Movies Serious Movie Discussion

[Bullitt68]

The thing with James M. Cain adaptations of noir era (The Postman Always Ring Twice, Double Indemnity, Mildred Pierce) is that they are too polished. Cain's rugged style just couldn't be achieved in Hayes Code era Hollywood.

Of those, Mildred Pierce is VASTLY superior, thanks in large part to Joan Crawford's performance and Michael Curtiz's direction. The disjointed timeline works particularly well there and that daughter of hers is just one of the worst humans in the history of noir...though she's still a Girl Scout next to Gene Tierney from Leave Her to Heaven

I wrote a mini review of Night And the City recently: "Night And the City is one of my all-time favourite crime movies. An American hustler (Richard Widmark) has ended up in London and tries to make his mark there while it’s painfully clear from minute one that he does not stand a chance in hell. He’s a feverishly delusional opportunist and a total outsider. Jules Dassin’s burlesque expressionism is closer to Pabst’s decadence than Lang’s modernism. Nocturnal outdoor scenes were shot on location in London and look amazing. Mostly English cast is filled to the every last bit part with great character actors. This is a singular noir if there ever was one."

Part of the equation here is no doubt that I prefer Lang's modernism

I guess you could call In a Lonely Place overrated as crime movie, but the way it captures something gut-wrenchingly real is pretty unique in noir genre.

I'm also not the biggest Nicholas Ray fan. For a lot of his fans, that's his great noir masterpiece, but not only do I prefer his earlier efforts They Live by Night and Knock On Any Door, I also prefer later stuff like On Dangerous Ground and especially Johnny Guitar, which like John Sturges' Bad Day at Black Rock is a wonderful hybrid Western noir. In a Lonely Place for whatever reason has always been a little flat for me. And moving from Ray to Bogart, In a Lonely Place is like the exhibition for the master class he would put on losing his marbles in The Caine Mutiny

Big Sleep I need to revisit. Not a huge fan of Hawks, but I think this one has grown on me.

It took time to grow on me, too. I like anything with Bogart to some extent, but I grew to appreciate The Big Sleep more over time. Same thing with Key Largo. Whenever I revisit that one, it's like I'm shocked anew by how amazing it is. And then for Bogart and Bacall pairings, Dark Passage is the one that often gets left out of the equation but it's so damn good, not just for the fun POV gimmick at the start (which puts Lady in the Lake to shame) but also for the amazing scene toward the end with Bogart and the always great Agnes Moorehead.

I sympathize on Hawks, though. I'm no huge fan of his or anything, either. Scarface is the weakest of the early gangster films and he might just be the most overrated Western director ever. But he had a knack for comedy. From Bringing Up Baby and His Girl Friday to Ball of Fire and Monkey Business, I enjoy his screwball style. He put Bogart and Bacall together, though, so even if you don't like him, To Have and Have Not (which is more adventure than true noir) and The Big Sleep are must-see films for all.

Maltese Falcon is top notch!

It's the GOAT in my book. The Third Man is a close second but The Maltese Falcon has always been my #1 noir. The script literally crackles, Bogart is at his best, the supporting cast is phenomenal top to bottom, and it has one of the all-time great endings. Even though noir would shift from indoors, in penthouses and private eye offices, and go outdoors, into the urban metropolises of New York, Chicago, and LA, I still consider The Maltese Falcon to be the quintessential and the best film noir.

 

[Yotsuya]

Of those, Mildred Pierce is VASTLY superior, thanks in large part to Joan Crawford's performance and Michael Curtiz's direction. The disjointed timeline works particularly well there and that daughter of hers is just one of the worst humans in the history of noir...though she's still a Girl Scout next to Gene Tierney from Leave Her to Heaven

Agreed. It was masterfully made, but I was expecting something grittier as I had last seen Possessed by Crawford some time ago. I have not read the book, but some part of my brain was constantly trying to calculate what the original material might be like and that made it harder just to enjoy the movie.

I sympathize on Hawks, though. I'm no huge fan of his or anything, either. Scarface is the weakest of the early gangster films and he might just be the most overrated Western director ever. But he had a knack for comedy. From Bringing Up Baby and His Girl Friday to Ball of Fire and Monkey Business, I enjoy his screwball style. He put Bogart and Bacall together, though, so even if you don't like him, To Have and Have Not (which is more adventure than true noir) and The Big Sleep are must-see films for all.

Yeah. The Big Sleep and To Have And Have Not have the chemistry that has very little to do with Hawks. Gotta check out Dark Passage! Hawks' comedies are great and Scarface sure sucks.

 

[Bullitt68]

Agreed. It was masterfully made, but I was expecting something grittier

Michael Curtiz doesn't really do grit. All of his stuff is pretty "classy" and polished, from Angels with Dirty Faces, The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex, and Yankee Doodle Dandy to Casablanca, The Unsuspected, and Trouble Along the Way. Honestly, his grittiest film (that I've seen at least) is probably either 20,000 Years in Sing Sing or Black Fury, both of which were early in his career before he became an A-list (and super classy) director.

as I had last seen Possessed by Crawford some time ago.

Well, Curtis Bernhardt is a different director. If you liked Possessed, then if you haven't seen them I'd also recommend from him the noir films Conflict (Bogart back with Sydney Greenstreet, though no Peter Lorre unfortunately), A Stolen Life, and most of all High Wall, which is another hidden gem noir film that deserves a lot more love than it's gotten.

And on the subject of Possessed and Joan Crawford, for some obnoxious reason that I've never been able to figure out, every time I think of Possessed I mistakenly think that it's the one with her and psycho Jack Palance, but that's Sudden Fear. Nothing about those two titles is even remotely close - I think maybe because I know and like Sudden Fear more, and think that Possessed would've been a great title for the film, I accidentally fused those two in my brain and I'm now unable to ever unfuse them. But if nothing else, this allows me also to recommend Sudden Fear, yet another out-of-the-way noir film that I think is absolutely awesome.

I have not read the book, but some part of my brain was constantly trying to calculate what the original material might be like and that made it harder just to enjoy the movie.

I haven't read the book, either, but I did try to watch the HBO miniseries with Kate Winslet, and you know what? Compared to the miniseries, Curtiz's film is gritty as fuck. I couldn't even make it through the series. It was transformed into a feminist melodrama, with the early chunk (all that I was able to watch) focusing just on Winslet's split from her husband and her struggle to start waitressing. There literally wasn't even an ounce or a speck of noir anywhere in the thing. It was extremely disappointing.

Gotta check out Dark Passage!

You don't see Bogart for a good chunk of the early portion because the gimmick - I mean the plot - is that he escapes from prison and gets plastic surgery, so in the early portion the character has a different face, which means that we don't actually see the character until he becomes Bogart. But the gimmick is done so well, the transition to "normal" is smooth, and the most interesting thing about it to me is that Bogart plays a very different sort of (not at all hard-boiled) character and he does it very well, sort of like James Stewart's character in Vertigo, transformed by events but a decent man at heart.

 

[Yotsuya]

Michael Curtiz doesn't really do grit. All of his stuff is pretty "classy" and polished, from Angels with Dirty Faces, The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex, and Yankee Doodle Dandy to Casablanca, The Unsuspected, and Trouble Along the Way. Honestly, his grittiest film (that I've seen at least) is probably either 20,000 Years in Sing Sing or Black Fury, both of which were early in his career before he became an A-list (and super classy) director.

Yeah, during precode era and few years after he was doing more provocative movies. I suppose I wasn't realistically expecting grit now that I think of it, but more like hoping for it. Crawford isn't really among my favourites but it's impressive how murky she can get.

I haven't read the book, either, but I did try to watch the HBO miniseries with Kate Winslet, and you know what? Compared to the miniseries, Curtiz's film is gritty as fuck. I couldn't even make it through the series. It was transformed into a feminist melodrama, with the early chunk (all that I was able to watch) focusing just on Winslet's split from her husband and her struggle to start waitressing. There literally wasn't even an ounce or a speck of noir anywhere in the thing. It was extremely disappointing.

Haha, I was kind of wondering which adaptation I should go for but looks like my instincts were correct.

 

[Bullitt68]

Every time I come back here, I feel so strongly how much I miss this place. I swear, if I ever hit the lotto, I'm done teaching. I'll immediately drop all institutional affiliations and become an independent scholar who spends his time on his own scholarship and on posting in the SMD. I wish I could spend more time in here, but with summer approaching, maybe I'll get to make up for some lost time.

On the subject of new movies, I actually watched a few recently. I didn't actually watch the whole movie - I don't care about the story or the people - but I wanted to see her performance and so I checked out The Eyes of Tammy Faye and I can cosign that Oscar for Jessica Chastain. She did a hell of a job transforming into that kooky lady.

I also watched The Little Things and thought it sucked. I'm not a big Fincher fan - I love Zodiac but Se7en is one of the most overrated movies of all-time, and one of those where it's not just rated too highly, it's actually a bad movie IMO - but this felt like a really bad Fincher movie. Denzel was okay, he certainly added some zest to an entirely zestlessly-written character, and Leto crushed it, though his actual character and his lines of dialogue left a lot to be desire, but Malek was conspicuously out of his depth and showed his greenness by being unable to do anything with the shitty script, resulting in a shitty performance as a shitty character. The plot was also dumb, the place the story built to was lame, and the themes at play weren't mined anywhere near deep enough. The Law & Order world does this shit better every week. If you do this shit in movie form with huge talent, you have to bring the heat, but they didn't.

Lastly, I watched No Sudden Move. Not great, certainly no modern crime masterpiece, but a solid film that I thoroughly enjoyed from beginning to end. I like Soderbergh's light touch, and I think that the script and the ensemble here eclipses his earlier stuff like Out of Sight and Traffic. Cheadle and del Toro were great, Ray Liotta (RIP) was great, Jon Hamm was great, Matt Damon was fucking phenomenal in his late cameo, and Sheriff Stranger Things David Harbour stole the show with IMO the best performance. In a weird way, it felt at times like Soderbergh was veering into Coen Brothers territory - at times this film reminded me of Burn After Reading - and I couldn't help but think how fucking stupendous Harbour would be in their quirky universe. The scene where Harbour steals the document from his boss is the best scene of the film IMO. I wasn't crazy about the fish-eye/lens distortion thing, especially because it was an accident that Soderbergh just liked visually rather than a deliberate choice for the sake of character or theme, but it's not disorienting and after 5 or 10 minutes you stop even noticing it. I'd highly recommend this one if you're looking for a new movie to check out.

And then for rewatches of shit I haven't seen in a million years, yesterday in one of my classes I was having students present on shit and one of them presented on the Norm Macdonald movie Dirty Work and another talked about Twilight and contemporary vampire stories and also mentioned Interview with the Vampire. Well, last night I watched Interview with the Vampire and Dirty Work and this weekend I'm going to watch - for the first time - all of the Twilight movies.

Dirty Work was fucking hilarious. My student yesterday showed a couple of clips and the whole class was rolling. I remember renting that from Blockbuster, but that was the one and only time I watched it, so yesterday it felt like I was watching it for the first time. Fucking hilarious script packed with both smart satire and raunchy absurdity. I also loved seeing both Adam Sandler and Chris Farley pop up. And credit to Jack Warden giving this his all and turning in such a hilarious performance. He's up there now with Rip Torn in Dodgeball for old school dudes turning in hilarious performances in new school crazy comedies.

Interview with the Vampire, meanwhile, was kind of lame. It failed as an adaptation, as it loses a TON of steam after Pitt and Dunst flee Cruise while Cruise's reappearance is straight up confusing. It's just a mess structurally as Neil Jordan wasn't able to tie everything from the book together in a very cohesive way. But I really enjoyed Pitt's subdued performance and Cruise crushed it as that charmingly loony vampire.

Now I just need to figure out when I'm watching the world renowned, universally beloved, and critically acclaimed masterpieces that constitute the Twilight Saga

I suppose I wasn't realistically expecting grit now that I think of it, but more like hoping for it.

I know this feeling well. This is how I approached the recent Reacher series on Amazon. I saw the trailer and it looked way too comedic/campy, but having read the books, I wanted an intense, hard-hitting action series. It definitely brought the hard hits, but I still wanted the tone to be slightly different even though I knew what to expect going in.

Crawford isn't really among my favourites but it's impressive how murky she can get.

Funny you mention this, she was never one of my favorites but before Comcast took TCM out of its standard package, I was watching a lot of her movies and found that I was liking her more and more. Johnny Guitar might be my favorite role of hers, and then her late career thriller/horror run from What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? through Straight-Jacket and I Saw What You Did up to Berserk is a lot of fun, but her starlet phase has a ton of great stuff, particularly her many films with Clark Gable. Possessed (the one from 1931 ) is a great drama, Dancing Lady is a fun musical-ish comedy (with hilarious bit parts for The Three Stooges), Forsaking All Others is a great love triangle from the criminally underrated W.S. Van Dyke and with a script by Joseph Mankiewicz, and Strange Cargo is one of my top five recent-ish classic discoveries, truly one of my new favorite films from the '40s, just a brilliantly plotted and acted story that is weirdly a fascinating Christian allegory in adventure clothing. And then beyond her films with Clark Gable, I also love Mannequin, which teamed her with Spencer Tracy, and A Woman's Face, with George Cukor going over to the darkside for his first crack at noir (which prepared him to make arguably the ultimate feminist noir film, Gaslight).

 

[Yotsuya]

And then for Bogart and Bacall pairings, Dark Passage is the one that often gets left out of the equation but it's so damn good, not just for the fun POV gimmick at the start (which puts Lady in the Lake to shame) but also for the amazing scene toward the end with Bogart and the always great Agnes Moorehead.

What a gimmick! Loved being a criminal on the run first person view getting all those deep gazes from the lovely Samaritan doing her best trying to lift me from the pinch. Gotta say, been kind of jealous of Bogey, so having a chance to jump into his shoes was not half bad! His solo-plot was kind of marginally amusing nonsense, but the ending at the bus station and finally in Peru made it all worthwhile.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

I'm not sure I'd call Seven bad but I do think its rather dated in style, as I'v said before these days I find myself enjoying The Game much more than the better regaued Fincher films either side of it. Lacks the pre millennium edginess and honestly just feels a bit more adult in style.

 

[Bullitt68]

What a gimmick! Loved being a criminal on the run first person view getting all those deep gazes from the lovely Samaritan doing her best trying to lift me from the pinch. Gotta say, been kind of jealous of Bogey, so having a chance to jump into his shoes was not half bad! His solo-plot was kind of marginally amusing nonsense, but the ending at the bus station and finally in Peru made it all worthwhile.

Nice, glad you enjoyed it. Here's when me and @europe1 talked about it back in the day.

I also watched the third film in the Bacall-Bogart team-up, Dark Passage. It's a rather gimmicky fick, with a third of it being POV, a third being filmed with Bogarts visage hidden somehow, and a third being shot "normally". This gimmicky nature does not detract from the quality of the film though. Since Bogart is a man wanted by the law, there is a special "tension" with the secrecy matter. For instance, during the POV-segment, whenever someone stares directly into the camera and thus "sees" Bogarts face you get this quick burst of alarment and danger as his nervousness rises at being recognized. This tension continues into the "normal" segments. For someone who played Sam Spade -- Bogart does a excellent job at playing a nervous, twitchy guy.

The POV-scenes are all really skillfully executed. Bogarts scruffy voice and mannerism gives him a real presence behind the camera. You genuinelly feel that there is a real person behind there and not just some John Doe character, which is what most POV-segments in other films feels like. Likewise, Bacall's bewitching face is really something that you can point the camera straight at and make magic.

The movie does have a few dumb moments (like that woman falling out the windows), and parts of the premise are rather outlandish. But overall I'd say this is another really strong Noir.

The movie does have a few dumb moments (like that woman falling out the windows)

I've actually grown to love that moment over repeat viewings. First off, Agnes Moorehead is one of the most underrated actresses of all-time and she's phenomenal in that role. Second, Bogart is on fire in that scene which is, in fact, one of my favorite moments in Bogart's entire career ("What is it? The suit? Remember the night you followed it? Or is it the face that doesn't go with the eyes? You don't want to believe it, do you, but there's nothing else for you to do. The more you look in my eyes, the more you know it's true. It's really me.") Third, her going out the window like that leaves two routes of interpretation open, both of which amount to the same thing but each of which offers its own noirish charm. On the one hand, you could interpret it as suicide, a final spiteful gesture on the part of a psychotically possessive woman who wants to make sure that if she can't have Bogart then nobody can. On the other hand, you could interpret it as a tragic accident which is so outrageous that it just confirms this guy's shitty luck that his one hope of salvation goes flying out the window. The end result is the same - Bogart has to stay on the run - but each one has its own noir flavor to it.

I've actually grown to love that moment over repeat viewings. First off, Agnes Moorehead is one of the most underrated actresses of all-time and she's phenomenal in that role. Second, Bogart is on fire in that scene which is, in fact, one of my favorite moments in Bogart's entire career ("What is it? The suit? Remember the night you followed it? Or is it the face that doesn't go with the eyes? You don't want to believe it, do you, but there's nothing else for you to do. The more you look in my eyes, the more you know it's true. It's really me.") Third, her going out the window like that leaves two routes of interpretation open, both of which amount to the same thing but each of which offers its own noirish charm. On the one hand, you could interpret it as suicide, a final spiteful gesture on the part of a psychotically possessive woman who wants to make sure that if she can't have Bogart then nobody can. On the other hand, you could interpret it as a tragic accident which is so outrageous that it just confirms this guy's shitty luck that his one hope of salvation goes flying out the window. The end result is the same - Bogart has to stay on the run - but each one has its own noir flavor to it.

Yeah I guess I can see it that way.

My favorite moment in that film might be when Bogart is approached by the detective and you just see him shrink and shrivel under the pressure. As I said, for a guy that reguarly played tough guys he playes a nervous wreck really well.

I'm not sure I'd call Seven bad but I do think its rather dated in style, as I'v said before these days I find myself enjoying The Game much more than the better regaued Fincher films either side of it. Lacks the pre millennium edginess and honestly just feels a bit more adult in style.

I tried to find it once but I think that it got lost in the server migration, but once back in the day I had this real long back-and-forth with theskza where I dissected everything bad about Se7en. I can't be bothered to do it again, so now I just say that it's bad. And I really think that it is. It's not just Brad Pitt's awful acting, culminating in the laugh-out-loud hilariously terrible twist ending ruined entirely by Pitt's complete lack of range. I legitimately think that The Glimmer Man out-Fincher's Fincher's own movie and makes Se7en look like amateur hour.

As for The Game, that's one of the strangest movie relationships that I have. The first time that I saw it, knowing nothing about the plot, it was riveting beyond belief, one of the most insanely adrenaline-fueled thrill-rides that I'd ever had. When I tried to watch it again years later, now knowing everything that happens, I was actually embarrassed at the thought of how riveting I thought it was, because on my second try it was so stupid and bad that I couldn't even finish it. I haven't tried it a third time, but where I went in assuming that it'd be just like The Usual Suspects, where even when you know everything that happens it's still a hell of a ride, it ended up being literally unwatchable.

These days, it's really just Zodiac and Gone Girl from Fincher for me. Sure, The Social Network is one that I obviously adore, but that's because of Sorkin and in spite of Fincher. And Panic Room is an enjoyable enough thriller. But when it comes to his greatest directorial achievements, he doesn't have many in my book.

 

[Bullitt68]

Just watched Guillermo del Toro's Nightmare Alley. Not only is it a phenomenal film, I actually think that it's better than the original. @Yotsuya, is the original Nightmare Alley a noir in your "Seen" file? Personally, I never loved it. Tyrone Power turned in his best performance and there were some great individual sequences, but on the whole it always felt like a lower tier noir. The remake? Fucking top notch.

First, amazing production design and cinematography. The period vibes were off the chart (the portion in the carnival reminded me a lot of Carnivàle) and del Toro used light and color stupendously, particularly in the scenes in Cate Blanchett's office. Absolutely gorgeous visuals.

Second, fantastic script. Some of the beats were the same as the original, but a lot was changed and I think that every change was for the better. I especially liked how del Toro worked out the classic noir struggle between fate and free will and the way that he incorporated psychoanalysis just like so many classical noir films did.

Third, excellent performances from both Bradley Cooper and Cate Blanchett. I've never been particularly wowed by either. They've both proven to be fine actors, but neither one has ever turned in a performance that I can point to and say, "Now that's why everyone thinks that they're so great." Now, however, they both have just such a performance: Their performances in Nightmare Alley. Cooper is truly superb, by far his best work and by quite a large margin. Right up to the very last shot, he hits every note, captures every emotion. Very impressive. Meanwhile, Blanchett gave one of the best femme fatale performances in recent memory. Costume and make-up wise, she honestly looks like she stepped out of a time machine from the 1940s, while character-wise, she gives out strong Lizabeth Scott vibes.

If you guys haven't seen the original and/or the remake, hell, watch them both. But definitely put the new one on your watchlists.

 

[Yotsuya]

Just watched Guillermo del Toro's Nightmare Alley. Not only is it a phenomenal film, I actually think that it's better than the original. @Yotsuya, is the original Nightmare Alley a noir in your "Seen" file? Personally, I never loved it. Tyrone Power turned in his best performance and there were some great individual sequences, but on the whole it always felt like a lower tier noir.

Yeah! Everything that happens at the carny is great, but the part set in the world of normies lacked forte. Power's fate was sealed from the start, but the high society escalations should have happened in more spectacular fashion. I think the story would have worked better if the movie had been made in more glamorous and sinful early 30's. Great performance by Power for sure. Gotta check out the remake.

 

[Yotsuya]

Third, her going out the window like that leaves two routes of interpretation open, both of which amount to the same thing but each of which offers its own noirish charm. On the one hand, you could interpret it as suicide, a final spiteful gesture on the part of a psychotically possessive woman who wants to make sure that if she can't have Bogart then nobody can. On the other hand, you could interpret it as a tragic accident which is so outrageous that it just confirms this guy's shitty luck that his one hope of salvation goes flying out the window. The end result is the same - Bogart has to stay on the run - but each one has its own noir flavor to it.

The lurid plot about proving innocence didn't really capture me while watching, but thinking back at it I like it too. The blackmailer also fell to his death, very conveniently and basically by accident, so the same happening to the woman almost makes you wonder. Then again, noir movies often have catastrophic chains of events, but this one made that epic romantic reunion in Peru happen.

 

[ufcfan4]

On the subject of new movies, I actually watched a few recently. I didn't actually watch the whole movie - I don't care about the story or the people - but I wanted to see her performance and so I checked out The Eyes of Tammy Faye and I can cosign that Oscar for Jessica Chastain. She did a hell of a job transforming into that kooky lady.

Hell of a performance. She definitely deserved all those accolades. I'm a fan. She has given a lot of good performances over the years.

I also watched The Little Things and thought it sucked. I'm not a big Fincher fan - I love Zodiac but Se7en is one of the most overrated movies of all-time, and one of those where it's not just rated too highly, it's actually a bad movie IMO - but this felt like a really bad Fincher movie. Denzel was okay, he certainly added some zest to an entirely zestlessly-written character, and Leto crushed it, though his actual character and his lines of dialogue left a lot to be desire, but Malek was conspicuously out of his depth and showed his greenness by being unable to do anything with the shitty script, resulting in a shitty performance as a shitty character. The plot was also dumb, the place the story built to was lame, and the themes at play weren't mined anywhere near deep enough. The Law & Order world does this shit better every week. If you do this shit in movie form with huge talent, you have to bring the heat, but they didn't.

I am a Fincher fan, but I get the point. And The Little Things does seem like a subpar Fincher film.

Glad you brought this one up. For me, the film definitely suffers from numerous issues, including having a plot that really goes nowhere. It also brought nothing new to the table to a genre that has far better entries. I can give credit to Denzel as I always do because his commanding screen presence and charisma often just elevates the quality of even lackluster films he is involved with. He was compelling. And I also actually thought Leto's memorable turn and the central gimmick with his character

Spoiler

that he was just an odd guy obsessed with those types of crimes rather than a killer himself, I believe. It's been a while.

weren't bad at all.

What really bothered me though, in addition to the pacing and an overall sense of meandering mediocrity was something that occurred toward the end of the film.

Spoiler

When Malek gets in that car with Leto. That just struck me as so ludicrously bad of a decision from a character in law enforcement, that it took me right out of the film and I was never going to even attempt to get back into it for the resolution. And I don't know if Malek was out of his depth so much as the script gave him NOTHING to do. But the fact is that the screenplay seemed to play it as though Malek's actions toward the end, from getting in the car, by himself, with someone he suspected was a serial killer leading him to victims to his actual murder of Leto, were the behaviors of someone so preoccupied with cracking the case that he was coming apart at the seams mentally. But they didn't indicate that transition in any way so you can only infer that was where they were going based on the otherwise ridiculous actions. It's one thing if you see Malek start to crack prior (say, the way that Tarantino shows Waltz starting to lose it before taking an action that clearly will cost his own life and put Django and Hildie in a horrible spot in Django Unchained) to the ending sequence. But you don't. In fact, from what I recall, he is portrayed as being systematic and composed so the change really struck me as being out of nowhere and lacking credibility or consistency.

[

 

[Deleted member 110072]

As for The Game, that's one of the strangest movie relationships that I have. The first time that I saw it, knowing nothing about the plot, it was riveting beyond belief, one of the most insanely adrenaline-fueled thrill-rides that I'd ever had. When I tried to watch it again years later, now knowing everything that happens, I was actually embarrassed at the thought of how riveting I thought it was, because on my second try it was so stupid and bad that I couldn't even finish it. I haven't tried it a third time, but where I went in assuming that it'd be just like The Usual Suspects, where even when you know everything that happens it's still a hell of a ride, it ended up being literally unwatchable.

These days, it's really just Zodiac and Gone Girl from Fincher for me. Sure, The Social Network is one that I obviously adore, but that's because of Sorkin and in spite of Fincher. And Panic Room is an enjoyable enough thriller. But when it comes to his greatest directorial achievements, he doesn't have many in my book.

Honestly though I rather ended up the reverse with it, I remember at the time thinking the plot had a few too many implausibilities to it(espeically the ending) but I think if you view it more as a drama, more as a dissection of the kind of yuppie master of the universe Douglas had played so often in the decade previously its much more successful and actually feels more like latter Fincher to me.

 

[Bullitt68]

Yeah! Everything that happens at the carny is great, but the part set in the world of normies lacked forte. Power's fate was sealed from the start, but the high society escalations should have happened in more spectacular fashion. I think the story would have worked better if the movie had been made in more glamorous and sinful early 30's. Great performance by Power for sure. Gotta check out the remake.

Remember this line when you watch the remake and then post about it in here

The lurid plot about proving innocence didn't really capture me while watching, but thinking back at it I like it too. The blackmailer also fell to his death, very conveniently and basically by accident, so the same happening to the woman almost makes you wonder. Then again, noir movies often have catastrophic chains of events, but this one made that epic romantic reunion in Peru happen.

Man, I myself haven't seen Dark Passage in a number of years, and all this talk is making me want it rewatch it for myself

Hell of a performance. She definitely deserved all those accolades. I'm a fan. She has given a lot of good performances over the years.

I was put off by her for a while, largely due to my hating Zero Dark Thirty while it and she were practically universally praised. She also seemed out of her depth in Interstellar. Molly's Game is what brought me around on her. I was impressed with the way that she was able to lead a Sorkin film. Then I really dug Ava, that Netflix action movie that she did. By the time we get to The Eyes of Tammy Faye, I have no problem now calling her a great actress.

For me, the film definitely suffers from numerous issues, including having a plot that really goes nowhere.

The plotting is the part that pissed me off. It literally goes nowhere, and so it comes down to the themes at play to give you that feeling of significance, but, like I said, they weren't equipped to deal with those themes.

I also actually thought Leto's memorable turn and the central gimmick with his character [...] weren't bad at all.

Same.

Spoiler

When Malek gets in that car with Leto. That just struck me as so ludicrously bad of a decision from a character in law enforcement, that it took me right out of the film and I was never going to even attempt to get back into it for the resolution.

Spoiler

He should've at least gotten in the back with his gun drawn ready to go.

I don't know if Malek was out of his depth so much as the script gave him NOTHING to do.

This is what I mean, though. It's not his fault that the character sucked, but it's partly his fault that he didn't find anything to do with the shitty character. I mean, Drexl didn't exist fully-formed on the page of the True Romance script. Gary Oldman invented that psycho - he's the one who came up with the teeth and the facial scar and all the memorable shit about that character. He didn't change the actual dialogue or the plot points that his character serves to further, but the character himself in isolation, that's all Oldman. To me, Malek was the odd man out because he seemed to bring nothing to the table. Denzel seemed markedly less cool in this film, and that's because he's playing a man beaten down by life and circumstance. A little spring comes back into his step when he starts investigating, but he's a man down in the dumps and he knew the notes to hit to play a character like that. And Leto, all skinny with the nasty teeth and the long, seemingly never-washed homeless man hair, he just oozed slimy creepiness. Malek, though, he seemed to not know what to do with his character - whether he should be some fastidious buttoned-up weirdo like the way that Giancarlo Esposito plays Gustavo Fring or an above-board law enforcer grappling with his hypocrisy in his quest for the truth like the way that Oldman played Commissioner Gordon - and that acting inertia plagued the film and his performance in it.

Spoiler

But the fact is that the screenplay seemed to play it as though Malek's actions toward the end, from getting in the car, by himself, with someone he suspected was a serial killer leading him to victims to his actual murder of Leto, were the behaviors of someone so preoccupied with cracking the case that he was coming apart at the seams mentally. But they didn't indicate that transition in any way so you can only infer that was where they were going based on the otherwise ridiculous actions. It's one thing if you see Malek start to crack prior (say, the way that Tarantino shows Waltz starting to lose it before taking an action that clearly will cost his own life and put Django and Hildie in a horrible spot in Django Unchained) to the ending sequence. But you don't. In fact, from what I recall, he is portrayed as being systematic and composed so the change really struck me as being out of nowhere and lacking credibility or consistency.

Spoiler

I agree with this 1000%. My only thing is that, while this is obviously and primarily a screenwriting problem, it also bugged me that Malek didn't add anything to it, and so all that we were left with was a confusingly written and poorly performed character.

Honestly though I rather ended up the reverse with it, I remember at the time thinking the plot had a few too many implausibilities to it(espeically the ending) but I think if you view it more as a drama, more as a dissection of the kind of yuppie master of the universe Douglas had played so often in the decade previously its much more successful and actually feels more like latter Fincher to me.

Hmm. I guess I was so sucked in the first time around that it was just this insanely amazing roller-coaster ride, whereas the second time around, I saw how the sausage was made and it was entirely unappealing. I'm sure that I'll try it again down the road, and when I do, hopefully I'll be able to appreciate it more and from a different perspective. On this point, though, what might also hurt is that I don't think that Fincher is very good at this sort of self-aware satire. I always trash Fight Club for being hopelessly confused on the level of critique. I'm not exactly confident that Fincher is equipped for the kind of postmodern take on the Michael Douglas persona that seemed to appeal to you. But I do like Douglas and I like that run of his encompassing stuff like Wall Street, Fatal Attraction, Basic Instinct, and Disclosure, so I'll try to have that in mind.

 

[europe1]

I have a creeping feeling I might have dissed Gun Crazy at some point during the SMC years and need to make amends. Just saw it again few days ago after 20 years and found it absolutely intoxicating. One of the most start-to-finish fethisistic noirs with queer and twisted psychological angles. Highly luring spiral of doom.

@europe1, am I making this up or wasn't this one of which you were especially fond? I've never loved Gun Crazy - it's not a go-to noir for me - but it's definitely a fun ride.

I thing I made some posts about being really thrilled to watch Gun Crazy but when I actually did I found it... like, good?

In contrast with what the Chud said, I actually thought Gun Crazy's problem was that it didn't dive far enough into its fethisistic/obsessive ravines. The set-up is pretty sizzling. Yet when the actual robberies start a lot of the emotional potency dulls. Dall comes off more as a sap than a person caving under his obsessions.

like Double Indemnity and

Yes but can a movie featuring Eddy G actually be bad? I think science disapproved that notion some years ago.

Though it is a bit of a problem when your protagonist has more intresting chemistry with Eddy G than your leading lady, I admit.

The Postman Always Ring Twice, I think that they're not merely overrated,

Postman is one of those movies that after seeing it I was left baffled by its reputation. How is this considered good? Jack Nicholson improved the remake somewhat but even that one is pretty dire.

Of those, Mildred Pierce is VASTLY superior, thanks in large part to Joan Crawford's performance and Michael Curtiz's direction. The disjointed timeline works particularly well there and that daughter of hers is just one of the worst humans in the history of noir

I like Mildred Pierce. It had that Curtiz directoral genius to it. But... and I may be overchecking on my memory-bank here... I thought the thing holding it back from pure greatness stature is this dynamic between the idealised, super-good entrepreneurial mom and the daughter being the worst person ever. The contrast is so garish that you could use words like "evil" and "good" to describe them. Which isn't a very appropriate emotional impression from a human drama movie. It makes the whole thing feel like a martyr-movie or something.

In a Lonely Place for whatever reason has always been a little flat for me.

In a Lonely Place...

Dios mio, In A Lonely Place is one of my favorite movies ever. Hardest gut-punch. Best Bogart performance. You name it.

I'm paraphrasing some review I read of it now:

In most: "Did the protagonist do it?" films, the answer is easily discerned to the audience since "this guy" could never have done said crime. He's simply to good of a chap! But, in In A Lonely Place though, Bogart very much could have done the crime. It seems more a product of luck and chance that he didn't kill anybody than anything else. But its this very personality-flaw (or, well, psychological trauma) that ends up dooming him anyhow. He didn't do it. He could have been happy. Which is what makes the tragedy of what happens all the more poignant.

As for Bogart's acting, you have this great interplay between his character's sardonic distaste for Hollywood, sudden impulses for violence, and then the sheer "blindness" he seems to exhibit when he's finally happy. Like, there's this hint to his performance that this guy can't imagine things going wrong after this so there's no need to even be alert to the notion from now on. Which, you know...

Same thing with Key Largo

Key Largo has never seemed bad to me but it has always seemed like a weak link in this grouping of Bogart movies. It's main impression has always been that of: "Eddy G lights up another movie!" rather than qualities that are more refined and peculiar to the film itself.

To Have and Have Not (which is more adventure than true noir)

IMO its appeal is almost more like a romance movie. That's the movie where Bogart and Bacall's chemistry really sizzles.

Michael Curtiz doesn't really do grit. All of his stuff is pretty "classy" and polished

When you said "classy" I actually first thought of the word: "classic" first... but somehow I think both words apply. My impression of Curtiz is that he was a person so steeped in classical literature/art that he simply understood the fundamentals of storytelling like character motivation, interpersonal dynamics, narrative propulsion on an intrinsic level.

this allows me also to recommend Sudden Fear, yet another out-of-the-way noir film that I think is absolutely awesome.

As for The Game, that's one of the strangest movie relationships that I have. The first time that I saw it, knowing nothing about the plot, it was riveting beyond belief, one of the most insanely adrenaline-fueled thrill-rides that I'd ever had. When I tried to watch it again years later, now knowing everything that happens, I was actually embarrassed at the thought of how riveting I thought it was, because on my second try it was so stupid and bad that I couldn't even finish it. I haven't tried it a third time, but where I went in assuming that it'd be just like The Usual Suspects, where even when you know everything that happens it's still a hell of a ride, it ended up being literally unwatchable.

To be fair, I do think some movies are optimized to work like that, relying on the "first-viewing" experience to deliver a riveting effect which can't really be replicated once you're going in with foreknowlage. (Or vice-versa I suppose, relying on a prior viewing to let you piece all the juicy bits together). This maybe is a strange-ass example to make, but I've always had that relationship with North by Northwest. First viewing was cracking, yet I can't even get close to that whence knowing all the beats and where all this is going.

EDIT: On second read this was a wrongheaded argument to make since you loathed Game on the second go-around, which wasnt the impression I was arguing for with that North by Norrhwest comparison.

Though I remember being pretty "iz alright" on the Game. One of those movies where the deeper you go into the con the more it kind of loses you. Once he wakes up in Mexico I kind of lose the plot.

Just watched Guillermo del Toro's Nightmare Alley

Agree across the board. When I watched it I was legitimately thinking: "Is this a great movie or have I just been so starved of great movies lately that I'm overestimating this flick?"<45>

Also got to appreciate Del Toro effortlessly blending his fanboyism for stuff like The Freaks and the overall carnivale grotesqueness into his neo-noir movie.

Never seen the original though.

Then I really dug Ava, that Netflix action movie that she did.

A person liked... Ava?

 

[Yotsuya]

In contrast with what the Chud said, I actually thought Gun Crazy's problem was that it didn't dive far enough into its fethisistic/obsessive ravines. The set-up is pretty sizzling. Yet when the actual robberies start a lot of the emotional potency dulls. Dall comes off more as a sap than a person caving under his obsessions.

I remember having the same problem the first time I watched the movie ages ago. This time I went along with that Annie takes over as Bart's obsession. The tension towards the end, during the robberies, rises from wether Annie's obsession of fast living overrides their entwined relationship/obsessions because Bart seems like such a sap. The answer comes when they are supposed to take separate ways after the big heist. They simply can't depart.

 

[Deleted member 110072]

Hmm. I guess I was so sucked in the first time around that it was just this insanely amazing roller-coaster ride, whereas the second time around, I saw how the sausage was made and it was entirely unappealing. I'm sure that I'll try it again down the road, and when I do, hopefully I'll be able to appreciate it more and from a different perspective. On this point, though, what might also hurt is that I don't think that Fincher is very good at this sort of self-aware satire. I always trash Fight Club for being hopelessly confused on the level of critique. I'm not exactly confident that Fincher is equipped for the kind of postmodern take on the Michael Douglas persona that seemed to appeal to you. But I do like Douglas and I like that run of his encompassing stuff like Wall Street, Fatal Attraction, Basic Instinct, and Disclosure, so I'll try to have that in mind.

To be fair with Fight Club I think its moreso the viewers who have tended to be hopelessly confused taking the original concept at face value although generally I do think that film is rather more concerned with pre millenium edginess than it is a great deal of depth. The Game to me is I think a bit more sublte than that and I think Douglas is very much onboard, you could argue I spose really he was onboard with Basic Instinct doing something similar(if a lot more obvious) in undermining the macho image. I do think the film is very effective at showing the character as a man who's isolated by his sucess and that I think makes the central plot much more worthwhile, that the point of the game is to break him out of that isolation and humanise him.

I actually preffer it when Fincher mixes drama with genre cine personally, Zodiac the other obvious one were the drama about obcession creeps up on you and I think gives him more chance to build it via atmosphere compared to say The Social Network which I think is much more a writers/actors film.

 

[Yotsuya]

As for Bogart's acting, you have this great interplay between his character's sardonic distaste for Hollywood, sudden impulses for violence, and then the sheer "blindness" he seems to exhibit when he's finally happy. Like, there's this hint to his performance that this guy can't imagine things going wrong after this so there's no need to even be alert to the notion from now on. Which, you know...

In a Lonely Place is both based and nightmarish and totally lacking catharsis. It’s at the complete opposite end compared to feverish fantasies like Dark Passage and Gun Crazy. Looks like I’m leaning towards for the latter category in my noir exploits.

 

[Bullitt68]

I thing I made some posts about being really thrilled to watch Gun Crazy but when I actually did I found it... like, good?

In contrast with what the Chud said, I actually thought Gun Crazy's problem was that it didn't dive far enough into its fethisistic/obsessive ravines. The set-up is pretty sizzling. Yet when the actual robberies start a lot of the emotional potency dulls. Dall comes off more as a sap than a person caving under his obsessions.

Huh, so it sounds like you're more on my side.

Yes but can a movie featuring Eddy G actually be bad? I think science disapproved that notion some years ago.

Though it is a bit of a problem when your protagonist has more intresting chemistry with Eddy G than your leading lady, I admit.

Oh, he's amazing every time he's onscreen. But the movie around him still stinks

Postman is one of those movies that after seeing it I was left baffled by its reputation. How is this considered good? Jack Nicholson improved the remake somewhat but even that one is pretty dire.

QFT.

I like Mildred Pierce. It had that Curtiz directoral genius to it. But... and I may be overchecking on my memory-bank here... I thought the thing holding it back from pure greatness stature is this dynamic between the idealised, super-good entrepreneurial mom and the daughter being the worst person ever. The contrast is so garish that you could use words like "evil" and "good" to describe them. Which isn't a very appropriate emotional impression from a human drama movie. It makes the whole thing feel like a martyr-movie or something.

I like the basic idea of "Life has given us a swift kick but damn it, I'm going to give my daughter everything she wants and essentially buy her love on material grounds...this plan can't possibly backfire, right?" and her then having to watch, despite/because of her entrepreneurial success, the terrible daughter that's produced by these circumstances. It's a fucked up picture of "success" that's totally befitting the noir world.

Dios mio, In A Lonely Place is one of my favorite movies ever. Hardest gut-punch. Best Bogart performance. You name it.

I do remember you really digging that one.

Key Largo has never seemed bad to me but it has always seemed like a weak link in this grouping of Bogart movies. It's main impression has always been that of: "Eddy G lights up another movie!" rather than qualities that are more refined and peculiar to the film itself.

Rewatching it, I think that my Bogart/Bacall ranking would be The Big Sleep, Key Largo, Dark Passage, To Have and Have Not. Huston's direction in Key Largo is off the charts awesome, from the claustrophobic setting to the cinematography and especially the sound design for the storm all the way to the characters and the way that Bogart has to navigate - and manipulate - Robinson's ego. It's great stuff.

IMO its appeal is almost more like a romance movie.

For sure. It's Hawks' version of Casablanca. That's sort of what hurts it for me, the fact that it doesn't reach the heights of Casablanca.

To be fair, I do think some movies are optimized to work like that, relying on the "first-viewing" experience to deliver a riveting effect which can't really be replicated once you're going in with foreknowlage.

Absolutely, but my thing is: If you have a movie like that but it still works on viewing 2, 7, 22, and 54, then you don't just have a great moviegoing experience, you have a legitimately great film. Cloverfield was a bonkers first viewing experience in the theater, and I was almost certain that a second viewing wouldn't be able to captivate me the same way...but I was wrong. That movie is never not awesome. The Forgotten had me by the scruff of the neck the first time around...and it still grips me every viewing since. Miracle Mile pushes your imagination further and further every step of the way until it reaches the breaking point, but once you know what happens...it's still an absolutely insane ride every time.

It's not an easy thing to do, but there are those movies that are special the first time around but which don't lose their magic on rewatches, and those are the movies to which I give all the respect in the world.

Or vice-versa I suppose, relying on a prior viewing to let you piece all the juicy bits together

You know what's funny? I recently rewatched Hereditary and I liked it SO MUCH MORE the second time around than that first go-round in the SMC, and the reason is because I already knew where the story was going and so I was able to appreciate the intricacy of the construction and how Ari Aster brings it there.

Also got to appreciate Del Toro effortlessly blending his fanboyism for stuff like The Freaks and the overall carnivale grotesqueness into his neo-noir movie.

Yep. I also always do a lecture toward the end of the term in one of the film history classes that I teach on Latin American Cinema and I always include a little discussion of del Toro, and the sort of Gothic aesthetic really had me thinking of Pan's Labyrinth and most of all The Devil's Backbone.

Never seen the original though.

I think that you'd enjoy it, especially because they're truly two different films in that the "full-circle" thing makes of them different circles. The original doesn't emphasize the protagonist alone so much as it emphasizes carnie relationships (that's the best way that I can frame the difference without spoilers).

A person liked... Ava?

Fuck yeah, I did. All of these movies are coming out screaming "Look, a woman is kicking ass!" but Ava is the only one where the actual characterization is rich in and of itself and innovative in giving a specifically female take on the archetypal conflicted assassin character. I dug it.

To be fair with Fight Club I think its moreso the viewers who have tended to be hopelessly confused taking the original concept at face value although generally I do think that film is rather more concerned with pre millenium edginess than it is a great deal of depth.

You're being too nice. The film is a mess and I still to this day have no idea if Fincher knew that and was going for that or if he had no idea what he was doing and that's why it's a mess. Either way, this never ceases to crack me up.

The Game to me is I think a bit more sublte than that and I think Douglas is very much onboard, you could argue I spose really he was onboard with Basic Instinct doing something similar(if a lot more obvious) in undermining the macho image.

Ha, that comparison will definitely be subtle-versus-obvious since Basic Instinct is courtesy of the entirely unsubtle Paul Verhoeven

I do think the film is very effective at showing the character as a man who's isolated by his sucess and that I think makes the central plot much more worthwhile, that the point of the game is to break him out of that isolation and humanise him.

The Social Network [...] I think is much more a writers/actors film.

Oh, no question: The Social Network is an Aaron Sorkin film that just happened to be directed by David Fincher.

 

[Yotsuya]

As for Bogart's acting, you have this great interplay between his character's sardonic distaste for Hollywood, sudden impulses for violence, and then the sheer "blindness" he seems to exhibit when he's finally happy. Like, there's this hint to his performance that this guy can't imagine things going wrong after this so there's no need to even be alert to the notion from now on. Which, you know...

Funny synchronicity: Immediately after reading this I had a flashback from our very first SMC discussion Light Sleeper. Yesterday I watched again American Gigolo, which is basically version 1.0 of Light Sleeper. In it Gere ends up half accidentally pushing down from a balcony the person who has just confessed framing him as a killer and who also happened to be his best chance to prove his innocence. Jut like Bogart did in Dark Passage. Probably not a co-incidence. Even if the mood is very distant and aloof in both Light Sleeper and American Gigolo the chain of events is very noirishly dreamlike or nightmarish. Seems to me that both take some cues from In a Lonely Place too. The plots are very similar with the main character getting caught on a murder investigation after losing usual touch with reality. What Schrader adds is the chance of redemption. I just listened to a podcast that has some interesting stuff about Schrader’s own feelings of outsiderism in Hollywood. I can easily see how In a Lonely Place would be his favourite.