A movie adaption of Ed Bunker’s Dog Eat Dog is coming!
Year: 2015
Review: Homicide
Homicide is a neo noir from 1991 by modern film great David Mamet. Mamet who wrote and directed this film has also wrote a ton of great neo noir and crime films over the last 4 decades. He writes some of the best dialog around with a rhythm to it that is hypnotic. It is street level crime poetry, and the flow and delivery from some of the best actors around. This is the first time I’ve seen this film, but it won’t be the last. I’m not sure how I missed this in the early 90’s at the video store, or never really heard much about it. It popped up on a few neo noir lists and when I seen who stared in it as well as it being a Mamet film, I put it to the top of my Netflix Queue.
This film revolves around Joe Mantegna as our Homicide Detective lead. He is tough, but tough in a different way than our normal hardboiled detective. He uses his people skills and smarts rather than his fists and gun. In fact we see a number of pivotal scenes where his physical strength is tested and he fails these tests. We also see him get back up and keep trucking along. This film has a lot of racial tension as well. Our hero is Jewish and seems to shun this at first, but later is torn between being a great cop or a good Jew.
William H. Macy plays Mantegna’s partner and their dialog and banter is some of the best in modern noir. Macy is always good and doesn’t disappoint here. He plays the sidekick who doesn’t question anything his partner does, because to him, his partner can do no wrong. Will this be his downfall?
This story starts with an F.B.I. raid on an apartment, they kill an innocent black women and their suspect gets away. It’s a mess the F.B.I. dumps on the local Homicide division. Our two detectives take the case, with a lead they think will pan out. On the way to apprehend the suspects brother to see if he will roll over on his brother, we come to some flashing lights and a cop in need of some help. As Macy takes the car and goes on to the planned meet with the suspects brother, Mantegna stays behind to help the uniformed police officers. An old Jewish women has been shot with a shotgun and her store robbed. Mantegna catches the case and is taken off the more high-profile original case. He continues to juggle the two cases. On one hand he is helping his people solve the murder case of a Jew. On the other he is trying to find the black man the F.B.I. is desperate to find.
This has some great actors in this besides our two leads. Though all are great in this, the two small parts that stand out to me are Ving Rhames in one of his earliest movie roles as the black suspect the first case revolves around, and Ricky Jay as one of the members of the Jewish community the second case revolves around.
The movie isn’t just noir in story but also is filmed in a classic film noir style, using washed out colors and shadows through out.
I really loved this film and think noir lovers of the classic era as well as the modern neo noir lovers will like it too. This film has more to say then a simple murder mystery and touches on racial tensions not only between whites and blacks but the Jewish community as well. I look forward to watching and re-watching more from Mamet for this site in the future.
Review: Heat Wave or The House Across the Lake
Heat Wave is another B-movie noir from famed British group Hammer Films. This is written and directed by Ken Hughes based on a book he also wrote. Hughes went to Hollywood and made some big films, his most notable isn’t even close to the dark noir he made here, a little film by the name Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.
This film showcases Hillary Brooke, a quintessential femme fatale in every way. We have more than one man in her web and she doesn’t let any of those men escape through out the whole film. She is definitely the high spot of this film and the main reason to watch this one.
The story starts with our protagonist played by Alex Nicol holed up in a cabin on the lake shore. He is there to write his new book, but he has a bit of writers block. He gets invited to a party across the lake where we meet our femme fatale and her husband played by Sidney James. We soon find out our femme fatale has a boyfriend on the side and seems to be flaunting him in front of her husband and anybody else that might care. Our protagonist and the husband become quick friends and we soon find out our husband is dying, he has about a year. He also plans to change his will. Our husband happily pays the bills while he is alive, but he will be damned if he will pay the bills for his cheating wife once he is gone. His lawyer is on a trip in America and he plans to change his will as soon as the lawyer comes home. Our protagonist writer loses his contract and is flat broke, he is also the new target of our femme fatale. Will our hero team up with our femme fatale to kill her husband before the will is changed? Will he save his friend from his deadly wife? Will our femme fatale find somebody else to help her kill her dying husband before he changes his will? He’s dying anyway and she deserves her fair share of the estate, right?
This is a pretty straight forward mid 50’s classic noir. We are not covering new ground here by any means. It is cheaply done, but it still has a great noir look. The story builds for about 7/8 of the film and actually felt like an above average noir, but the story kind of falls apart at the end. It is still worth viewing for hardcore classic film noir lovers and has its high points. If you are new to the genre, you may want to start elsewhere, but if you see this on the tube late one night, give it a try, it may surprise you.
Re-watching the Classics: The Conversation
The Conversation is a neo noir film from Writer and Director Francis Ford Coppola. This film may get lost in the mix of great Coppola films, but it is right up there with his best. Honestly, the first time I seen this, I didn’t get what all the fuss was about, but after re-watching it, I think I get it now. This is more of a slow burn that continues to turn up the heat as we go.
The cast is amazing with the movie revolving around Gene Hackman who plays somebody totally different than our hardboiled detective role we looked at in The French Connection and Night Moves earlier on this site. He plays a surveillance expert, who happens to be a little paranoid, maybe he should be. He is the best at what he does, but soon wonders if he should be doing it. He also sees how easy somebody can do the same to him and this I feel drives his paranoia more.
The rest of the cast play small parts, but Coppola seems to have a knack of getting high level talent for these parts. One stand out is Harrison Ford, this is one year after his break out performance in American Graffiti, but he wasn’t quite the biggest star on the planet yet, Star Wars was still 5 years away. We also have John Cazale, Cazale only appeared in 5 films, all in the 1970’s, before his untimely death. They just happen to be 5 of the best films of the decade. We also have a young Frederic Forrest and Cindy Williams as our targets of the surveillance. We see Terri Garr in an important scene and Robert Duvall and Billy Dee Williams in such small roles they went uncredited and didn’t even have lines!
Our story starts with Forrest and Williams in a square having what seems to be an innocent conversation on their lunch hour. We soon see Hackman and his team at different posts around the square, using different recording devices to record the conversation. We then have a scene where Hackman comes home, he has a number of locks and an alarm on his apartment and when he opens the door, there is a bottle of wine for his birthday. You see how this drives Hackman crazy, even with all this security the land lord easily gets into his apartment to drop off the wine. The next day he goes to his warehouse and starts working on piecing his recording together to get the whole conversation. Once he is finished, he sets up an appointment to deliver the final product to the man who hired him. That man is not in and his assistant, played by Ford, tries to pay Hackman for the tapes. Hackman feeling paranoid again decides to wait to deliver it to the man who hired him. The story takes off from there, as we meet some of Hackman’s competitors at a convention and he tries to figure out what is on the tape exactly and why do people want it so bad?
This movie is a statement on how technology is not always the best thing and can cause more trouble then it is worth. I can’t imagine what Coppola would have to say if this film was made today, but I would love to see it. Though the technology is primitive by today’s standards it still has something to say about our world. Is too much information a good thing? Are we becoming paranoid as a society? Should we be?
This film should be seen by any film buff, whether you are a noir fan or not. If you didn’t see why it is so great on your first viewing, give it a second chance. I did and I’m glad I did. This is a film that could be watched multiple times as little nuances can be found each time.
Re-watching the Classics: The Set-Up
Here is a short film noir of only 73 minutes long, which takes place over those same 73 minutes. This is Directed by Robert Wise and stars Robert Ryan as our main character. Ryan plays Stoker, an over the hill boxer hoping to make one last run as a fighter. Audrey Totter plays Stoker’s wife who wants him to stop fighting before he is hurt to bad. We start out with our couple in their apartment as Stoker gets ready to head to the arena. He gives his wife a ticket to watch the fight, she makes one last effort to stop him from fighting to no avail. Stoker gets into the locker room to start getting ready for his main event fight. We meet a varied crew of fighters in different stages of their career. It is almost like Stoker is reliving his past and looking into his near future as the fighter come and go, before and after their bouts. We get to see so many great character actors of the classic noir era in this locker room. Names such as George Tobias, Wallace Ford, Percy Helton, James Edwards and David Clarke. We have a hodge-podge of fighters, trainers, promoters and gangsters coming and going through out the night. 
Stoker’s team and his opponents team have agreed that Stoker will throw the fight for the gangster named Little Boy played by Alan Baxter. The problem is, nobody told Stoker! Will he learn before it is too late to throw the fight? If he does learn about the set-up will he agree to do it? Will Stoker’s wife show up to watch the bout? 
As I have stated before, the more I watch Robert Ryan’s films the more I like him. He did such a wide range of characters, it is hard to believe he could be so versatile. The only common thread when Ryan is in a film, he will always be tough as nails. This film is so unique and so great, I think everybody should see this at least once if you are a film lover at all. If you are a noir fan it is a must see and if you like Ryan you probably already seen this, if not drop everything and do it now! Do you think this was a big influence on Quentin Tarantino’s story line in Pulp Fiction revolving around Bruce Willis’ character? I can’t help but see many similarities between Willis and Ryan’s characters. What do you think?
Review: Barton Fink
Even though I’m a big fan of the Coen Brothers, this is the first time I’ve ever watched this. I guess the story never really appealed to me, but I always knew I would get around to watching this sooner or later. This kept popping up on lists of neo-noir films, so I thought it was about time to watch it and give it a review on here. Would this hold up to my Coen Brothers favorites like Fargo, Blood Simple, The Man Who Wasn’t There and Miller’s Crossing? This was actually written when Joel and Ethan Coen had writers block while writing Miller’s Crossing. I recently reviewed this often overlooked classic here:
https://everythingnoir.com/2015/02/15/re-watching-the-classics-a-fresh-look-at-millers-crossing/
Our story is about Barton Fink, played by John Turturro, a writer from New York who soon finds himself in Los Angles to be part of the Hollywood machine. He check’s into a hotel where he meets his neighbor Charlie Meadows, played by John Goodman. Fink is hired to write a script for a wrestling film and he has some writers block. We meet a wide range of Hollywood types throughout the film. It is a wild ride, but to be honest we don’t get into the noir part of this film until the second half and though we get a bit of a twist, its pretty minor.
On thing I noticed watching this, is the list of amazing actors in this film. The other is we get no matinée idols here, just a cast of great performers who are their based on their talent and not on their looks. This is something we don’t see very often. Some of the actors we see here are Michael Lerner,John Mahoney,Tony Shalhoub, Jon Polito and Steve Buscemi.
This film has a lot of hidden meaning and almost feels more like a David Lynch film then a Coen Brothers film. For instance the theory that the hotel is actually hell. Keep that in mind next time you watch it and see what you think. The ending also made me feel like something out of a Lynch film as well.
Even though it isn’t a pure neo-noir film like some of Coen Brother’s other films, it is a very good film. The Coen’s make the hotel and old Hollywood look great, the story is interesting(you wonder how much of this film comes out of the Coen’s frustration with the Hollywood system), and it is a thinking man’s movie. If you are new to Coen Brothers films, I would start with the four films I listed earlier. If you already have seen most everything from these guys but haven’t seen this yet, you should give it a try.
Favorite Tidbit: John Mahoney’s character is based on William Faulkner. Faulkner’s first work in Hollywood was for a wrestling movie. Barton Fink was based on Clifford Odets, a screen writer in Hollywood in the 1940’s and 1950’s. He wrote screenplays for some great films including everythingnoir.com’s favorites Deadline at Dawn and Sweet Smell of Success, as well as a few other great noir films we will look at.
Review: Pickup on South Street
Another great film noir from Samuel Fuller who wrote and directed this classic. We have noir legend Richard Widmark and femme fatale great Jean Peters as our leads. Throw in Thelma Ritter for a little character and we have the making of one of the top noir films from the classic era.
Our story starts with Widmark stealing the wallet out of Peters’ purse on the subway. Peters in being followed at the time by an F.B.I. agent and goes to the police. Enter Ritter who helps the F.B.I. and police finger Widmark as the pick pocket. Peters goes to her boyfriend and tells him she has lost the microfilm she was carrying for him. as it was in her wallet. Widmark has everybody chasing him for this microfilm and he doesn’t even know what it is. Will our hero make it out alive? What is on the microfilm? Why is the F.B.I. interested? Who are the bad guys that will do almost anything to get it back?
All three big stars are great in this one and I enjoyed all their performances. You can’t go wrong with classic noir dialog like this one:
“I’ve got almost enough to buy both the stone and the plot.”
“If you lost that kitty, it’s Potter’s Field.”
“This I do not think is a very funny joke, Captain Tiger!”
“I just meant you ought to be careful how you carry your bankroll.”
“Look, Tiger, if I was to be buried in Potter’s Field, it would just about kill me.”
A must see for classic film noir fans, especially those that are fans of any of the three stars or Samuel Fullers work. After this film Peters moved up on my list of favorite femme fatales and I plan to go back and re-watch some of the other films I’ve seen with her in it.
Favorite Tidbit: Jean Peters was not the first choice for this role of Candy. Names like Marilyn Monroe, Betty Grable and Shelley Winters where all up for consideration in one way or another. Fuller went with Peters and I got to say, he made the right choice.
Review: Atlantic City
Atlantic City is a film from 1980 starring Burt Lancaster and Susan Sarandon, both nominated for Academy Awards, the film was nominated for 5 total including Best Picture and Best Writing and Best Director for Louis Malle.
This story starts out with Sarandon making lemons sexy, Lancaster looks in on her through their opposing windows.
We then see a man watching a phone booth, he takes a package of drugs from the booth before the rightful owners can grab it. This man is played by Robert Joy and is Sarandon’s estranged husband who has run off with Sarandon’s sister, who he has gotten pregnant. Joy soon recruits Lancaster to help him sell the drugs and our odd love triangle, more like a love square? begins. We also have the original owner of the drugs looking for their goods and those who have them. Lancaster’s character is the most interesting of the film. He starts out as a broken old man who runs numbers for one of the local mobsters. He ends the film in a flash of old glory and you are happy for him, even as you see he is losing it mentally.
Another factor of this film is the city itself plays in this film. This caught a time in Atlantic City, where the city was in disrepair, a shadow of its former glory. Soon after this film, more old casinos would be demolished to make room for new casinos. In many ways the city parallels Lancaster’s character.
Lancaster is one of my all time favorite actors and this film did not disappoint. Sarandon was very good in this as well as maybe not a femme fatale in the classic noir sense, but she was definitely Lancaster’s femme fatale in this film. This is a very good film for neo noir fans and if you are fans of the two main stars it is a must see.
Favorite Tidbit: Lancaster mentions a number of mobsters and historic people his character supposedly knew in his past. These included Dutch Schultz, Meyer Lansky, Bugsy Siegel and Al Capone. He also mentions Nucky Johnson the inspiration for the Nucky Thompson character in Boardwalk Empire.
Review: Kiss Me Deadly
Mickey Spillane’s Mike Hammer! What’s not to like? This is actually the 5th time Hammer was made into a film. As a child of the 1980’s, Mike Hammer has always been Stacy Keach, but this classic version of him by Ralph Meeker is pretty great. I have not read any of the books, but after watching this I will have a few on my “To Read” list. This film is directed by Robert Aldrich, he also produced and had complete control over the production and had nobody to answer to. This freed him up to do some new things, you will see this in some interesting angles and shots throughout the film. All these years later and they still feel different and fresh.
If you are unaware of Mike Hammer, Ben Mankiewicz put it this way: This is a Mike Hammer mystery, it is different then a Sherlock Holmes or Sam Spade mystery. Where they use their smarts, Mike Hammer uses brute force, His last name Hammer is appropriate. I am paraphrasing Ben, but you get the idea.
The plot of this is very strange and hard to follow. I think Hammer’s secretary, Velda, played by Maxine Cooper, put it best. ” First, you find a little thread, the little thread leads you to a string, and the string leads you to a rope, and from the rope you hang by the neck.” That quote pretty much sums up the plot of this.
This film starts out with Hammer driving his convertible along a lonely road and picks up a girl in distress. They get through a police road block and soon Hammer finds himself knocked unconscious and the girl is basically tortured to death. The unknown assailants put both of them in Hammer’s car and roll them off a cliff. Miraculously Hammer survives the crash and spends 3 days in the hospital. Back at his office he starts an investigation into why they killed the unknown girl and who she was. We get one name which leads to a different name that leads to a different name.
This is a fun ride, even if we don’t always know where we are going. This also has one of the most unusual endings of any classic film noir. I think this movie is like Hammer himself, don’t over think it and just use brute force to get through this film and enjoy the journey.
This is a fun, good, classic film noir who everybody should see. It has some twists and turns, but they don’t shock as much as some other noir. This may be because we can’t see around those turns to see the twists coming like we are used to.
Favorite Tidbit: I found this brief case had more than a passing resemblance to the one in Pulp Fiction and I wasn’t the only one. When asked if this was an influence, Quentin Tarantino says the similarities between his brief case and this one are accidental, but he liked this theory.
Review: Crime and Punishment, USA
Crime and Punishment, USA is a noir from 1959 I recently caught on Turner Classic Movies. This is a 1950’s version of the famous book by Fyodor Dostoevsky relocated to modern 1950’s Sana Monica, California.
This movie may be more of note for “Introducing” us to George Hamilton, then anything else. This is Hamilton’s first film and he is our main star. He had a few small television roles before this. Hamilton is pretty good in this as a very smart law student. He feels superior to others, because of his high intelligence and in different scenes he comes across as arrogant, humble, likable, evil, yet charming. It’s a pretty good performance for a young actor.
Frank Silvera plays the homicide detective who believes Hamilton’s Robert is guilty of murder, but can not prove it.
Our story starts with a scene where we hear there is a murder and we see Hamilton faint in the street. We soon find out it is a pawn shop owner that has been murdered and Hamilton’s friends feel he is sick and we see him in bed as his friends gather around his bed in concern. We soon find Hamilton alone in his room and he pulls out a bag, we see gloves, a crowbar and a load of cash. He hides the cash and soon leaves the apartment to dispose of the evidence. We soon see a man in trouble, it looks like his heart. Hamilton shows his good side and helps the man home. He soon arrives home and finds his sister and mother waiting for him as they have come to town worried about him. Him and his friend soon go to visit the police and we are introduced to Silvera, our head homicide detective. Hamilton and his friend are there to retrieve a few items Hamilton has pawned at the shop of the dead women. A cat and mouse chase between Hamilton and Silvera begins, but who is the cat and who is the mouse?
Though the two lead performances are very good, and this is based on one of the most classic books of all time, something is just off about this film. I don’t know what it is, whether key story points from the book are not covered, or our supporting characters do not have enough character development, I do not know. This was not a horrible film, it just seems like it could have been a lot better film. Maybe this book isn’t the right source material for a noir film? If you are a fan of the two stars it is worth a watch for their performances. If you want to see another adaptation of the source material you may find it interesting.
everythingnoir 