|
Post by codystarbuck on Mar 27, 2023 10:35:42 GMT -5
The Big Sleep (1978) I never read the novel and never saw the Bogart version, so this was my first brush with Chandler's story. I expected it to involve a lot more mob-related and political shenanigans, but it was still a pretty good yarn. Robert Mitchum did a honest job as Philip Marlowe, although despite the presence of Jimmy Stewart the whole production felt like a TV movie (which it might have been, for all I know). It's strange to see full front nudity in such films... it's as if directors were testing the waters, like a kid taking a swift dip in the deep end of the pool and saying "see how daring I am?" -The end result feels a bit odd, as there was no actual need to see anyone naked in this film. (I hastily add that I didn't dislike it one bit, but it felt a bit gratuitous). Not a whole lot of action, but that's all right... I prefer Marlowe to be scarily subdued than act like Indiana Jones. Now, however, I want to see the Bogey version to be able to compare the two!
I haven't seen the Mitchum movie but the Bogart one is a classic, even though I don't think Bogart captured the character as he came across in Chandler's books.
The novels are must-reads, IMO. Chandler had a way with words that should be experienced by anyone interested in English prose writing. Much imitated but never matched. Until I saw the film, I couldn't understand what the heck was going on in the Big Lebowski. I then saw a featurette where the Cohens mentioned The Big Sleep and suddenly everything started making sense.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 28, 2023 15:26:19 GMT -5
For those who like Goodfellas and WWE, you may enjoy this:
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 29, 2023 8:20:39 GMT -5
Atomic Attack (1954) is a made-for-TV movie (part of the "Motorola Television Hour" series... I miss the days when that was a thing), adapted from a novel by Judith Merril titled "Shadows on the Hearth". The subject has been revisited quite a few times since: the aftermath of a nuclear bombing seen through the eyes of people who live an hour away and who have little idea of how things are going in the rest of the world. Here we follow a mother of two whose husband was (or was not) at work in New York city when the bombs started falling, and who shelters a few people in her suburban home. It reminded me a lot of the later film Testament, though with less in-your-face pathos. I really enjoyed the dynamic between several believable characters: a hypocondriac nag who turns out to actually be sick, a young woman whose fear for her missing husband totally incapacitates her, children who go recover their radioactive plush toys and a housewife who, like the captain of a severely damaged ship, must keep everything afloat while worrying that her own husband might be dead and that her younger daughter might have been irradiated. I believe that the fact the story was adapted from a novel helps give these folks more substance than in a regular TV movie. One thing I really see as a blessing in these 50s-era movies about nuclear war is that the people involved hadn't yet had decades of radioactivity-related memes and tropes colouring their vision; accordingly, we stick more closely to the real world than to previous WWIII films, and te result is more believable. In such a context, even the unsubtle exposition of emergency public measures contributes to the verisimilitude of the story. I enjoyed the way a doctor tells a mom what will happen to her contaminated daughter: her bones have latched onto radioactive elements, and until they "burn themselves out" (not a bad way to explain radioactive decay), the cells of her bone marrow will die more than they should, causing anemia and a lower immunity. However, with proper care, she should recover. That's the way to do it! No doom and gloom, no mention of cancer, because even if it's a possibility in her future, it's nothing guaranteed. Why lay it on thicker when the poor mon already has a lot on her plate? Speaking of Testament (spoilers for thw two movies) : the main twist in both films is essentially the same. The main protagonist is uncertain about her husband's fate, since he worked in the bombed city but may have been away; in both stories, there was a good reason to think that hubby had left before the blast. In Testament, a long-unused phone answering machine reveals that the husband stayed longer at the office after all, and in Atomic Attack, the husband's secretary informs his wife that she had been ill and at home and talking to her husband on the phone (he was at the office) when the lines were cut. In both cases, we maintain hope for a while until a phone communication shows that dear hubby was indeed at the site of the blast when it occurred. This is the third old B&W I watch dealing with similar subjects, and I quite liked all of them. I even forgive Atomic Attack its rah-rah-rah final statement, "I promise you that we will win" because... hey, if you can't root for your country when it's being nuked, when can you?
|
|
|
Post by tartanphantom on Mar 29, 2023 11:14:25 GMT -5
Atomic Attack (1954) is a made-for-TV movie (part of the "Motorola Television Hour" series... I miss the days when that was a thing), adapted from a novel by Judith Merril titled "Shadows on the Hearth". The subject has been revisited quite a few times since: the aftermath of a nuclear bombing seen through the eyes of people who live an hour away and who have little idea of how things are going in the rest of the world. Here we follow a mother of two whose husband was (or was not) at work in New York city when the bombs started falling, and who shelters a few people in her suburban home. It reminded me a lot of the later film Testament, though with less in-your-face pathos. I really enjoyed the dynamic between several believable characters: a hypocondriac nag who turns out to actually be sick, a young woman whose fear for her missing husband totally incapacitates her, children who go recover their radioactive plush toys and a housewife who, like the captain of a severely damaged ship, must keep everything afloat while worrying that her own husband might be dead and that her younger daughter might have been irradiated. I believe that the fact the story was adapted from a novel helps give these folks more substance than in a regular TV movie. One thing I really see as a blessing in these 50s-era movies about nuclear war is that the people involved hadn't yet had decades of radioactivity-related memes and tropes colouring their vision; accordingly, we stick more closely to the real world than to previous WWIII films, and te result is more believable. In such a context, even the unsubtle exposition of emergency public measures contributes to the verisimilitude of the story. I enjoyed the way a doctor tells a mom what will happen to her contaminated daughter: her bones have latched onto radioactive elements, and until they "burn themselves out" (not a bad way to explain radioactive decay), the cells of her bone marrow will die more than they should, causing anemia and a lower immunity. However, with proper care, she should recover. That's the way to do it! No doom and gloom, no mention of cancer, because even if it's a possibility in her future, it's nothing guaranteed. Why lay it on thicker when the poor mon already has a lot on her plate? Speaking of Testament (spoilers for thw two movies) : the main twist in both films is essentially the same. The main protagonist is uncertain about her husband's fate, since he worked in the bombed city but may have been away; in both stories, there was a good reason to think that hubby had left before the blast. In Testament, a long-unused phone answering machine reveals that the husband stayed longer at the office after all, and in Atomic Attack, the husband's secretary informs his wife that she had been ill and at home and talking to her husband on the phone (he was at the office) when the lines were cut. In both cases, we maintain hope for a while until a phone communication shows that dear hubby was indeed at the site of the blast when it occurred. This is the third old B&W I watch dealing with similar subjects, and I quite liked all of them. I even forgive Atomic Attack its rah-rah-rah final statement, "I promise you that we will win" because... hey, if you can't root for your country when it's being nuked, when can you? Based on your recent viewings, if you have never seen On the Beach from 1959, I can't recommend it highly enough. Directed by the legendary Stanley Kramer, this one actually had a decent budget and a great cast. It's not your typical post-apocalyptic film.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Mar 29, 2023 15:08:51 GMT -5
Atomic Attack (1954) is a made-for-TV movie (part of the "Motorola Television Hour" series... I miss the days when that was a thing), adapted from a novel by Judith Merril titled "Shadows on the Hearth". The subject has been revisited quite a few times since: the aftermath of a nuclear bombing seen through the eyes of people who live an hour away and who have little idea of how things are going in the rest of the world. Here we follow a mother of two whose husband was (or was not) at work in New York city when the bombs started falling, and who shelters a few people in her suburban home. It reminded me a lot of the later film Testament, though with less in-your-face pathos. I really enjoyed the dynamic between several believable characters: a hypocondriac nag who turns out to actually be sick, a young woman whose fear for her missing husband totally incapacitates her, children who go recover their radioactive plush toys and a housewife who, like the captain of a severely damaged ship, must keep everything afloat while worrying that her own husband might be dead and that her younger daughter might have been irradiated. I believe that the fact the story was adapted from a novel helps give these folks more substance than in a regular TV movie. One thing I really see as a blessing in these 50s-era movies about nuclear war is that the people involved hadn't yet had decades of radioactivity-related memes and tropes colouring their vision; accordingly, we stick more closely to the real world than to previous WWIII films, and te result is more believable. In such a context, even the unsubtle exposition of emergency public measures contributes to the verisimilitude of the story. I enjoyed the way a doctor tells a mom what will happen to her contaminated daughter: her bones have latched onto radioactive elements, and until they "burn themselves out" (not a bad way to explain radioactive decay), the cells of her bone marrow will die more than they should, causing anemia and a lower immunity. However, with proper care, she should recover. That's the way to do it! No doom and gloom, no mention of cancer, because even if it's a possibility in her future, it's nothing guaranteed. Why lay it on thicker when the poor mon already has a lot on her plate? Speaking of Testament (spoilers for thw two movies) : the main twist in both films is essentially the same. The main protagonist is uncertain about her husband's fate, since he worked in the bombed city but may have been away; in both stories, there was a good reason to think that hubby had left before the blast. In Testament, a long-unused phone answering machine reveals that the husband stayed longer at the office after all, and in Atomic Attack, the husband's secretary informs his wife that she had been ill and at home and talking to her husband on the phone (he was at the office) when the lines were cut. In both cases, we maintain hope for a while until a phone communication shows that dear hubby was indeed at the site of the blast when it occurred. This is the third old B&W I watch dealing with similar subjects, and I quite liked all of them. I even forgive Atomic Attack its rah-rah-rah final statement, "I promise you that we will win" because... hey, if you can't root for your country when it's being nuked, when can you? Based on your recent viewings, if you have never seen On the Beach from 1959, I can't recommend it highly enough. Directed by the legendary Stanley Kramer, this one actually had a decent budget and a great cast. It's not your typical post-apocalyptic film. I absolutely want to watch On the Beach, but it wasn't available on Tubi the last time I checked. I'll keep looking, though! Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Mar 29, 2023 23:43:22 GMT -5
Based on your recent viewings, if you have never seen On the Beach from 1959, I can't recommend it highly enough. Directed by the legendary Stanley Kramer, this one actually had a decent budget and a great cast. It's not your typical post-apocalyptic film. I absolutely want to watch On the Beach, but it wasn't available on Tubi the last time I checked. I'll keep looking, though! Thanks!
I'm sure the movie is good but I just read the book for the first time a few months ago and it is remarkable. One of my reading highlights for 2022.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Apr 1, 2023 20:06:24 GMT -5
Farewell, my Lovely (1975) with Robert Mitchum playing Philip Marlowe. Also starring Charlotte Rampling (who must be eternal!) and, in a tiny role, a young Sylvester Stallone!
Marlowe's voice over is always funny, even if it's been parodied so many times that it's hard to take it seriously nowadays.
Good P.I yarn, and Jack O'Halloran was very effective in his role as a brick wall of a man. (Clancy Brown could have played that part a decade later). Mitchum is all right, even if it's hard to see him as anyone else but Robert Mitchum.
I've never really been a serious reader of Hammett or Spillane or Chandler, and I tend to confuse Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe... but each time I read a novel by the above mentioned gentlemen or saw an adaptation of their work, I found my time well-spent.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 2, 2023 11:50:07 GMT -5
Farewell, my Lovely (1975) with Robert Mitchum playing Philip Marlowe. Also starring Charlotte Rampling (who must be eternal!) and, in a tiny role, a young Sylvester Stallone! Marlowe's voice over is always funny, even if it's been parodied so many times that it's hard to take it seriously nowadays. Good P.I yarn, and Jack O'Halloran was very effective in his role as a brick wall of a man. (Clancy Brown could have played that part a decade later). Mitchum is all right, even if it's hard to see him as anyone else but Robert Mitchum. I've never really been a serious reader of Hammett or Spillane or Chandler, and I tend to confuse Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe... but each time I read a novel by the above mentioned gentlemen or saw an adaptation of their work, I found my time well-spent. Simple, Spade is by Hammett and Marlowe is Chandler's character. Spade appeared in only one novel, The Maltese Falcon (originally serialized in Black Mask magazine. He appears in 4 short stories: "A Man Called Spade," (American Magazine, July 1932....sounds like a Blaxploitation movie title) "Too Many Have Lived," (American Magazine, October 1932) "They Can Only Hang You Once," (Colliers, November 1932) "A Knife Will Cut Anybody," (unpublished, until 2013) Hammett's main character was The Continental Op, who appeared in stories in Black Mask. Then, there were Nick and Nora Charles, the stars of The Thin Man, which inspired the film series. Hammett was a former Pinkerton detective, making him one of the more authentic writers of private eyes. Marlowe appeared in stories, in Black mask and then novels, including some that pulled parts of the stories together. The novels are: The Big Sleep Farewell My Lovely The High Window The Lady in The Lake The Little Sister The Long Goodbye Playback Other writers wrote authorized Marlowe novels. I've read The Maltese Falcon, The Thin Man and part of the Continental Op and had a collection of Chandler (3 novel volume, with The Big Sleep and two of the others, but I don't recall which two); but never got around to reading it, before I got rid of it, in a move. I also tried Mickey Spillane; but, only got through the first two novels. I found that I preferred that stuff more in film than in prose.
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Apr 2, 2023 14:35:15 GMT -5
Farewell, my Lovely (1975) with Robert Mitchum playing Philip Marlowe. Also starring Charlotte Rampling (who must be eternal!) and, in a tiny role, a young Sylvester Stallone! Marlowe's voice over is always funny, even if it's been parodied so many times that it's hard to take it seriously nowadays. Good P.I yarn, and Jack O'Halloran was very effective in his role as a brick wall of a man. (Clancy Brown could have played that part a decade later). Mitchum is all right, even if it's hard to see him as anyone else but Robert Mitchum. I've never really been a serious reader of Hammett or Spillane or Chandler, and I tend to confuse Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe... but each time I read a novel by the above mentioned gentlemen or saw an adaptation of their work, I found my time well-spent. You should give both a try. Chandler is a far better wordsmith than Hammett. Hammett is a far better plotter than Chandler. I firmly believe that Chandler was the best wordsmith in American literature since Twain. Spillane is the odd man out. His work is pure unadulterated, unapologetic pulp for the masses. He made no pretentions to being anything but a writer, in fact he bristled at being called an author. Hammett is super accessible. He only wrote five novels and you can get by with reading Red Harvest, The Maltese Falcon, and The Glass Key. The Thin Man is a good read, but I don't think it's nearly as essential as the other three (The Dain Curse is completely skippable). Each of the first three were hugely influential. Red Harvest (along with the Op short stories) defined the hard-boiled PI genre. The Maltese Falcon set the PI personality (the Op had no discernable personality). The Glass Key was a key step toward the everyman literary noir that would be picked up by James M. Cain and then blossom in the paperback originals of the 50s. Chandler should be read by anyone who loves the English language. And Marlowe is an evolution from The Op and Spade that made the PI a tarnished hero instead of an anti-hero. You just have to be aware that his plots are Byzantine and sometimes only barely make sense. It's the language and the power of Marlowe's character that make every one of them well worth reading. The Big Sleep and The Long Goodbye are simply as good as hard-boiled PI lit gets. And the only weak entry in the Marlowe canon (at least those written by Chandler, his estate can suck it) is The Little Sister. Spillane...you either love him or you hate him. There's zero middle ground. I love him. But I can absolutely understand those who don't.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2023 9:44:51 GMT -5
I read today that Harrison Ford is taking over the role of General Ross in the MCU, obviously due to the death of William Hurt.
You know, I have never been a fan of recasting a role, either in TV shows or films. Suspension of disbelief is important, and recasting takes something away from that (just a little), not quite like but akin to knowing how a magician does his tricks.
It is unavoidable at times. Sean Connery could hardly have still been playing Bond in 2006 or 2008 or whatever. And in the case of Doctor Who, at least there’s a in-story reason for different faces.
Most of the time, though, it doesn’t work for me. Sometimes it can be because an actor is very different. One UK soap character was recast - and the replacement actor did the role so differently, that it felt like a different character, altogether. And even when it is needed, it doesn’t work 100%: Bond is Bond, but when I think about Timothy Dalton in Licence to Kill, I can’t quite believe that his Bond is the same Bond who grappled with Blofeld in Diamonds are Forever.
It is, as I stated, the whole suspension of disbelief thing. We can and do suspend our disbelief in a film. We accept dinosaurs chasing people around a park, or Axel Foley busting down a door. That is fine. But I have to live in the moment while watching TV episodes or a film - and the minute a character has a different face, it takes me a little away from the “fiction-reality” of what I am watching, if that makes sense.
I’d much rather that they gave us a different character. Harrison Ford as General John Smith would work for me more than him playing General Ross, he who once had a different face on the screen.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 5, 2023 10:35:32 GMT -5
Never Say Never Again would suggest that Connery wasn't up to playing Bond, in 1983, let alone 2006!
Connery looked pretty old in Diamonds; it was past time for him to step away, as he knew (he did it for a dump truck full of money, which he didn't spend on a hairpiece or a gym). Moore was actually older, but didn't look it, though he was looking his age by Moonraker (definitely by For Your Eyes Only).
I don't have a problem with recasting, so long as the character remains true to what has been established, assuming anything concrete has been done. Babylon 5 recast Ana Sheridan, first seen in a flashback, with Melissa Sue Gilbert, who was then-married to star Bruce Boxleitner. She did a great job and it was a great idea.
Considering that Ford won't be interacting with most of the casts of the earlier films, it doesn't really feel that out of continuity.
I will say that Roger Moore, as Bond, always felt like The Saint, Simon Templar, was masquerading as Bond, after Bond was killed on a mission. Of course, the conceit in the spoof version of Casino Royale was that Bond was just a code name, used by several agents in the British Secret Service.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2023 10:59:46 GMT -5
It only really worked when Rick Bognar and Glenn Jacobs were “recast” in the WWF. Seriously, though, it can work. It has worked. It’s all subjective. Perhaps the passage of time can also help, if there’s, say, a gap of 10, 15 or 20 years between films. But if we use Bond as an example, I believe that Donald Pleasance, Telly Savalas and Charles Gray may as well be different characters, their versions of Blofeld do not feel like the same person. Even with something rather superficial, it doesn’t work for me. In Home Alone, Marv is hardly the deepest film character ever, but when French Stewart played him in the fourth film, it did not feel like the same Marv as played by Daniel Stern in the first two movies. TV has some examples. I like both Richard Lynch and John Vernon. They played a villain called John Bradford Horn in Airwolf; Lynch played the role first (in one episode), Vernon played the role afterwards (again, in one episode). But they feel like different characters.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Allen on Apr 5, 2023 11:35:27 GMT -5
The earliest example I remember was Dick Sargent replacing Dick York in Bewitched. It was jarring at first, but the show was clearly the same so I got used to the new Darrin.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2023 11:37:36 GMT -5
I’ve only seen random episodes of those on Channel 4. Correct me if I am wrong, but did Sargent and York play the role very similar? If so, I commend them for it - and it worked.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Apr 7, 2023 10:48:17 GMT -5
I’ve only seen random episodes of those on Channel 4. Correct me if I am wrong, but did Sargent and York play the role very similar? If so, I commend them for it - and it worked. Well, the role was written the same, so there really wasn't room for interpretation. I wouldn't say they played it the same, as they had different acting styles. York played it a bit broader, more theatrical, more excitable. Also, by the time Sargent took over, Tabitha was older and more of a focus and they added Adam. In York's time, Darrin was more central to the plots. In Sargent's time, he was more of a supporting character.
|
|