Humphrey Bogart - Film by Film Thread

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by FieldingMellish, Jul 6, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. FieldingMellish

    FieldingMellish Active Member Thread Starter

    Meanwhile, an interesting review of 'The Left Hand of God' on allmovie.com - surprisingly positive:

    The Left Hand of God is an uneven film that can definitely be classified as "good" -- and yet while one watches it, one continually expects it to move beyond "good" and into "great," resulting in disappointment when it resolutely refuses to do so. There are some clear reasons why it fails to make this leap, such as the unfortunate miscasting of Lee J. Cobb as the Chinese warlord. While it was certainly common to cast Caucasian actors in Asian roles at the time, Cobb's miscasting goes beyond skin color; he simply can't convincingly convey the character as written. He does all he can to tell us he is menacing and dangerous and conniving, but it doesn't ring true. Humphrey Bogart and Gene Tierney are better cast, but they lack chemistry together, and while their individual performances are good -- sometimes quite good -- they both seem to be missing a little something. The same can be said of the direction and the screenplay -- good, professional, at times a notch or two above -- but never really catching fire and blazing away, as the basic story demands. Still, The Left Hand of God is worth viewing, especially for those who like tales of redemption and renewal.

    http://www.allmovie.com/movie/the-left-hand-of-god-v28803/review
     
    kevinsinnott likes this.
  2. FieldingMellish

    FieldingMellish Active Member Thread Starter

    Before we tackle 'We're No Angels', I ask again: any interest in this thread?
     
  3. sgb

    sgb Senior Member

    Location:
    Baton Rouge
    I enjoy reading threads like this one, but since I'm only a casual movie watcher I really don't have much to contribute. As far as Bogart is concerned, I have the three or four movies that are considered his best, and I really must say that every time I watch Casablanca, I fully appreciate why it is considered one of the best movies of all time. It and The Maltese Falcon rank among my 12 favorite movies.
     
  4. Hot Ptah

    Hot Ptah Forum Resident In Memoriam

    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    Going back to "Desperate Hours", I have always liked the little touch near the start of the film, that it is the son leaving his tricycle (or is it a bicycle?) in the yard that is the reason that the criminals pick this particular family. That has always struck me as a Hitchcock-like touch, a seemingly trivial detail that makes an unexpectedly huge difference.

    Keep this thread coming! If no one comments, please go to the next film, and the next! I think that many of the films will generate a lot of comments, and some films almost no comments, because Bogart was so prolific and his films are not of the same level of quality. I have seen a great many Bogart films but not all of them by any means.
     
    alexpop likes this.
  5. smilin ed

    smilin ed Senior Member

    Location:
    Durham
    Would love you to continue.

    I have to admit that Left Hand of God is one of those few Bogart-starring movies that I don't care for.
     
  6. albert_m

    albert_m Forum Resident

    Location:
    Atl., Ga, USA
    I haven't seen most of his films and am seeing this thread for the first time. I only have some early 40s ones, so not sure how much I can contribute, but enjoy reading about what I haven't seen so far.
     
  7. J.A.W.

    J.A.W. Music Addict

    Perhaps it'll pick up when you get to his great movies of the 1940s.
     
  8. FieldingMellish

    FieldingMellish Active Member Thread Starter

    Absolutely. That spinning bicycle wheel. Notice also, how this comes full circle at the end: the bike lying outside the house marks it as a family home, which makes it attractive to Bogart's shrewd villain, so you could see the bike as symbolic or at least indicative of the vulnerability inherent in family - these people should be easy to control because they have kids - but at the end - SPOILER ALERT - the family ties win out. The crucial moment comes when Frederic March persuades his young son - through sheer force of father/son bond - to run, even though Bogart is holding a gun to the boy's head (which March knows isn't loaded). I think that's the crux of the film.
     
  9. Another vote to keep the thread going. I hope to contribure at some point when we hit familiar territory.
     
  10. FieldingMellish

    FieldingMellish Active Member Thread Starter

    Ok folks, We're No Angels coming soon...
     
  11. proufo

    proufo Forum Resident

    Location:
    Bogotá, Colombia
    Before you go, can you point me to good releases of Bogart film-noir movies, with good PQ and subtitled?

    I fear the public domain releases are lo quality.
     
  12. Hot Ptah

    Hot Ptah Forum Resident In Memoriam

    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    Great--I actually have something to say about that one!
     
  13. Hot Ptah

    Hot Ptah Forum Resident In Memoriam

    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    Excellent points! As I remember it, when the daughter escapes the house to go on a date, that is another moment when the power of the family winning over the criminals seems so compelling.
     
  14. FieldingMellish

    FieldingMellish Active Member Thread Starter

    We're No Angels

    So, after the rather painful process of re-visiting 'The Left Hand of God', it was a relief to turn to:

    [​IMG]

    'We're No Angels', 1955, Paramount

    Directed by Michael Curtiz, written by Ranald MacDonald, from the play by Albert Husson.

    Stars Humphrey Bogart, Peter Ustinov, ALdo ray, Joan Bennett

    106 minutes, Colour


    IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0048801/


    Here's (part of) Wikipedia’s plot summary (mild spoiler):

    "Three convicts - Joseph, Albert and Jules - escape from prison on Devil's Island just before Christmas and arrive at a nearby French colonial town. They go to the store of the Ducotels - Felix and Amelie, and their daughter Isabelle - the only store that gives supplies on credit. While there, they notice that his roof is leaking, and offer to fix it. They do not actually intend to fix it, but decide to remain there, until nightfall, when they will steal clothes and supplies, and escape on the ship waiting in the harbour. As they stay in the store, they find that the family is currently in financial distress and offer their services to hide their all-too-sinister ruse."

    Like many other sources, Wikipedia describes this as a 'Chirstmas comedy'; but although it is set at Christmas, and revolves around an Xmas eve dinner, it doesn't feel, to me, like a very 'Christmassy' fim. Its stage origins are very much evident (with endless scenes featuring noting much other than people coming into or our of rooms), the pacing is a tad slow, the humour often a little heavy. To modern tastes, this has dated, and I can only speculate on how 'au courant' it felt in 1955. This is a gentle film, with gentle (if occassionally very mildly dark) humour.

    It's often remarked upon as the film that shows that Bogart could do straight comedy, but of course Bogart had been funny since at least Casablanca ("say, are my eyes really brown?"), so really it should be no surprise. That said, it's a treat to watch Bogart play an entirely comical role, and he does so with great verve, striking just the right balance between understatement and pastiche.

    For me, it's always a shock to watch Bogart in colour - I always think of him as entirely a creature of black and white. BUt what colour! This is a feast for teh eyes, the glorious technicolour being sufficiently striking to make the film worth watching for the visuals alone. It's like a tub of ice cream come to life. Cinematography was by Loyal Griggs, Oscar winner for 'Shane'.


    Peter Ustinov, of course, had an illustrious career, including two Oscar wins. He's a great foil for Bogart here, his bark of a laugh at Bogart;s darker jokes an unfailing delight. Aldo Ray, an ex-athlete who stumbled into acting, is not a well-known name today. He's best remembered for co-starring with the wonderful Judy Holliday in 'The Marrying Kind', and with John Wayne in 'The Green Berets'. He's up against a lot of firepower here, but holds his own admirably against Ustinov and Bogart. Ray has an immensely likeable screen presence, at odds with his role as the most uncouth of the 3 convicts here.

    Speaking of convicts, this film might best be watched as part 2 of a triple bill, beginning with Bogart's embryonic gangster film 'The Petrified Forest', ending with 'The Desperate Hours'. Certainly this offers an enjoyable and interesting twist on the well-worn 'nice people's world invaded by criminals' storyline.

    As for star power, let's not forget that this film was directed by Michael Curtiz, who helmed 'Casablanca', and scripted by Ranald MacDougal (Oscar nominated for 'Mildred Pierce'). The script is lively enough, with plenty of chuckles. The line that always gets quoted (clue: "dishes") I won't spoil here for anyone who hasn't seen the film yet. There's also the divine Joan Bennett - best remembered for the series of great noir movies she made with Fritz Lang.

    Bennett was a friend (and neighbour) of Bogart and Bacall. In fact, after her producer husband Walter Wanger had got into an argument with an agent Bennett had being having a fling with, and shot him in the crotch for his troubles, the men's careers continued to flourish whereas Bennett found herself scandal-tainted and effectively blackballed.

    Bogart being Bogart, he refused to do this film unless Bennett be given the quite substantial role of the mother in the family the convicts invade. She's brilliant in it, still beautiful , still has those sapphire eyes, still has that gorgeous purring voice that makes you wish she'd lived long enough to get into teh audiobook business. And shame on Hollywood for their treatment of her.

    Best suited perhaps to a rainy afternoon, this is an enjoyable, light-hearted curio in the Bogart filmography.

    According to my half-assed star rating system, this movie scores as follows:

    'We're No Angels' - Suggested 5-Star Movie Rating: 3

    'We're No Angels' - Suggested 5-Star Bogart Performance Rating: 3.5


    I'll have some more to add later, but for now over to you....
     
  15. smilin ed

    smilin ed Senior Member

    Location:
    Durham
    A so-so film, Not one I'd go out of my way tp watch, He's good in it, but i can't help seeing echoes of other, better movies. Better than the remake, however.

    It's good to see Bogart isn't overshadowed by Ustinov, who can (and does) ham it up with the best of them. In fact, Bogart, a supposedly one note actor, adjusts his performance admirably.

    I'd give him 4 and the movie, 3.
     
  16. FieldingMellish

    FieldingMellish Active Member Thread Starter

    Yes, Ustinov had a tendency to overplay. In 'The Bogart File', Terence Pettigrew claims that this film "marked Ustonov's coming of age in Hollywood. Until 'We're No Angels' he had never been considered a team performer", beging given instead to "flashy and hyper-flamboyant" performances.

    Pettigrew approvingly quotes the Sketch's review, in relation to Ustinov: "...like Billy Bunter dribbling over a dormitory ruck box, Ustinov rolls through a rewarding script with a devestating sense of the ridiculous".

    Perhaps the most striking assessment of this filmI have read, comes from Allen Eyles (in 'The Movie Makers: Bogart'):

    "'We're No Angels' is one of the most consistently agreeable pictures in Bogart's career and one of the more underrated pictures of the mid-Fifties when its modest dimensions counted for little in a period of Cinemascope spectaculars hogging the limelight."​


    [​IMG]
     
  17. sgb

    sgb Senior Member

    Location:
    Baton Rouge
    I've only ever seen the remake with Sean Penn. Didn't care for the plot or story line and can't imagine the original would be much better.
     
  18. FieldingMellish

    FieldingMellish Active Member Thread Starter

    An, ahem, 'interesting' perspective. Why would the fact that the remake isn't any good lead you to expect that the original was no better? Surely the opposite is almost always true?

    In any case the 1989 film, with Penn and De Niro, is not much related to the 'We're No Angels' of 1955.
     
  19. Solaris

    Solaris a bullet in flight

    Location:
    New Orleans, LA
    Another vote to keep this thread going. I'm enjoying reading it, though I don't have much to contribute yet. A lot of these films I haven't seen in 20 years or so, and this thread is a good refresher for me.
     
  20. kevinsinnott

    kevinsinnott Forum Coffeeologist

    Location:
    Chicago, IL USA
    I agree with your point here. When viewing the same title film, we can't assume it's a remake. Many modern films simply re-use a title. I don't work for a motion picture studio, but I would guess it's a built-in marketing jump and it invites fans of the original to see the 'remake'. Warren Beatty's Heaven Can Wait is, after all, a remake of Here Comes Mr. Jordan, not the original of the same title. The Steve Martin Cheaper By the Dozen reminded me more of Yours, Mine and Ours than the original Clifton Webb film.

    In sum, I would never see a film and assume its earlier namesake was inferior or even that it is the same tale.
     
  21. rmath84

    rmath84 Forum Resident

    +1

    Although in the spirit of keeping thing positive I don't have anything good to say until "The Caine Mutiny".
     
  22. sgb

    sgb Senior Member

    Location:
    Baton Rouge

    I think I pretty much defined that by saying the story line didn't interest me. And, no, the opposite really isn't almost always true.

    If you are saying the plot and story aren't at all similar, then we have an altogether different situation here. Take, for example, the original _Invasion of the Body Snatchers_ versus the remake. I see very little plot/story difference, but I found the original far better. There have been others, _Cape Fear_ comes to mind, where the modern remake had to resort to histrionics but the original with Mitchum, Peck et al had you on the edge of your seat without them. Much as I admire De Niro's acting ability, I think he missed the boat in both this movie and the one with Penn.
     
  23. Hot Ptah

    Hot Ptah Forum Resident In Memoriam

    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    What strikes me about "We're No Angels" is that it is not the type of film that I would have expected Bogart to make. It shows his artistry, his versatility, that he could succeed in something so different from his tough guy roles.

    There have not been that many actors in any era who could succeed in a role like this, and also play the tougher roles that Bogart played in other films. It is what separates him from many of the movie stars of today in my mind.
     
  24. sgb

    sgb Senior Member

    Location:
    Baton Rouge
    I think De Niro is one who can and often did show this kind of versatility. Take, for example, his role as Al Capone in The Untouchables then compare it to the repentant in The Mission. Bogart might not have been able to carry off such a role as effectively, though I'd rank him among the few best to ever grace the silver screen.
     
  25. A fun movie...Bogart Ustinov and Ray have great chemistry. It is fun watching Bogart do comedy for a change of pace. The guy had some strong acting chops.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine