Daily Archives: June 12, 2012

Film Noir: Too Late for Tears

Standard

If there’s one thing film noir has taught us–if you end up with a mysterious bag of money that is not your own, you don’t have long to live. Just leave it where it lies. It was true in No Country for Old Men, and certainly true of Too Late for Tears, a 1949 noir by Byron Haskin, re-released in 1955 with the more sanguine title, Killer Bait. It also features one of the most avaricious femme fatales in noir history.

Arthur Kennedy and Lizabeth Scott are driving through the Hollywood Hills when a car speeds by from the other direction and drops a bag in the back seat of their convertible. They open it and find oodles of cash. Scott immediately wants to keep it, while the more reasonable Kennedy wants to turn it into the police. A car comes up behind them, clearly the car the money was intended for, and Scott gets behind the wheel and races away.

Kennedy agrees to keep the money for a week, and puts in the baggage claim at Union Station. Meanwhile, the intended recipient of the money, Dan Duryea, tracks down Scott and tries to muscle her out of the money. He soon realizes he’s in over his head. He’s only a blackmailer–she’s a barracuda.

Scott eventually kills Kennedy and schemes to get the money, not knowing where the claim ticket is. Kennedy’s sister, Kristine Miller, grows suspicious when Scott tells her that Kennedy has run away with another woman. A man claiming to be an old friend of Kennedy’s, Don DeFore, shows up, and he ends up helping Miller prove Scott killed Kennedy.

Scott, who was a frequent cast member in film noir, really cleans up in this movie, as once she sees that money she exhibits a pathological greed. Duryea, one of my favorite character actors from the ’40s, gives a very interesting and shaded performance. At first he’s the tough guy, but as the film goes on, he follows Scott’s lead, which is not good for this health. I liked DeFore’s performance, but he seemed kind of familiar in a sit-com sort of way, and sure enough, he was the next-door neighbor on the Ozzie and Harriet show, which kind of makes seeing him in a gritty film like this out of place.

The film has been in public domain for ages and is in terrible shape, but it’s still a clever and menacing little movie, mainly thanks to Scott’s ferocious performance. Remember, if you find a satchel full of cash, just walk on by.

AGEBOC ’12 – June 15-17

Standard

Predict the #1 film of the weekend.

The one who predicts closest to the total Friday to Sunday gross for the #1 film wins 4 points. Runner-up gains 2 points. Predicting within half a million earns 2 extra points.

Bonus questions:

1. What will be the number 2 film, in grosses, this weekend?

2. What will be the number 3 film, in grosses, this weekend?

Deadline is Thursday, June 14 23:59 pm (blog time)

To find out the rules of the game, go to the main thread for AGEBOC 09.

Current rankings

filmman – 12
Joe Webb – 11.5
Jeanine – 11
Jackrabbit Slim – 10.5
Rob – 10
Juan – 9
James – 5.5
Nick – 4.5
Brian – 3

The worst type of film to see at the cinema

Standard

I have seen many films at the cinema over the years, but I don’t regard my worst experience as necessarily associated with the lowest-standard films I’ve seen there.

For example, the 2009 film ‘Love and Other Drugs’ is one of the worst films I’ve seen at the cinema in recent years – possibly ever – and was painful to sit through. But in its own way it was so insultingly bad that at least it provided a vivid demonstration in my mind of what bad modern filmmaking is.

Similarly, back in 2003 I went to see Tarantino’s ‘Kill Bill’ and was so repelled and repulsed by it that I haven’t bothered to watch any of his films since. But as much as I hated that film, it certainly left a vivid impression on me (something that Quentin probably would be quite satisfied by).

I think the worst film experience to have is to see a film and for it to virtually evaporate from the memory the instant you leave the cinema. In some quarters that’s promoted as an acceptable cinema experience but if that’s going to occur, why bother at all? Especially with the ever-increasing cost and effort associated with going to the cinema. Films that leave no impression at all do more to dissipate the passion of going to the cinema than films being churned out like that.

By that criteria, two films I’ve seen at the cinema that I recall (that I can’t really recall actually) stand out.

Bored one day in 2008, I decided to see the the Shia LaBeouf thriller ‘Eagle Eye’. As I recall I thought the film was an OK timewaster but it faded from memory as soon as I left the cinema and now looking back, unless I put great effort in I can remember virtually nothing about it.

Topping that though was when I went to see Tim Burton’s remake of ‘Planet of the Apes’ in 2001. Being a major fan of the original POTA (and even the first two sequels to a lesser extent), I eagerly anticipated this one and was majorly disappointed. It wasn’t terrible, but it was a waste of time and despite a “twist ending”, the film dissipated from my mind not long afterwards and now I have virtually no substantial memory of it. And considering the iconic nature of the original film, that’s even more unforgivable than making a memorably misguided remake.

Burton’s ‘Planet of the Apes’ is hardly the worst film I’ve seen at the cinema. But it is the most insignificant and irrelevant, and imo there’s nothing worse for a film to be than that