Film Noir HoF III

Tools    





Spellbound (1945)


I have no idea what to write about this one, but maybe it'll mean the review's going to be better than my usual rigid rants. I feel that Spellbound hasn't aged well (not only the psychology but also things like the characters and the ridiculous skiing scene).

The best thing in Spellbound is Ingrid Bergman. Her character is silly and naive in worldly matters, but she makes the poor doctor adorable. By the way, anyone else thinking that she reminds Jodie Foster a lot (especially her facial expressions). Peck is quite weak in this, and most other characters would fit better to romantic comedies (most doctors at Green Manors and maybe even Peck) or random sketches (Chekhov).

Dali's dream sequence is okay, but it would have worked better as an actual dream instead of a weirdly accurate recollection of one. The four-minute overture is pointless, and all it did was giving me a negative mindset for the rest of the film. There's very little suspense considering the director is supposed to be the master of it. Also, for a noir (is it really?), the absence of cynicism is noticeable (it's rare to see more gullible and trusting "investigator" than Dr. Petersen).

It would be too harsh to call Spellbound bad, but it's far from being a masterpiece either. At this point, it's firmly at the bottom of my vote.
__________________





The Third Man (1949)
Directed by: Carol Reed
Starring: Joseph Cotten, Alida Valli, Trevor Howard

The Third Man deals with betrayal and corruption in a city still visibly scarred and divided after the war. There's an almost cyclical nature to the film as well, with similar scenes near the beginning and end that ultimately produce a rather cynical outlook on the future. It's also clever in that viewers who don't know German may feel as lost as Holly does during his conversations with the locals, however audiences who do speak the language hear lines of fear and distrust from a population that is quick to bring up his status as a foreigner and outsider.

While the camera doesn't move very frequently, it's often tilted slightly on its side. These Dutch angles help to generate discomfort and act as a visual representation of Holly's alienation, but they would've been far more effective had they been used sparingly. The cinematography is otherwise brilliant, with fantastic lighting, and impressive shadow work. That iconic chase sequence in the sewers is cleverly shot, but for me, Welles' perfectly framed entrance is the highlight of the film. Welles has fairly minimal screen time, but he always leaves a huge impact.

There is only one thing that holds The Third Man back, and unfortunately its the score. If it were played on any other instrument it might've been fine, but the sounds of the zither were so discordant with what was happening on screen that it was often comical. I wish I could watch this film devoid of its soundtrack, because many scenes were completely drained of tension by music that elicited imagery of calm, tropical beaches. Luckily the film ends on a fantastic note, and I'm glad that Reed fought for that ending, rather than sticking to the one Greene originally envisioned.


Attachments
Click image for larger version

Name:	third.jpg
Views:	385
Size:	171.5 KB
ID:	63826  



We randomly lost power just after I posted that review earlier. Luckily it wasn't in the middle of me writing it! I do save often though, so I might not have lost anything even if it had.

With all this praise, I do have a complaint...The music score. Which was composed of a zither stringed instrument. The music score was both a distraction and annoying.
I was browsing some online reviews while the power was out (since I have a good data plan on my phone that I never use), and was surprised to find quite a lot of praise for the film's score. So I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't think it was a good match.



We randomly lost power just after I posted that review earlier. Luckily it wasn't in the middle of me writing it! I do save often though, so I might not have lost anything even if it had.


I was browsing some online reviews while the power was out (since I have a good data plan on my phone that I never use), and was surprised to find quite a lot of praise for the film's score. So I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't think it was a good match.
Yeah! someone finally agrees with about the zither Though Captain Steel didn't like the zither either.



Angel Heart (1987)

This film is worth watching for Mickey Rourke’s acting. He’s at his scruffy tawdry best in his role as a private investigator hired to locate a crooner named Johnny Favorite, who has broken a contract with Rourke’s client. This is some of Rourke’s best work since The Pope of Greenwich Village. It’s interesting to see fellow New Yorker Robert DeNiro in the role of Rourke’s employer, Louis Cyphre. It was the type of role that DeNiro could have phoned in, and it would be surprising if he had more than two day’s work out of it.

The rest of the cast did creditable work, including early roles for Lisa Bonet, and the always absorbing Charlotte Rampling.

Outside of Rourke’s performance, the chief attraction for this picture is the wonderful cinematography by Michael Seresin. His framing and lighting produced a gorgeous looking film. The set design is also memorably good, adding to the spookiness of 1950s New York and New Orleans cityscapes.

Apparently there was a tiff with the ratings board, culminating in some minor cuts in order to acquire the picture’s “R” rating. The objections are almost laughable today, what with every form of brutality, perversion, language, and violence so common in many popular contemporary films—which attests to a steep moral slide in the past 30 years.

The story itself was somewhat of a let down—starting with one premise and ending with a switcheroo conclusion. Without spoiling the narrative or its denouement, the outcome put me in mind of 2010’s Shutter Island.

The movie is not really film noir, but a supernatural horror thriller. The shadowy photography is the principle nod to noir. Yet the acting and cinematography keep it from B movie status. And if one likes that kind of Faustian tale, then it holds up today as a good period piece.



I just watched L.A. Confidential. Deeper (or at least wordier) thoughts in near future but to put it short, I mostly liked it (needed to get that out of the way as my review is likely to delve in the film's faults and you'd all think I hated it).



(needed to get that out of the way as my review is likely to delve in the film's faults and you'd all think I hated it)
Criticism doesn't necessarily equate to negativity, but I think how it's worded can contribute a lot to how others perceive what was written. Sometimes I read over a review I wrote and think it sounds like I hated the film, when in reality I rather enjoyed it. I find that tweaking the phrasing helps a little, but it's often easier to end by saying I enjoyed the film, just to make it clear haha.



Criticism doesn't necessarily equate to negativity, but I think how it's worded can contribute a lot to how others perceive what was written. Sometimes I read over a review I wrote and think it sounds like I hated the film, when in reality I rather enjoyed it. I find that tweaking the phrasing helps a little, but it's often easier to end by saying I enjoyed the film, just to make it clear haha.
I know how my reviews usually end up There is a reason why people in here think I hate almost every film.



I know how my reviews usually end up There is a reason why people in here think I hate almost every film.
I usually dread your reviews of my noms (Let's see, you hated Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Minority Report, and surprisingly actually kind of liked Tree of Life). Glad you did end up enjoying L.A. Confidential, though
__________________
Lists and Projects
Letterboxd



I just watched L.A. Confidential. Deeper (or at least wordier) thoughts in near future but to put it short, I mostly liked it (needed to get that out of the way as my review is likely to delve in the film's faults and you'd all think I hated it).
I find that when I really like a film and review it, I tend to be more critical of any perceived flaws. Where if I find a film OK, I will be less hard on it.

Criticism doesn't necessarily equate to negativity, but I think how it's worded can contribute a lot to how others perceive what was written. Sometimes I read over a review I wrote and think it sounds like I hated the film, when in reality I rather enjoyed it. I find that tweaking the phrasing helps a little, but it's often easier to end by saying I enjoyed the film, just to make it clear haha.
If there's one thing I've learned about life: it's not what a person says, buy how they say it.



Women will be your undoing, Pépé
I know how my reviews usually end up There is a reason why people in here think I hate almost every film.
you mean you don't?!?


Just because you critique does not mean you hate.
Used to love reading @Iroquois's review threads before I got addicted to HoFs BECAUSE of his critiques and the high bar he sets for the films he watches. Which, in the end, equaled the love he has for films.
With scrutiny comes new perspectives and those are ALWAYS a good read.



just don't f@ckin do it to mine

just kidding!
__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes
~Mr Minio



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Murder, My Sweet (1944)

This is the definition of film noir I found on Google:

Known for quick, hard-smacking dialogue, tragic anti-heroes, and high-contrast mise-en-scène framing irresistible femmes fatales, film noir is a genre that tested the boundaries of conservative Hollywood. Psychological thrillers and crime fiction plot lines indulge the wicked, taking viewers through sordid storylines featuring adultery, conspiracy, and murder. Coupled with relatively risqué dialogue, noir films toed the line of decency, as defined by the Motion Picture Production Code. Perpetrators rarely go unpunished in these films, however, ultimately appeasing the era’s moralistic media standards.
Murder, my sweet is such a quintessential noir that this could totally be its resume. It hits all the common places of the genre, and does with such class! The cinematography is gorgeous, with all the twisted shots and a beautiful use of light and shadow, the script is clever and really well written, filled with endless quotable moments and you have all the characters you could find in a movie like this: the experience private eye, the beautiful and dangerous femme fatalle (BRAVO Claire Trevor), the innocent girl, the clueless cops and the clever villain.

I joined this HoF to watch these kind of films, true noirs in spirit and execution!

+



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Spellbound (1945)

Spellbound is not one of Hitch's best films but still has some brilliant elements. And the fact that is not very much well known is what made me pick it for this HoF. This and the participation of a very special actor and almost criminally unknown.

About the film: the soundtrack and the use of music is astonishing! The cinematograpy has some really great and inovating bits that only Hitchcock could come up with.
The plot is nicely arranged and entertaining enough. It's probably one of the first films adressing psychoanalysis, which is by itself very interesting.

The acting is solid especially by the one and only Ingrid Bergman but what attracted me to this film was Michael Chekhov as Dr. Brulov.
I've known the work of Chekhov for the past 3 years, I've written a masters thesis on him and have several articles in the making that will be published sometime this year.
The man is one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century, one of the greatest theatre actors and directors of all time and an one of a kind educator. He was Russian and is considered to be the best actor to have ever studied with Constantin Stanislavsky - the man who created the method acting, used by the famous Actors Studio. However, he clashed with Stanislavsky in many aspects of the method as he thought it was limited. He later became the director of the theatre where Stanislavsky worked and began to develop his own technique, which went away from the memory and personal experience of each actor and replaced it with imagination, body work and focus. I've been working with it for quite some time and I can tell you it's mindblowing.
Checkhov eventually flew from Russia and went to the USA where he created his own school and taught directly or indirectly actors like Ingrid Bergman, Marylin Monroe, Jack Palance, Clint Eastwood or the more recent James Spader and Johnny Depp!

It's wonderful to see him in action, and it's quite rare because he mostly did stage work. He got nominated for an Academy Award with this small role and it's a pity he made so few Hollywood films.

+



Spellbound (1945)

...
The acting is solid especially by the one and only Ingrid Bergman but what attracted me to this film was Michael Chekhov as Dr. Brulov.
I've known the work of Chekhov for the past 3 years, I've written a masters thesis on him and have several articles in the making that will be published sometime this year.
The man is one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century, one of the greatest theatre actors and directors of all time and an one of a kind educator. He was Russian and is considered to be the best actor to have ever studied with Constantin Stanislavsky - the man who created the method acting, used by the famous Actors Studio. However, he clashed with Stanislavsky in many aspects of the method as he thought it was limited. He later became the director of the theatre where Stanislavsky worked and began to develop his own technique, which went away from the memory and personal experience of each actor and replaced it with imagination, body work and focus. I've been working with it for quite some time and I can tell you it's mindblowing.
Checkhov eventually flew from Russia and went to the USA where he created his own school and taught directly or indirectly actors like Ingrid Bergman, Marylin Monroe, Jack Palance, Clint Eastwood or the more recent James Spader and Johnny Depp!

It's wonderful to see him in action, and it's quite rare because he mostly did stage work. He got nominated for an Academy Award with this small role and it's a pity he made so few Hollywood films.
+
Glad to see that you singled out Chekov. I too thought he'd given a wonderful performance, so I looked him up. As you say, he had an impressive career, and taught quite a few name actors. Looks like he did around 10 or so American films after he got to the States. I've seen one or two of them, but I'd have to re-watch to recall his parts. Cheers!

~Doc



The thing isolated becomes incomprehensible
Angel Heart (1987)

This certainly had potential. Strong acting, some really beautiful actresses, Lisa Bonet was absolutely stunning here, and a well accomplished atmosphere!
But the plot is waay too complex to the directors ability and the pacing is a total mess. I felt incredibly bored for quite a big part of it.

+



L.A. Confidential (1997)


There's a pretty heavy cast in L.A. Confidential. Some of them may not have been at the peak of their stardom just yet, but they're stars none the less. With that comes a common issue, though, as big charismas get squeezed into too little space. There are too many characters competing for the lead and too little room for them to grow.

To some degree, the whole film suffers from the same bloatedness. The way multiple investigations entwine and point towards the same direction is interesting, but the execution feels rushed. I think L.A. Confidential would work better as a series with more time for the story and the characters to develop naturally.

Despite the above flaws, I do like L.A. Confidential; its core is rock solid corruption plot, it has a ton of interesting characters (with good casting) and quite beautiful 50s aesthetics. The chemistry between actors feels great (which, at the same time, underlines the issue of too little screentime for especially Spacey but, to a lesser degree, everyone).

A good neo-noir that has all the elements to be great, but is held down by the shortcomings of the format. I'd like to see a ten-hour miniseries remake (assuming the cast would be comparably good).



Women will be your undoing, Pépé
L.A. Confidential (1997)


There's a pretty heavy cast in L.A. Confidential. Some of them may not have been at the peak of their stardom just yet, but they're stars none the less. With that comes a common issue, though, as big charismas get squeezed into too little space. There are too many characters competing for the lead and too little room for them to grow.

To some degree, the whole film suffers from the same bloatedness. The way multiple investigations entwine and point towards the same direction is interesting, but the execution feels rushed. I think L.A. Confidential would work better as a series with more time for the story and the characters to develop naturally.

Despite the above flaws, I do like L.A. Confidential; its core is rock solid corruption plot, it has a ton of interesting characters (with good casting) and quite beautiful 50s aesthetics. The chemistry between actors feels great (which, at the same time, underlines the issue of too little screentime for especially Spacey but, to a lesser degree, everyone).

A good neo-noir that has all the elements to be great, but is held down by the shortcomings of the format. I'd like to see a ten-hour miniseries remake (assuming the cast would be comparably good).
Having read the series, this is the second book in a 3 book series that spans about a decade or so in LA and seeing a series WOULD be very cool to see since there are some minor bits and a slightly varied ending that would be great to see in such a format. With, of course, the right people.

Even with the minor cuts of the story removed, I do feel they captured the gist and feel of the novel, as well as keep things pretty fluid. Now, I do remember my first time seeing this and seeing the complexity of it all so I do get perfectly how you felt a "bloatedness" to it all.
It may be because of the countless views since and reading the book(s), but, for me, I see a very good balance and juggling of characters (actors) throughout. Which also could be the bias of a fan lol.
Still, great read!



Women will be your undoing, Pépé
Murder, My Sweet (1944)

This is the definition of film noir I found on Google:
Known for quick, hard-smacking dialogue, tragic anti-heroes, and high-contrast mise-en-scène framing irresistible femmes fatales, film noir is a genre that tested the boundaries of conservative Hollywood. Psychological thrillers and crime fiction plot lines indulge the wicked, taking viewers through sordid storylines featuring adultery, conspiracy, and murder. Coupled with relatively risqué dialogue, noir films toed the line of decency, as defined by the Motion Picture Production Code. Perpetrators rarely go unpunished in these films, however, ultimately appeasing the era’s moralistic media standards.

Murder, my sweet is such a quintessential noir that this could totally be its resume. It hits all the common places of the genre, and does with such class! The cinematography is gorgeous, with all the twisted shots and a beautiful use of light and shadow, the script is clever and really well written, filled with endless quotable moments and you have all the characters you could find in a movie like this: the experience private eye, the beautiful and dangerous femme fatalle (BRAVO Claire Trevor), the innocent girl, the clueless cops and the clever villain.

I joined this HoF to watch these kind of films, true noirs in spirit and execution!

+
feel exactly the same about joining in on such specialty HoFs
Love reading the definition and YES, Murder My Sweet hits every checkbox quite nicely.
Spellbound (1945)

Spellbound is not one of Hitch's best films but still has some brilliant elements. And the fact that is not very much well known is what made me pick it for this HoF. This and the participation of a very special actor and almost criminally unknown.

About the film: the soundtrack and the use of music is astonishing! The cinematograpy has some really great and inovating bits that only Hitchcock could come up with.
The plot is nicely arranged and entertaining enough. It's probably one of the first films adressing psychoanalysis, which is by itself very interesting.

The acting is solid especially by the one and only Ingrid Bergman but what attracted me to this film was Michael Chekhov as Dr. Brulov.
I've known the work of Chekhov for the past 3 years, I've written a masters thesis on him and have several articles in the making that will be published sometime this year.
The man is one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century, one of the greatest theatre actors and directors of all time and an one of a kind educator. He was Russian and is considered to be the best actor to have ever studied with Constantin Stanislavsky - the man who created the method acting, used by the famous Actors Studio. However, he clashed with Stanislavsky in many aspects of the method as he thought it was limited. He later became the director of the theatre where Stanislavsky worked and began to develop his own technique, which went away from the memory and personal experience of each actor and replaced it with imagination, body work and focus. I've been working with it for quite some time and I can tell you it's mindblowing.
Checkhov eventually flew from Russia and went to the USA where he created his own school and taught directly or indirectly actors like Ingrid Bergman, Marylin Monroe, Jack Palance, Clint Eastwood or the more recent James Spader and Johnny Depp!

It's wonderful to see him in action, and it's quite rare because he mostly did stage work. He got nominated for an Academy Award with this small role and it's a pity he made so few Hollywood films.


+
Did not know any of this, so, YAY for posting about him. Some very intriguing stuff there.