Film Noir HoF - Part 2

Tools    





Myself, I'm going try to watch the movies in chronological order as listed below. If anyone wants to join me in that, cool and if not that's also cool. It's only a suggestion and you guys can watch them and post about them in any order you want.

But if some of us try to watch at least some movies at the same time it makes for a much better conversation.

The Maltese Falcon (John Huston, 1941)
Spellbound (Alfred Hitchcock, 1945)
Scarlet Street (Fritz Lang, 1945)
The Big Sleep (Howard Hawks, 1946)
The Killers (Robert Siodmak, 1946)
Kansas City Confidential (Phil Karlson,1952)
I Confess (Alfred Hitchcock, 1953)
Kiss Me Deadly (Robert Aldrich, 1955)
The Night of the Hunter (Charles Laughton, 1955)
A Face in the Crowd (Elia Kazan, 1957)
Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, 1958)

On the first post I have the names of all the members and I will place links to their reviews as they do them.





The Maltese Falcon

I watched this one last night, a rewatch. I thought it was pretty interesting as it's considered to be the first Film Noir in the classic period. It had some Film Noir elements, like subdued lighting, dark shadows and low camera angles. And of course we have one of the greatest detectives, Sam Spade...not to mention a very devious femme fatale Brigid (Mary Astor). But I couldn't help but notice how the music scored seemed unnoir.

But I still liked the film! It was wordy! I read that the script was almost word for word from the original 1929 Dashiell Hammett novel of the same name. If someone loves lots of dialogue and twist and turns, this movie has it. It's so complex, that I was never sure who was up to what.

The end scene where all the main characters are in the apartment goes on for 20 minutes! That would never be done today and John Huston who was directing his first picture, made that scene captivating.

There wasn't much action or character development, but man the script and the way the actors delivered their lines like a buzz saw was a thing of sheer beauty.

And what a cast! Bogie paired up with Peter Lorrie and Sydney Greenstreet with Mary Astor to boot. That's not even mentioning veteran character actors like Ward Bond, Barton MacLaine and Gladys George.

Did you see how heavy the Maltese Falcon was when Bogie picked it up? He nearly dropped it. I read it was made out of lead and they're three of them, each is worth a million bucks. A million bucks! for a hunk of lead! that shows you how beloved this film is.



2022 Mofo Fantasy Football Champ
I first time I saw The Maltese Falcon when I joined this forum in 2010. I didn't like it, but we will see what happens next time.



I will write about the two I have already seen tomorrow. Sorry I won't be going anywhere near order CR. I watched the two on Hulu and got another through DVD Netflix at the house today. I was trying to get a jump.
__________________
Letterboxd



I will write about the two I have already seen tomorrow. Sorry I won't be going anywhere near order CR.
Sean that's totally, totally fine. I won't be going in perfect order either as some of the movies are on back order. But I figure if only a few people....on occasion...watch the same movie around the same time, the it adds.

But if you got em', watch em' whenever you can or what to, it's all good. It's just an experiment, that actually Kaplan mentioned to me in the 1st Film Noir.



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.


The Maltese Falcon


Did you see how heavy the Maltese Falcon was when Bogie picked it up? He nearly dropped it. I read it was made out of lead and they're three of them, each is worth a million bucks. A million bucks! for a hunk of lead! that shows you how beloved this film is.

I'd be just as happy with a cheap copy of the Maltese Falcon for $5 at a garage sale. It would look just as nice on the mantle, and if it ever got damaged or stolen, I wouldn't be out a million bucks.
__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.



You can't make a rainbow without a little rain.
Really, you've seen cheap copies of the Maltese Falcon at garage sales? That's kinda neat, you should pick one up and put it in your movie room.

There are cheap copies of all kinds of stuff at garage sales and flea markets, I've seen some expensive ones at collectible shows, but I'm too cheap to buy them.

One of my favorite items that's a copy of a movie prop that I bought at a garage sale is a copy of the music box from the animated movie Anastasia.




I have to return some videotapes...
Cole, it's cool that you watched The Maltese Falcon first, as:

I'm going to suggest that we try (when possible) to watch the movies in chronological order. That's only a suggestion and you guys can watch them and post about them in any order you want.

But if some of try to watch at least some movies at the same time it makes for a much better conversation.

Here's the order by year:


The Maltese Falcon (John Huston, 1941)
Spellbound (Alfred Hitchcock, 1945)
Scarlet Street (Fritz Lang, 1945)
The Big Sleep (Howard Hawks, 1946)
The Killers (Robert Siodmak, 1946)
Kansas City Confidential (Phil Karlson,1952)
I Confess (Alfred Hitchcock, 1953)
Kiss Me Deadly (Robert Aldrich, 1955)
The Night of the Hunter (Charles Laughton, 1955)
A Face in the Crowd (Elia Kazan, 1957)
Touch of Evil (Orson Welles, 1958)

On the first post I have the names of all the members and I will place links to their reviews as they do them.
Yeah I think that would be a good idea because it can help us always be on the same discussion, also it can help show how noirs evolved over the years and the stylistic changes. I vote we do this.
__________________
It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.



I have to return some videotapes...


The Maltese Falcon



The end scene where all the main characters are in the apartment goes on for 20 minutes! That would never be done today and John Huston who was directing his first picture, made that scene captivating.
This scene kind of bothered me in that they explain everything in the last 20 minutes so you can't argue with any of the plot. It was way too much exposition and while witty dialogue made up for it, it was still poor script writing. I mentioned it in my mini review. Did anyone find their love to be weird? It seems like a pattern so far in these movies.



The Maltese Falcon

Really enjoyed Bogart in this film and most of the other performances, honestly it was just a good movie. I thought Wilmer who is played by Elisha Cook was a little much at times and was too heavy handed in his delivery. I thought at first it was going in the way of 39 steps, where a man, in this case a detective is roped into some kind spy/sabotage plot and in a way it kind of went into that field, but not entirely. I think it's interesting when I was watching this is that Bogart commands the room when he is present, it's hard not to focus on him because he is so dialed in to what's happening in the moment, it's incredible. Another thing I found surprising is Huston's ability to wrap the whole film up in the end, they built up a lot of different story moments that weren't explained until the last 20 minutes; it was a lot of exposition and I found it to be kind of cheap way, but till effective. It's a pretty solid script as where everybody has their own intricacies, but they still all have a unique voice. One thing that bothered me was the editing and I know it was different back then, but it kind of bothered me and I found it to be jarring between certain scenes. Overall, it was entertaining and it kept my attention and the last line of the film is a perfect ending.

I would give it a
.
Cole, I read your review and...enjoyed it, it's an excellent review. I like how you talked about different elements and what worked and what didn't. A couple things you said caught my eye:
I thought Wilmer who is played by Elisha Cook was a little much at times and was too heavy handed in his delivery.
I thought so too, he was the weakest character in the film. Especially when they made him the fall guy, he just set there holding his head for like 10 minutes. That was the one thing in the film that bugged me.

I think it's interesting when I was watching this is that Bogart commands the room when he is present, it's hard not to focus on him because he is so dialed in to what's happening in the moment, it's incredible.
You're so right, Bogie has big time screen presences. What else have you seen him in?

Another thing I found surprising is Huston's ability to wrap the whole film up in the end, they built up a lot of different story moments that weren't explained until the last 20 minutes; it was a lot of exposition and I found it to be kind of cheap way, but still effective.
I see you noticed that 20 minute long seen too. I guess I'd call it an economical way to wrap the story elements without shooting a hours more worth of film.

One thing that bothered me was the editing and I know it was different back then, but it kind of bothered me and I found it to be jarring between certain scenes.
I'm interested to know what you mean by that? In what way didn't you like the editing?...how would you liked it to be different?



I have to return some videotapes...
Cole, I read your review and...enjoyed it, it's an excellent review. I like how you talked about different elements and what worked and what didn't. A couple things you said caught my eye:
I thought so too, he was the weakest character in the film. Especially when they made him the fall guy, he just set there holding his head for like 10 minutes. That was the one thing in the film that bugged me.

You're so right, Bogie has big time screen presences. What else have you seen him in?

I see you noticed that 20 minute long seen too. I guess I'd call it an economical way to wrap the story elements without shooting a hours more worth of film.

I'm interested to know what you mean by that? In what way didn't you like the editing?...how would you liked it to be different?
Hey thanks for reading my review, I read yours and enjoyed it as well, it seems like we share some of the negatives about the film. As for the editing, I know back then it was somewhat of a different style, a lot more fade aways during scenes, but I just thought when they would make a fade they wouldn't rap up the moment to where it feels like they should be going into the next scene. I remember one of the fade aways happening while Bogart was walking and it just looked unnatural. A minor gripe, but still one to say the least.



... As for the editing, I know back then it was somewhat of a different style, a lot more fade aways during scenes, but I just thought when they would make a fade they wouldn't rap up the moment to where it feels like they should be going into the next scene. I remember one of the fade aways happening while Bogart was walking and it just looked unnatural. A minor gripe, but still one to say the least.
I think I might know what you're talking about, but I can't remember what the scene looked like. Maybe somebody else will comment on the edits.

Where's everybody else at? Have you guys, or dame, seen any of the movies? We can talk talk about them in any order, no worries.

Oh and sorry for writing such a long review on The Maltese Falcon, I just get carried away If somebody has even a short paragraph on their thoughts on any of the movies, post 'em please



I love the feature with links to reviews, CR! I got the chance to watch the two that were on Youtube.

Kansas City Confidential (Phil Karlson, 1952)
nominated by SilentVamp

This film kind of won me over in the last 20 minutes or so. Before that it was feeling a bit repetitive and too based on coincide. The latter I suppose is fairly common in film noir. An overall fun movie though, with an intense finale.
-

Kiss Me Deadly (Robert Aldrich, 1955)
nominated by GunSlinger45

This is a really fun film noir with a Cold War overtone. Aldrich's style is very unique, with a Godard French-wave kind of feel, with the hoppiness between scenes. While this was charming it did at times make it hard to follow exactly what is going on and what's the purpose of Hammer. Scene by scene this is great, but intertwined as one picture it does feel like something is lacking as far as narrative. Because of this, the mystery aspect of the film did near nothing for me. I was more intrigued as to what would happen in the moment. I loved the suspense, the action, and the comedy- but the mystery intrigue felt random. However as far as a non parallel story the film is gripping from the opening hitch hiking scene to the terrifying finale. Aldrich shows a very artistic, almost free floating side of film noir. This can really be seen in the opening credits and final scene.


__________________
Yeah, there's no body mutilation in it



Kansas City Confidential (Phil Karlson, 1952)

This film kind of won me over in the last 20 minutes or so. Before that it was feeling a bit repetitive and too based on coincide. The latter I suppose is fairly common in film noir. An overall fun movie though, with an intense finale.
I would say that a core element of noir is that random circumstances occur, that then throws a monkey wrench into the works. Like you said, a lot of noirs do that and I think that comes out of the psyche of the time...after WWII it must have felt to many like fate and hope were non existent, and that life was determined by a random roll of the dice. I haven't seen this film yet, so I'm looking forward to it.

Kiss Me Deadly (Robert Aldrich, 1955)

This is a really fun film noir with a Cold War overtone.
I've seen it several times and like it more with each viewing, especially the end, which is just plain fun. I wonder if Tarantino seen this film? It would seem to be his inspiration for the glowing briefcase in Pulp Fiction.



I have to return some videotapes...
Scarlet Street (1945)

Found this to be an interesting cinema experience, I found it to have very large highs and while not too many lows, some were apparent. Watching it today it's kind of generic story, which is why in order to make it stand the test of time it all falls on the characters and they were good, but not great. Edward G. Robinson who plays the main character "Chris Cross" is a troubled man longing for drive in life until he finds Joan Bennett's character "Kitty" who fulfills this missing whole in his life, but little does he know she has cruel intentions. Robinson's character is by far the most developed and so is Bennett's for the most part, but unfortunately Dan Dureya's character, which I will not reveal for people who haven't watched is very one dimensional. It's a shame because he's the driving force to the whole film and is used to tie the story together. There is still a lot going for it though, the way they portray art in the film really represents the mentality of Robinson's character. I also loved the two leads performances together and I thought it was interesting how the film ended, I wasn't really expecting it until it happened. There are a couple twists and turns throughout that I found to be a little questionable and just bizarre, but that can't drag down the clever dialogue between characters.

Overall, is the film gonna be one of the top one's on this list of films by the end, probably not, but that's not to say it's not worth watching. I would give it a
++.



Myself, I'm going try to watch the movies in chronological order as listed below. If anyone wants to join me in that, cool and if not that's also cool. It's only a suggestion and you guys can watch them and post about them in any order you want.
I've been prioritizing the 50s films so I can get too them before the countdown



Scarlet Street: I have to say this didn't do a whole lot for me. I like Robinson much more as a strong type A. He doesn't pull off the whipped boy very well. It's still Robinson though and he became more enjoyable for me as the movie progressed. Bennett was much better, I enjoyed her character quite a bit. I didn't like the boyfriend though and I think it is mostly due to his character that this played more like screwball comedy for me than noir until the last third of the film. His character, and the whole premise of the con which simply didn't work for me at all. I never wondered where the story was going, I was just waiting for the other shoe to drop on the hair brained scheme to see what the result would be. The story just didn't work for me.

Kansas City Confidential: Here is one where the story dis work despite the characters not being all that great. I was perfectly content to follow the story as it unveiled. It ends up being a pretty average movie but it is the type that I could just sit on a Saturday afternoon and be perfectly content spending time with. It is the type of noir that makes me realize this is my favorite genre because despite it not being anything extraordinary, I enjoyed watching it.

A Face In The Crowd: I liked this one quite a bit. Social commentary of this type works on me very well. I always enjoy these films that treat the machine as if it is a new thing that is taking over our society. These films make me think that we are not in such a new state as we think, we have always been the same, the faces just change. Griffith was really good in this, I wish they would have taught him to pluck a guitar though. Those shots were noticeably bad. It was cool to see Remick show up, wish she would have played a bit more of a part. This is the type of film that makes me question what the definition of noir even is, ultimately the genre doesn't matter of course, but it is interesting. I wouldn't call this a noir but that will have nothing to do with its placement on my final list. This should place high.



Cole and Sean, it's been like 10 years since I've seen Scarlet Street and I haven't been able to get it from my library yet, so my memory of it is somewhat vague.
I like Robinson much more as a strong type A. He doesn't pull off the whipped boy very well. It's still Robinson though and he became more enjoyable for me as the movie progressed.
I like Robinson as a Strong type A too, he rocks that role. But one of the main reasons I nominated this was, I thought his put-upon, hen-picked character was memorable and different than his other roles. I've seen documentations on the real Eddie Robinson and in real life he was a quiet, shy and nice guy and he did paint too but he wasn't hen-pecked! but he was loyal to his wife, he's a great guy...I thought he did this role well, but like I said it's been years, so I'll watch the movie as soon as I get it and comment on it.

I didn't like the boyfriend though and I think it is mostly due to his character that this played more like screwball comedy for me than noir until the last third of the film. His character, and the whole premise of the con which simply didn't work for me at all.
For me Dan Duryea made the movie. His performance was so memorable I can still remember it. I liked his sleazy, sniveling, shifty character, very colorful! and I think it added a lot. This is my favorite performance of his, next to the one he did in Winchester '73.



A Face In The Crowd: I liked this one quite a bit. Social commentary of this type works on me very well...This is the type of film that makes me question what the definition of noir even is, ultimately the genre doesn't matter of course, but it is interesting. I wouldn't call this a noir but that will have nothing to do with its placement on my final list. This should place high.
Yeah, there was some question if this was a noir or not. It's a great film and it has some noir elements, but some may or may not feel it's a noir. If someone wants to take it's noir status into account when scoring it, that's fine. You guys and dame, decide.