Movie Classics that totally escape me

[DaveC426913]

Since we are discussing recent classics, I confess to liking Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avary's 1991 "Reservoir Dogs". Many friends told me I would like it despite the violence, "They talk constantly but never show the actual heist. You'll like it."

Had one of the most riveting suspense scenes in modern cinema. I swear I chewed my nails to the first knuckle.

 

[Michael Price]

I confess also to having appreciated Liberty Valance in the distant past, but not so much for Wayne's role in it, and more recently I noticed that Wayne's character seems to commit murder.

It was more a James Stewart, Lee Marvin movie. Never a great fan of John Wayne.

 

[Michael Price]

Since we are discussing recent classics, I confess to liking Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avary's 1991 "Reservoir Dogs". Many friends told me I would like it despite the violence, "They talk constantly but never show the actual heist. You'll like it."

One of my favorite crime dramas, despite the violence, mild in comparison to most crime movies. Terrific acting, writing, sets, cars, music, directing and Tarantino fills a small role himself as "Mr. Brown". Lawrence Tierny, "Joe Cabot", starred in old time crime flicks before serving time for extortion, also played Elaine's scary father on "Seinfeld".

I loved "Reservoir Dogs" - great opening scene with the discussion of tipping! Tarantino's more recent stuff just hasn't been as good; he's definitely lost his touch.

 

[DennisN]

I am going to watch The Wizard of Oz since it is at number one on the list

I have seen it now, and I liked it. Particularly the story, which have quite a few interesting "universal" messages, which would be a shame to mention here since it would spoil it for those who haven't seen the movie. It's also a story that can be interpreted in different ways. But the good story is as I understand it largely thanks to the original novel.

The movie also gets a big extra plus from me for this (SPOILER WARNING!):

Spoiler

The movie wonderfully mixes reality and fantasy in one and the same movie, since the fantasy story resembles Dorothy's reality. This is further enhanced since the same actors are used in both the reality story and the fantasy story. I actually did not get that until the end of the movie, and this pleased me very much. Quite powerful.

I don't know if this role setup was in the original novel or not.

Furthermore, one of my favorite songs was in the movie, Somewhere over the Rainbow. I've always liked that one in particular.

And last, but not least, I think Judy Garland did an excellent performance as Dorothy.

I can easily understand why this movie is so liked. I will keep it in my collection .

 

[pinball1970]

I have seen it now, and I liked it. Particularly the story, which have quite a few interesting "universal" messages, which would be a shame to mention here since it would spoil it for those who haven't seen the movie. It's also a story that can be interpreted in different ways. But the good story is as I understand it largely thanks to the original novel.

The movie also gets a big extra plus from me for this (SPOILER WARNING!):

Spoiler

The movie wonderfully mixes reality and fantasy in one and the same movie, since the fantasy story resembles Dorothy's reality. This is further enhanced since the same actors are used in both the reality story and the fantasy story. I actually did not get that until the end of the movie, and this pleased me very much. Quite powerful.

I don't know if this role setup was in the original novel or not.

Furthermore, one of my favorite songs was in the movie, Somewhere over the Rainbow. I've always liked that one in particular.

And last, but not least, I think Judy Garland did an excellent performance as Dorothy.

I can easily understand why this movie is so liked. I will keep it in my collection .

WOO is great. Can you remember when the scarecrow recites a maths equation at the end? When he gets his diploma?

 

[DennisN]

Can you remember when the scarecrow recites a maths equation at the end? When he gets his diploma?

Yes . There were quite a few moments in the movie which made me smile. And think.

 

[Klystron]

This thread reminds me of a Danny Kaye movie (the title escapes me) where he recites/sings the Pythagorean theorem. I learned the basis of quadratic equations from that movie.

In the US in the 1950-1960's "Wizard of Oz" was broadcast at least once a year. I did not see Frank Baum books in the local library but many favorite authors described them.

 

[DaveC426913]

Danny Kaye movie (the title escapes me) where he recites/sings the Pythagorean theorem

:furiously Googling:
Merry Andrew.


But not A Modern Major General...

I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters mathematical,
I understand equations, both the simple and quadratical,
About binomial theorem, I'm teeming with a lot o' news,
(Lot o' news...)
(Got it!)
With many cheerful facts about the square of the hypotenuse!

 

[PeroK]

For a classic scene of an interrupted duel, that I prefer to the one in Liberty Valance, there is the near - bar - fight in From Here to Eternity, wherein Sarge confronts Fatso Judson, about to knife fight with Prew, arguing something like: "He's in my company and if you kill him you just make extra paperwork for me".

The aborted knife fight is between Judson and Maggio, surely?

With Prew and Judson it's the real thing.

Another anti-hero who commits murder!

 

[DennisN]

I don't know if this role setup was in the original novel or not.

Spoiler warning issued again .
I did a bit of research and according to this clip (3:00) in a Wizard of Oz commentary, which is quite interesting and detailed in itself, the screen writer of the movie added quite a bit of glue between reality and fantasy. Very competently done, I think. I haven't read the book, and maybe this is one of the few movies which actually is better than the book, perhaps?

Two other movies which I personally think are better than the book versions, debatable of course, is The Fellowship of the Ring (trailer), because I think it has a better "flow" than the novel (and this comes from a Tolkien fan! ) and Contact (trailer), because I think it has more "life" in the characters.

 

[Janus]

Two other movies which I personally think is better than the book versions, debatable of course, is The Fellowship of the Ring (trailer), because I think it has a better "flow" than the novel (and this comes from a Tolkien fan! ) and Contact (trailer), because I think it has more "life" in the characters.

A movie that was, in my opinion, improved at least in some ways, over the book was Jurassic Park. I just think that Crichton got heavy-handed with the "everything that could go wrong, goes wrong" plot device in the book.
The movie trimmed a lot of this down.

 

[DennisN]

A movie that was, in my opinion, improved at least in some ways, over the book was Jurassic Park. I just think that Crichton got heavy-handed with the "everything that could go wrong, goes wrong" plot device in the book.
The movie trimmed a lot of this down.

I haven't read the book, but I liked the movie a lot.

 

[DennisN]

Movie classics I do enjoy:

• Casablanca (1942, Michael Curtiz)
  Cool story, cool setting. I was pleasantly surprised by the movie.

It was a long time ago I saw Casablanca, and today I happened to play the movie to have in the background while I was doing other stuff. But instead I was completely drawn into the movie and ended up watching it again . It is a remarkably tight movie with very interesting characters and very tight dialogue. I think I liked it even better this time . And it is (2019-1942) = 77 years old. It is also worth noting that it was a contemporary movie, as it was released in 1942-1943 during a pivotal period in the second world war, when the allied invaded French North Africa. And a couple of months later the Soviet Union turned the tide on the Eastern front.

 

[mathwonk]

thank you perok, absolutely right. it was no doubt prew who picked up the discarded knife and then fought for real!

 

[DaveC426913]

Wanna feel old?

Star Wars is now closer in time to the German invasion of Poland and the start of the Second World War than it is to today.

 

[Bystander]

First World War

WW II?

 

[DaveC426913]

WW II?

What? Are you on the weed?



(Thanks.)

 

[pinball1970]

Spoiler warning issued again .
I did a bit of research and according to this clip (3:00) in a Wizard of Oz commentary, which is quite interesting and detailed in itself, the screen writer of the movie added quite a bit of glue between reality and fantasy. Very competently done, I think. I haven't read the book, and maybe this is one of the few movies which actually is better than the book, perhaps?

Two other movies which I personally think are better than the book versions, debatable of course, is The Fellowship of the Ring (trailer), because I think it has a better "flow" than the novel (and this comes from a Tolkien fan! ) and Contact (trailer), because I think it has more "life" in the characters.

I went to see LOTR when it came out, we booked tickets to get decent seats read the guardian reviews (very close to the book apparently) and the release date was on my b/day
I hated it.
Looking at it now as a film its great (acting casting effects) but nothing like the book in terms of pace story building and glaring omissions/additions
All the implied terror and lurking suspense and menace of the passage under Moria, or what the wraiths were, or who Aragorn was were just announced, no build up no teasing no guessing, just there you go.
They had Legolas assisting Frodo’s escape from the wraiths on his way to Rivendell when it was Glorfindel (important as he was a powerful elf lord)
All that nonsense at the tomb of Balin with trolls and what not and don’t get me started on Arwens part – complete fabrication. If they thought Tom Bombadill was too much to add why did they add pointless stuff that was not in the book?
They should have done 6 films of each book and not rushed it, 9 hours just isn’t long enough , 18-20 would have done it more justice.

 

[pinball1970]

I haven't read the book, but I liked the movie a lot.

The Warriors 1978 is a great film so I read the book after.

I was disappointed. Sol Yuri
I thought Jaws was rubbish too, amazing film though.

Peter Benchley.
The book that matched the film the best for me was the Omen amazing film.
Funny thing is after checking on wiki (just now) as I could not remember the author, it turns out it’s the same guy who did the film!
The books were just marketing tools weeks before the film releases!

 

[DennisN]

Looking at it now as a film its great (acting casting effects) but nothing like the book in terms of pace story building and glaring omissions/additions

For me, it's just the Fellowship I like better as a movie. I think The Two Towers and The Return of the King are better as novels.

Regarding omissions I think it is due to the reduced attention span of a film audience compared to a reader, along with the fact that only three movies were planned, which themselves were quite huge enterprises, financially and logistically. There was a lot of ground to cover in the first one including the background and mythology, which I think was excellently done in the very first part of the movie where Blanchett/Galadriel told the essential background. That intro is actually among my absolute favorite parts in all of the three movies.

Regarding additions my guess is they were made due to an increased need for speed and thus, a good flow, in the story building and perhaps the character arcs. Regarding the Arwen additions* maybe they did that to give the character of Aragorn some extra motivation in his participation, by establishing his romantic interest and close connection to the elves. Just a guess off the top of my hat .

Regarding the omission of Tom Bombadill, another guess of mine is that covering Bombadill could complicate the story with a character that, if I remember correctly, only appears in the first novel and has no impact after that. Including Bombadill might also have lessened the perceived threat of the one ring for an audience, as Bombadill is the only one in the story which the ring has no effect upon whatsoever.

* Edit:
On a second thought they might have added Arwen to have one more female with some story in the movie. Otherwise there would have been only one such female, Galadriel, in a story which is full of male characters, including all the males in the fellowship itself.

 

[DaveC426913]

I hated it.
...
They should have done 6 films of each book and not rushed it, 9 hours just isn’t long enough , 18-20 would have done it more justice.

Are you not setting up impossible expectations?

As just one example, you want them to get all the details in - and you want that in film anthology form - which means 2-3 hour story arcs. So, you'd have films climaxing where there are no climaxes in the story. One film might end somewhere in Lothlorien, a place of rest and respite, another might end in just as Frodo crosses into Mordor - no real climax there.

I know how you feel, but it's hardly fair to judge a film anthology of this size by how closely it follows the book. Surely, it must be judged on its own merits in its own medium.

 

[pinball1970]

Are you not setting up impossible expectations?

As just one example, you want them to get all the details in - and you want that in film anthology form - which means 2-3 hour story arcs. So, you'd have films climaxing where there are no climaxes in the story. One film might end somewhere in Lothlorien, a place of rest and respite, another might end in just as Frodo crosses into Mordor - no real climax there.

I know how you feel, but it's hardly fair to judge a film anthology of this size by how closely it follows the book. Surely, it must be judged on its own merits in its own medium.

Yes it's a good film as a stand alone without the book but what upset me the most (and I was upset, I had been waiting for this since 1981) was it lacked the feel of the book.
Jackson and the film makers should have trusted his discerning audience, we did not need action, soap opera (Arwen and Aragorn) and the obvious spelling out.
We wanted hints, clues, false climaxes, blind alleys, build up and final realization. Tolkien did that again and again even right to the end.
He did not just have an unbelievable imagination, he was a good old fashioned story teller of the highest calibre, possibly the greatest ever.
Anyway, eventually I got over it. Amazing what 18 years can do to heal a broken dream.

 

[PeroK]

Yes it's a good film as a stand alone without the book but what upset me the most (and I was upset, I had been waiting for this since 1981) was it lacked the feel of the book.
Jackson and the film makers should have trusted his discerning audience, we did not need action, soap opera (Arwen and Aragorn) and the obvious spelling out.
We wanted hints, clues, false climaxes, blind alleys, build up and final realization. Tolkien did that again and again even right to the end.
He did not just have an unbelievable imagination, he was a good old fashioned story teller of the highest calibre, possibly the greatest ever.
Anyway, eventually I got over it. Amazing what 18 years can do to heal a broken dream.

A film isn't a book. A good film adaptation of any book of significant length has to omit details and characters. As mentioned above, a three-hour motion picture is a huge undertaking. And 9-10 hours for the whole thing was probably more than enough.

There's also the issue regarding LOTR in particular that the fan base (like yourself) would probably want to film making to go for ever (like Coronation Street!). But this is not really practical.

I had not read LOTR until the film came out, although I have read all three books since. Neither the book nor the films are really my thing, but I enjoyed TFOTR book and film. I thought Peter Jackson did a great job.

For me, both the books and the films just go on for far too long!

 

[pinball1970]

For me, it's just the Fellowship I like better as a movie. I think The Two Towers and The Return of the King are better as novels.

Regarding omissions I think it is due to the reduced attention span of a film audience compared to a reader, along with the fact that only three movies were planned, which themselves were quite huge enterprises, financially and logistically. There was a lot of ground to cover in the first one including the background and mythology, which I think was excellently done in the very first part of the movie where Blanchett/Galadriel told the essential background. That intro is actually among my absolute favorite parts in all of the three movies.

Regarding additions my guess is they were made due to an increased need for speed and thus, a good flow, in the story building and perhaps the character arcs. Regarding the Arwen additions* maybe they did that to give the character of Aragorn some extra motivation in his participation, by establishing his romantic interest and close connection to the elves. Just a guess off the top of my hat .

Regarding the omission of Tom Bombadill, another guess of mine is that covering Bombadill could complicate the story with a character that, if I remember correctly, only appears in the first novel and has no impact after that. Including Bombadill might also have lessened the perceived threat of the one ring for an audience, as Bombadill is the only one in the story which the ring has no effect upon whatsoever.

* Edit:
On a second thought they might have added Arwen to have one more female with some story in the movie. Otherwise there would have been only one such female, Galadriel, in a story which is full of male characters, including all the males in the fellowship itself.

We did not need more females in the film, we needed the key characters from the book.
Arwen was a side story that really did not matter till it was all over.
Galadriel and Eowyn were key women.

A film isn't a book. A good film adaptation of any book of significant length has to omit details and characters. As mentioned above, a three-hour motion picture is a huge undertaking. And 9-10 hours for the whole thing was probably more than enough.

There's also the issue regarding LOTR in particular that the fan base (like yourself) would probably want to film making to go for ever (like Coronation Street!). But this is not really practical.

I had not read LOTR until the film came out, although I have read all three books since. Neither the book nor the films are really my thing, but I enjoyed TFOTR book and film. I thought Peter Jackson did a great job.

For me, both the books and the films just go on for far too long!

Too long!
Heathen.

 

[Janus]

Yes it's a good film as a stand alone without the book but what upset me the most (and I was upset, I had been waiting for this since 1981) was it lacked the feel of the book.
Jackson and the film makers should have trusted his discerning audience, we did not need action, soap opera (Arwen and Aragorn) and the obvious spelling out.
We wanted hints, clues, false climaxes, blind alleys, build up and final realization. Tolkien did that again and again even right to the end.
He did not just have an unbelievable imagination, he was a good old fashioned story teller of the highest calibre, possibly the greatest ever.
Anyway, eventually I got over it. Amazing what 18 years can do to heal a broken dream.

Interestingly, there are fans of the books which are also fans of the movies.
There is a saying that goes:
"You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

Replace "people" with "fans" and you'd probably have to rewrite it to :
"You can please some of the fans some of the time, but you cannot please some of the fans all of the time, or please all of the fans some of the time, and definitely not all the fans all of the time."

 

[Klystron]

Aside from the beach sex scene and some memory of bullying in the ranks, I only remember the fantastic horn solos in "From Here to Eternity". Based on this discussion I will watch it again, probably on TCM. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[pinball1970]

Interestingly, there are fans of the books which are also fans of the movies.
There is a saying that goes:
"You can please some of the people all of the time, you can please all of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time.

Replace "people" with "fans" and you'd probably have to rewrite it to :
"You can please some of the fans some of the time, but you cannot please some of the fans all of the time, or please all of the fans some of the time, and definitely not all the fans all of the time."

People who think it was great and claim they read and understood the book did not get the book.

 

[newbiegirl]

Movie classics I do enjoy:

• Casablanca (1942, Michael Curtiz)
  Cool story, cool setting. I was pleasantly surprised by the movie.

I enjoyed the familiar quotes, and the movie was entertaining

 

[pinball1970]

I enjoyed the familiar quotes, and the movie was entertaining

Another film not to watch drunk and blue, it is the epitome of romance and personal sacrifices for love.
Apparently he does not say, 'play it again Sam!'

I think he says, 'play it!' And 'if if she can hear it so can i.'

In my top 20

 

[pinball1970]

Remains of the day, passage to India and Gandhi did not floor me. Perhaps I need to rewatch.

Biko if you have not seen it is amazing. Great performance from Denzel Washington and John Thaw

 

[Klystron]

Another film not to watch drunk and blue, it is the epitome of romance and personal sacrifices for love.
Apparently he does not say, 'play it again Sam!'

I think he says, 'play it!' And 'if if she can hear it so can i.'

In my top 20

I watched a 'director's cut' many years ago at a Bogie revival in SF. True, Bogie never says "Play it again, Sam.". Ilsa asks Sam to play "As Time Goes By" as in the old days not knowing Rick forbids it. Rick is flabbergasted to hear the song and to see Ilsa as if she materialized from the music Rick has forbidden Sam to play. In the revival version without sub-titles I thought Rick later says to Sam about Ilsa and "As Time Goes By",

"You played it for her. Now play it for me. Play it, Sam." Then the dialog you remember.

The idea is that 'all bets are off' at Rick's Casablanca Casino; standing rules no longer apply. Rick drinks with customers. French loyalists out sing the Waffen SS. Bulgarian refugees win big money on a gaffed (rigged) table. With Ilsa standing there in the flesh, a forbidden song is not going to remind Rick of happier days in pre-war Paris. He has found his "Object of Desire", or she has found him. What will he do with her?

 

[pinball1970]

I watched a 'director's cut' many years ago at a Bogie revival in SF. True, Bogie never says "Play it again, Sam.". Ilsa asks Sam to play "As Time Goes By" as in the old days not knowing Rick forbids it. Rick is flabbergasted to hear the song and to see Ilsa as if she materialized from the music Rick has forbidden Sam to play. In the revival version without sub-titles I thought Rick later says to Sam about Ilsa and "As Time Goes By",

"You played it for her. Now play it for me. Play it, Sam." Then the dialog you remember.

The idea is that 'all bets are off' at Rick's Casablanca Casino; standing rules no longer apply. Rick drinks with customers. French loyalists out sing the Waffen SS. Bulgarian refugees win big money on a gaffed (rigged) table. With Ilsa standing there in the flesh, a forbidden song is not going to remind Rick of happier days in pre-war Paris. He has found his "Object of Desire", or she has found him. What will he do with her?

There are some great lines and scenes.

Ilsa: I wasn't sure you were the same. Let's see, the last time we met was...
Rick: La Belle Aurore.
Ilsa: How nice, you remembered. But of course, that was the day the Germans marched into Paris.
Rick: Not an easy day to forget.
Ilsa: No.
Rick: I remember every detail. The Germans wore gray, you wore blue.

 

[pinball1970]

I watched the big sleep twice and got bored/lost twice, it is 39 on rotten tomatoes.

The only thing I remember was how far apart Lauren Bacall ‘s eyes were, I could not decide whether she was unusually striking or just unusual.

 

[Klystron]

I watched the big sleep twice and got bored/lost twice, it is 39 on rotten tomatoes.

The only thing I remember was how far apart Lauren Bacall ‘s eyes were, I could not decide whether she was unusually striking or just unusual.

Consider the source. I guess Raymond Chandler was 'popular'. Get past the 'nekkid ladies' and obvious plot twists, there is no substance. Chandler is a pale imitation of Jim Thompson and Dashiel Hammett. In comic book terminology Sam Spade could kick Phillip Marlowe's bootee.

For Bacall at her best I recommend "Have and Have Not" and "Key Largo". Young Lauren Bacall on her own in Martinique teamed with Hoagy Carmichael on the piano sends Bogie and Brennan into a tizzy. If "Have" was Pappa Hemingway's weakest novel, it shows how a good writer towers over the mediocre, drunk on a bad day.

"Key Largo" was adapted from a play and retains the claustrophobic confines of the stage, even on the open water -- the boat is tiny and the weather cloudy after the hurricane. Much of the dialog is whispered or talked over, one-sided over telephones; not unlike real life. Bacall looks more mature, thin and elegant, the model of how she appears for the rest of her long career.

[Edit: removed mistaken section on Chandler. From memory must have mixed up authors in a genre I rarely read. Thanks @PeroK ]

 

[DennisN]

The idea is that 'all bets are off' at Rick's Casablanca Casino; standing rules no longer apply. Rick drinks with customers. French loyalists out sing the Waffen SS. Bulgarian refugees win big money on a gaffed (rigged) table. With Ilsa standing there in the flesh, a forbidden song is not going to remind Rick of happier days in pre-war Paris. He has found his "Object of Desire", or she has found him. What will he do with her?

You remember well.

"The idea is that 'all bets are off' at Rick's Casablanca Casino"

I think that is also a good description of the movie itself for a person who has not seen it. There are quite many characters whose motivations, choices and destinies hang in the balance in the movie, and some until the very end. All this I think add to making it a very interesting and multifaceted story:

(Spoiler warning! Please do not read the spoilers below if you want to see the movie with a fresh, open mind!)

Spoiler

First of all, Rick Blaine, of course. He had been helping underdogs against fascists before, but became disillusioned and cynical after Paris, when the Germans arrived and he lost Ilsa. Now he appears selfish and coldhearted, but some characters in the movie do not believe he really is, and it turns out they are correct. And this is evident when he helps the Bulgarian refugees very selflessly.

But what he will do regarding his love interest is still uncertain. He knows how he felt after he lost Ilsa, and if he chooses to go between Victor Laszlo and Ilsa, he knows that he might make Laszlo disillusioned and thus severely injure one of the most important resistance leaders. What will he do? Choose selfish love or choose the greater good?

Ilsa Lund is also herself caught in a dilemma, between two love interests.

Captain Louis Renault is very much an opportunist with few scruples, and it is uncertain throughout the movie if he is a complete turncoat or not. This makes him a very interesting and important character in the movie, as there is no way of being sure of what he will do. Yet he seems to have some emotional connection to Rick. But it is not until the very end we get to know what Renault chooses. The very last scene of the movie is Rick and Renault walking away together, when both of them seem to have decided to join the fight again.

Signor Ferrari, who owns the Blue Parrot, is Rick's competitor, and he also seems to be a shady character with unknown motivations except for that of making money.

The fate of Rick's Café Américain, which is part a gambling den, also hangs in the balance throughout the movie. Ferrari wants to buy Rick's cafe, and when he is turned down, he tries to get Sam, the piano player, to work at his place. The café is also the central place of various drama, and later, Rick's place finally gets shut down. Rick finally sells it, while making sure that his former employees stay employed there.

Last, but not least, there are many clever and fun dialogues in the movie, like when Renault asks Rick why he is in Casablanca:

Renault: "What in heaven’s name brought you to Casablanca?"
Rick: "My health, I came to Casablanca for the waters."
Renault: "The waters? What waters? We’re in the desert."
Rick: "I was misinformed."

All in all very enjoyable, in my opinion .

 

[DaveC426913]

Thanks Dennis for that insight. I had never watched the film with an eye to the larger picture of the war and Rick's history with it. It sure puts a whole different spin on that last line by Renault.

I can't wait for the sequel. Hopefully they'll show how Louis went from being a police captain to an automobile magnate.

 

[pinball1970]

You remember well.I think that is also a good description of the movie itself for a person who has not seen it. There are quite many characters whose motivations, choices and destinies hang in the balance in the movie, and some until the very end. All this I think add to making it a very interesting and multifaceted story:

(Spoiler warning! Please do not read the spoilers below if you want to see the movie with a fresh, open mind!)

Spoiler

First of all, Rick Blaine, of course. He had been helping underdogs against fascists before, but became disillusioned and cynical after Paris, when the Germans arrived and he lost Ilsa. Now he appears selfish and coldhearted, but some characters in the movie do not believe he really is, and it turns out they are correct. And this is evident when he helps the Bulgarian refugees very selflessly.

But what he will do regarding his love interest is still uncertain. He knows how he felt after he lost Ilsa, and if he chooses to go between Victor Laszlo and Ilsa, he knows that he might make Laszlo disillusioned and thus severely injure one of the most important resistance leaders. What will he do? Choose selfish love or choose the greater good?

Ilsa Lund is also herself caught in a dilemma, between two love interests.

Captain Louis Renault is very much an opportunist with few scruples, and it is uncertain throughout the movie if he is a complete turncoat or not. This makes him a very interesting and important character in the movie, as there is no way of being sure of what he will do. Yet he seems to have some emotional connection to Rick. But it is not until the very end we get to know what Renault chooses. The very last scene of the movie is Rick and Renault walking away together, when both of them seem to have decided to join the fight again.

Signor Ferrari, who owns the Blue Parrot is Rick's competitor, and he also seems to be a shady character with unknown motivations except for that of making money.

The fate of Rick's Café Américain, which is part a gambling den, also hangs in the balance throughout the movie. Ferrari wants to buy Rick's cafe, and when he is turned down, he tries to get Sam, the piano player, to work at his place. The café is also the central place of various drama, and later, Rick's place finally gets shut down. Rick finally sells it, while making sure that his former employees stay employed there.

Last, but not least, there are many clever and fun dialogues in the movie, like when Renault asks Rick why he is in Casablanca:

Renault: "What in heaven’s name brought you to Casablanca?"
Rick: "My health, I came to Casablanca for the waters."
Renault: "The waters? What waters? We’re in the desert."
Rick: "I was misinformed."

All in all very enjoyable, in my opinion .

Brilliant, however.
I am getting conscious this is starting to get a little Casablancacentric so..
I am going through various lists to see if there are any other major disappointing ones

 

[DennisN]

Thanks Dennis for that insight. I had never watched the film with an eye to the larger picture of the war and Rick's history with it. It sure puts a whole different spin on that last line by Renault.

Thanks, the movie was quite fresh in my mind since I saw it just a couple of days ago, and my impression of it was a bit different and more detailed than the first time I saw it.

I am getting conscious this is starting to get a little Casablancacentric so..

I will do so too .

 

[PeroK]

I watched the big sleep twice and got bored/lost twice, it is 39 on rotten tomatoes.

The only thing I remember was how far apart Lauren Bacall ‘s eyes were, I could not decide whether she was unusually striking or just unusual.

The plot of the film of The Big Sleep is somewhat simplified from that of the book.

 

[pinball1970]

The plot of the film of The Big Sleep is somewhat simplified from that of the book.

I was somewhat distracted both times but yes I got lost

 

[PeroK]

Consider the source. I guess Raymond Chandler was 'popular'. Get past the 'nekkid ladies' and obvious plot twists, there is no substance. Chandler is a pale imitation of Jim Thompson and Dashiel Hammett.

Chandler pre-dates Thompson, so cannot be an imitation.

I prefer Chandler to Hammett. Funnily enough, for the reasons you gave, except that I found Hammett lacked substance. Marlowe seems to me at least a more complex character than Spade.

 

[pinball1970]

Peters friends 1992, pretentious, unfunny, rambling and plotless.

 

[Klystron]

Chandler pre-dates Thompson, so cannot be an imitation.

I prefer Chandler to Hammett. Funnily enough, for the reasons you gave, except that I found Hammett lacked substance. Marlowe seems to me at least a more complex character than Spade.

I confess to rarely reading old time 'detetctive' now mystery genre novels. I only meant to comment on source material as differentiating 'classic' movies with similar actors. I read Hammett when he was assigned by uni English teachers as a local San Francisco (Bay Area) author. In a related Film Studies class we visited scenes from Hammett's novels and films adapted from his work and also a street named for him.

I got interested in Thompson after seeing movies adapted from his novels such as "Farewell, My Lovely", the many versions of "The Getaway", "After Dark, My Sweet" and the brilliant film "The Grifters". After researching Thompson on wikipedia I see he is a post WWII author. I must have mixed him up with Depression-era writers, probably William Lindsay Gresham.

 

[newbiegirl]

I watched the big sleep twice and got bored/lost twice, it is 39 on rotten tomatoes.

The only thing I remember was how far apart Lauren Bacall ‘s eyes were, I could not decide whether she was unusually striking or just unusual.

pinball1970 lol she does have wide set eyes by the way do you remember which episode in season 6 of House with JS Bach cello piece thank you

 

[DennisN]

There is an ET rip off I want to see and also Water world

It was a long time ago I saw Waterworld, and I remember that...
(No story spoilers below, but I put my thoughts in a spoiler to not taint the view of someone who has not seen it)

Spoiler

...I had mixed feelings about it. It had quite good potential, a decent story and if I remember correctly there were some cool things in it. But it somehow failed to reach its full potential, but I don't remember why. Maybe there were too many silly things in it.

And to be blunt and short, it's sort of a Mad Max 2 on water. Which could have worked.

 

[DennisN]

I found another list on Rotten Tomatoes:

http://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/100-best-classic-movies/

It included movies that weren't on the other list I posted.
Please note that the films are spread out on 5 different pages.
I didn't find any movie there I did not like, but most of them I have not seen.
Maybe there are movies on that list other PF:ers have opinions about, or gets a desire to see...

 

[DaveC426913]

http://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/100-best-classic-movies/

I've only seen 39 of them.

It's a bit tough to be sure. Some are so iconic I might as well have seen them, but can't be sure if I have actually watched them titles to credits. Some may be so long ago that I don't remember. Some it's hard to tell if I've seen the original or one of a dozen remakes (eg. Frankenstein).

 

[pinball1970]

pinball1970 lol she does have wide set eyes by the way do you remember which episode in season 6 of House with JS Bach cello piece thank you

I think it's either season 6 or 7

Here is the scene so care if you want to watch from scratch. SPOILER!

 

[OCR]

. . .do you remember which episode in season 6 of House with JS Bach cello piece. . .

The episode was a two-part season premiere titled. . . Broken .

The cellist, "Silent Girl" was. . . Ana Lenchantin .
Lol. . . My wife and I were very dedicated viewers of House . . . .

.

 

[pinball1970]

The episode was a two-part season premiere titled. . . Broken .

The cellist, "Silent Girl" was. . . Ana Lenchantin .
Lol. . . My wife and I were very dedicated viewers of House . . . .

.

The best series ever, made completely by Hugh Laurie's character. Genius acting