybutton.

A few such things do not ruin a movie for me but they do take me out of the movie for a bit.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SansFin said:

I fear that I find it strains credulity...

Movies tend to do that. I was focussing on the fact that the idea is possible, and that alone is refreshing. 

 

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

Lorna,  I've noticed that like a lot of posters here, you like to read crime novels,  pulp fiction, detective stories -- however one wants to label the genre.  I'm very impressed with how many of the original novels you've read that many noirs and crime movies are based on.   I know you read other types of literature too, but crime fiction seems to be one of your favourite type of novel.

I must disclose here that I have read very few - unless you count British "cozies" -  and there's a reason for that.  Every time I've even browsed through a novel by any of the original noir writers,  there's a hardness, a nastiness, that doesn't seem to make it into the film versions of these novels.   I know a lot of people, especially fans of that genre of fiction,  are bothered by this,  by the film version being less ugly and violent than the original book.  But I dislike that ugliness, and I'm glad the cinematic adaptations are almost always toned down - sometimes just a bit, sometimes, I gather,   a lot.  Of course this probably has a lot to do with the Code and the censors and the Catholic Board of Decency or whatever they were called,   as well as the producers worrying about the commercial value of the crime film; they don't want their audience repelled by the movie they're hoping to make money from.

One example:  You may remember,  a few years ago there was a discussion on these boards about "In A Lonely Place".  A few people who'd read the original book pointed out that the Bogart character,  Dixon Steele,  was much less violent and misogynistic than his namesake in the novel.  Someone even quoted a passage from the book.  I found it so ugly, so pathologically full of hatred and sadism,  that I decided I never wanted to read it.  And I was glad they'd made the changes to that character and to the story in the film version.

So sue me, everybody .

I apologize if this may seem to be wildly off-topic but I do feel that it applies in a manner...

I am currently reading: The Guns of the South by Harry Turtledove. He is a classically-trained academic with a doctorate in Byzantine history. It is quite fascinating to read this because it is historically accurate in great detail except for the main plot of modern-day South Africans using a time machine to supply the Confederate Army with AK-47s. Things from why they scrounged clothes from the battlefield but would not wear Yankee coats to the many different styles of canteens they carried to  officers purposely ignoring women serving discretely in the ranks bring a wonderful vibrancy to the story. 

I am sad to say that it is widely considered that the majority of his work is unfilmable. I believe that this may be due in large part to the absence of villains. The conditions and situations are faceless enemies against which they must battle but no individual is inherently evil. They are all good people according to the truths and values with which they were raised. An example of this is a sergeant says that he wishes he were on picket duty along the border because he might find a Yank willing to trade coffee and candy for tobacco. No one argues that it is treason or that all Yanks are devils and not to be trusted. It is nay-sayed solely on the basis that picket duty is cold! 

I believe that it would be a fairly easy matter for a screenwriter or director to present a character in a noir novel as less violent or misogynistic on the screen. It would be far more complicated and difficult to make a character evil within the confines of the greater story.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2021 at 4:06 PM, Dargo said:

And here I always thought an even better title for this movie (and maybe the book) would have been, How Not To Pack Your Checked Baggage !

Have you seen the 1970's movie Juggernaut?  A baggage check mishap is a key plot point there, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other day, I watched the end of Carousel.  Makes me cry because of the song they sing at the end.  Earlier today, watched a little of Field of Dreams, some taped Wimbledon, and SVU repeats (they go downhill when Christopher M. leaves).  I've seen the TCM lineup before.  I'll switch back and forth as I read and fall asleep.  Fortunately, Dick Van Dyke repeats are on later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fedya said:

Have you seen the 1970's movie Juggernaut?  A baggage check mishap is a key plot point there, too.

No, I haven't seen this one Fedya. however after just now checking out its synopsis and a few reviews of it on the IMDb website, it sounds as if it's worth a look.

(...thanks)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2021 at 8:08 AM, LornaHansonForbes said:

When I was living in Los Angeles, I used to walk to the HOLLYWOOD LIBRARY ON SUNSET BLVD and rent BONJOUR TRISTESSE on DVD.

I also adore it

 

On 6/20/2021 at 4:31 PM, kingrat said:

One of my favorites. I love everything about this film except the revoltingly ugly sack dress that Deborah Kerr wears in one scene, and even that is historically accurate. The sack dress was the "in" thing for a season, till someone noticed that it was unflattering to women and as ugly as homemade sin. But back to the movie: I consider this Otto Preminger's masterpiece

 

On 6/20/2021 at 2:33 PM, misswonderly3 said:

SPOILER    I also think the Deborah Kerr  character was too grounded and strong to end things as she did.  

I love BONJOUR TRISTESSE.  It  is my (very close) second favorite Otto Preminger movie (after LAURA).

Jean-Luc Godard (who directed Jean Seberg in BREATHLESS) said that Seberg's character Patricia in BREATHLESS was a continuation of her character Cécile from BONJOUR TRISTESSE. One day I think I'll watch the two movies as a double feature.

Deborah Kerr's character  Ann in BONJOUR TRISTESSE was, in fact,  very fragile.  Her very visceral reaction when she learns shortly after her arrival at the villa that David Nivens's character's younger lover Elsa  is also there for the summer is a foreshadowing of her emotional reaction at end.

QM55pBq.jpg

oqseC67.png

B978USN.png

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Dargo said:

No, I haven't seen this one Fedya. however after just now checking out its synopsis and a few reviews of it on the IMDb website, it sounds as if it's worth a look.

(...thanks)

JUGGERNAUT is SUPERB. Genuinely, one of my favorite films of the 1970s and one that could make a great remake.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

sigh.

I watched JAWS 2 last night.

It really isn't so much a cohesive film as it is a pastiche of passable shots, and with my new 42" screen, I could not help but notice HOW OFTEN LAND CAN BE SEEN IN THE BACKGROUND when the characters are ostensibly miles out at sea.

get mad at me for this, but I think JAWS 2 is the worst JAWS sequel.

its boring and it lacks the OUTRIGHT (but highly memorable) GALL of 3-D and THE REVENGE.

Plus the decision to make the shark all "Phantom of the Opera" just makes it look superduperfakey.

See the source image\\\\

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

sigh.

I watched JAWS 2 last night.

It really isn't so much a cohesive film as it is a pastiche of passable shots, and with my new 42" screen, I could not help but notice HOW OFTEN LAND CAN BE SEEN IN THE BACKGROUND when the characters are ostensibly miles out at sea.

get mad at me for this, but I think JAWS 2 is the worst JAWS sequel.

its boring and it lacks the OUTRIGHT (but highly memorable) GALL of 3-D and THE REVENGE.

Plus the decision to make the shark all "Phantom of the Opera" just makes it look superduperfakey.

See the source image\\\\

I'm not going to get mad at you for anything, but for me Jaws the Revenge was the worst sequel.  Of course, none of them lived up to the original which was 4 stars all the way.

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

I'm not going to get mad at you for anything, but for me Jaws the Revenge was the worst sequel.  Of course, none of them lived up to the original which was 4 stars all the way.

i apologize for botching the source quote, but in the words of OSCAR WILDE, "there is nothing quite so awful as something that is not so good."

so while JAWS 2 is merely notsogood, JAWS 3 and (most especially) JAWS THE REVENGE are awful on a truly grand scale [with THE REVENGE being an absolute work of trashgarbage/art.]

sadly, I have long since lost the DVD, but sometime in the 1990s, a company called GOOTIMES ENTERTAINMENT released JAWS THE REVENGE on DVD with the option for watching the whole movie DUBBED IN FRENCH and I cannot tell you how much I miss watching JAWS LE REVENGE, which when watched sans subtitles and  en Francais becomes a maddening exercise in existentialism that would make CAMUS proud.

 

See the source image

 

"y a-t-il un requin? ou le requin est-il dans notre esprit?"

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Chicken Run (2000)

 

It is very difficult to escape from a WWII-style prison camp. It is even harder when you are a chicken who has to plan your escape while still laying at least one egg a day to prevent being chosen for the chopping block.

This is very much a remake of: The Great Escape (1963) set on an egg-farm in 1950s England. The tunneling, time in solitary and Rocky jumping a fence on a tricycle were lifted directly from the original. The plot, music and desperation all mimic it closely.

I love this movie very much! It is pure fun. Every aspect simply screams inspired imagination. The characters are so very expressive. It is quite wonderful that the farm owner is suspicious of the chickens and is so very hen-pecked by his tall and lanky wife who considers him a perfect idiot. That is obviously not true because no one is perfect. I must admit that he does come close but he is definitely right that those chickens are up to something.

9.3/10

I am sorry to say that I can find it available for streaming only on: Amazon Prime Video. I imagine that most libraries might carry it because of its status as a children's movie.
 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, SansFin said:

Chicken Run (2000)
 

Dreamworks bought Aardman productions hoping for another Wallace & Grommit, and got this instead.  By the time they got Walllace & Grommit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit five years later, it didn't do well at the theaters, and...so much for studio loyalty.  😔

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bonfire of the Vanities - Now Showing on TCM

A 30 year old satirical depiction of PC corruption gone wild which has come to be reality in 2021.  Hanks, a wealthy white man is railroaded for a crime never committed by a race baiting religious huckster and a district attorney concerned with his career more than truth and justice. 

The movie would be unwatchable were it not for how unintentionally timely it is and for Bruce Willis being Bruce Willis and Melanie Griffith being Melanie Griffith, both of whom are always solidly just above mediocre. OH, and Morgan Freeman, the judge presiding over the fraud of a case has a moment to shine at the end, and does. 

Julie Salamon, Ben's guest host was a real treat.  Looking forward to hearing more from her.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Monte Carlo Nights (1934)

 

A playboy is ready to reform and settle down with a woman he truly loves. His last night of drinking and gambling does not go as planned because he is in the office of a casino owner when someone shoots the owner and tosses the gun into the room. He picks it up and is soon on his way to prison.

This is one of Monogram's best B-movies. John Darrow acquits himself well as a man whose virtues were just beneath the surface and needed little to unearth them. Mary Brian is adequate as the woman who loves him despite all the evidence that he is no good. Yola d'Avril and Astrid Allwyn are interesting as the temptations he is just able to resist. George Hayes is an honest and dedicated police detective willing to put himself on the line to prove the playboy's innocence.

I found it a little stagey but that is common with movies of the era.

6.4/10

I watched it on: Amazon Prime Video but I see that it is listed on several other services and that it is noted as being free on a relatively obscure one. 

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

A 30 year old satirical depiction of PC corruption gone wild which has come to be reality in 2021.

I love that fist line but don't want to add a LOL or sad icons to your entire post.

The first time I saw NETWORK, it effected me that way. Now, even more.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Moe Howard said:

Bonfire of the Vanities - Now Showing on TCM

The movie would be unwatchable were it not for how unintentionally timely it is and for Bruce Willis being Bruce Willis and Melanie Griffith being Melanie Griffith, both of whom are always solidly just above mediocre.

BRUCE WILLIS has his moments, really and truly (PULP FICTION and DEATH BECOMES HER come to mind, also the original DIE HARD.) But more often than not, he is on AUTOPILOT.

Not too long ago, I rewatched BODY DOUBLE for the first time in ages and was struck by how delightful and uninhibited and bold MELANIE GRIFFITH is in that film...I know her career post WORKING GIRL has basically been DRESDEN, 1945, but dangit, I can't help but like her.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also would like to take this time to apologize for doing my bit in re: JAWS LE REVENGE.

I always take it too far, but I AM TELLING YOU GUYS, IF YOU EVER GET THE CHANCE TO SEE THAT MOVIE DUBBED IN FRENCH, IT IS SO WORTH IT!

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 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...