|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 28, 2017 0:33:44 GMT
salzmank - It's been a while since I saw Breakheart Pass but I recall it as more a western spy/thriller than a whodunit, though the 2 can overlap. Interesting, OldAussie. I mean, it just kept coming up when I'd look for "whodunits," and it was recommended, so I'll still keeping an eye out for it. But thanks for letting me know!
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Mar 28, 2017 3:31:23 GMT
Have only seen a couple in each series BUT the Mr. Wong (Karloff) and Boston Blackie (Chester Morris) series seem to be fun. B movies for sure or possibly even farther along in the alphabet, but fun. Am a sucker for just about anything that Agatha Christie had anything to do with. Have a hierarchy of preferred actors playing Miss Marple and Poirot but am usually ok with whoever is playing the sleuth du jour. I am pretty flexible about casting. There are only a few Christie's that I actively dislike and avoid. "Appointment with Death" (both feature film and Suchet versions were muddled, perhaps the book is too, ages since I read it). I like the 2nd Thin Man .. After the Thin Man is the best of the three that I have seen. Less frantic than #1 and less silly than #3. Nalkarj btw . nice thread. thanks !
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 28, 2017 4:19:57 GMT
Have only seen a couple in each series BUT the Mr. Wong (Karloff) and Boston Blackie (Chester Morris) series seem to be fun. B movies for sure or possibly even farther along in the alphabet, but fun. Am a sucker for just about anything that Agatha Christie had anything to do with. Have a hierarchy of preferred actors playing Miss Marple and Poirot but am usually ok with whoever is playing the sleuth du jour. I am pretty flexible about casting. There are only a few Christie's that I actively dislike and avoid. "Appointment with Death" (both feature film and Suchet versions were muddled, perhaps the book is too, ages since I read it). I like the 2nd Thin Man .. After the Thin Man is the best of the three that I have seen. Less frantic than #1 and less silly than #3. Nalkarj btw . nice thread. thanks ! Thanks, Bat! Nice of you to say that. I used to prefer After the Thin Man, but, having seen the two close together, I have to say the first edges it out just by a hair now. (Part of that is two things: the silliness of how Jimmy Stewart goes from a calm friend to a raving maniac in a period of about eight seconds, and the cynicism implied in the fact that Jimmy's revelation as an evil murderer, and death, doesn't matter to Nora's family, with whom he has been friendly, practically a family member, for years. Unintentional cynicism on the part of the writers, who probably just wanted the wrap the thing up, to be sure, but still somewhat annoying.) Still, After the Thin Man is a great movie. I've not seen any of the Boston Blackie movies, but I have seen the first Mr. Wong picture, and it was quite good. Not great--obviously a b-movie, unlike, say, the Sidney Toler Chans, which went to great lengths to hide their b-movie nature, and Karloff's Wong is not Oriental in the least--but still very enjoyable for a rainy afternoon, with a novel twist on the murder method in the otherwise superior Charlie Chan in Egypt. I also am usually OK with the sleuth du jour. In fact, I may be the only person (at least, the only person I know) who actually liked Angela Lansbury's performance as Miss Marple in The Mirror Crack'd. Not one of Christie's best plots, but still a good movie, with Rock Hudson, Tony Curtis, Liz Taylor, and Kim Novak obviously having great fun in ridiculous roles. Most people seem bothered by Marple's smoking a cigarette, but, hey, if that's the only criticism, then there's not too much to complain about, is there? I've not seen Appointment with Death, and it's one of the few Christies I haven't yet read--mostly because I've read many opinions like yours, that it's just not very good! (Great title, though.) Thanks again, Bat! Much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Mar 28, 2017 4:53:20 GMT
Re: Angela as Miss Marple. She was fine if one had never seen anyone else playing Jane Marple BUT I had seen Rutherford and both PBS/BBC versions and had also seen her as Jessica Fletcher and so for me she was just pretending to be Miss Marple and wasn't really her. Ok, I know that "Mirror" was 1980 and "Murder She Wrote" was 1984 but dates and sequence details aside, I saw it AFTER seeing Jessica Fletcher and it just did not work for me. She was just physically too tall for Jane and too... well, wrong. Rutherford also not like the book Jane BUT she was my first JM and I had not read the books at that time so she seemed perfect. Mirror had all of those really big name Hollywood Stars wandering around in a Christie Manor but they seemed out of place and playing almost as if it was a satire. That was actually one of the Christies that I referred to as not being liked much by me. Re: Mr Wong. Some of the complaints in the user reviews about Karloff is the lack of sing-song-type-pigeon-English-stereotypical accent BUT it is explained that he is Oxford University educated and so would no doubt have picked up his usual accent. I need to find more in that series. RE: After the Thin Man. I had guessed the whodunit part but rejected the very idea as preposterous because of the casting even though he was not yet the perpetual good guy then. Nalkarj
|
|
|
Post by london777 on Mar 28, 2017 6:24:21 GMT
Skimming through all these suggested titles, many from my favorite posters here, made me realize for the first time how little this genre interests me, unless it overlaps with Film Noir, or spy stories, or certain directors. I shall stay out of your way on this one, guys.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 29, 2017 15:42:54 GMT
Re: Angela as Miss Marple. She was fine if one had never seen anyone else playing Jane Marple BUT I had seen Rutherford and both PBS/BBC versions and had also seen her as Jessica Fletcher and so for me she was just pretending to be Miss Marple and wasn't really her. Ok, I know that "Mirror" was 1980 and "Murder She Wrote" was 1984 but dates and sequence details aside, I saw it AFTER seeing Jessica Fletcher and it just did not work for me. She was just physically too tall for Jane and too... well, wrong. Rutherford also not like the book Jane BUT she was my first JM and I had not read the books at that time so she seemed perfect. Mirror had all of those really big name Hollywood Stars wandering around in a Christie Manor but they seemed out of place and playing almost as if it was a satire. That was actually one of the Christies that I referred to as not being liked much by me. Re: Mr Wong. Some of the complaints in the user reviews about Karloff is the lack of sing-song-type-pigeon-English-stereotypical accent BUT it is explained that he is Oxford University educated and so would no doubt have picked up his usual accent. I need to find more in that series. RE: After the Thin Man. I had guessed the whodunit part but rejected the very idea as preposterous because of the casting even though he was not yet the perpetual good guy then. Nalkarj Well, see, but your criticisms of The Mirror Crack'd are actually substantive--in other words, they're actual criticisms. Thanks! All too often, all I hear is "Angela Lansbury doesn't play a good Marple because she smokes a cigarette, and Miss Marple would never do that." (As you note, Rutherford is even less like the Marple of the books; I like her performance a great deal, though.) Possibly this superficial criticism masks actual criticisms about the movie that you articulate so well. Even so, I still enjoy the movie, but I can understand why others don't. ____________________ Re: Mr. Wong and Karloff. It's not the accent, or lack thereof, that troubles me. (In fact, I'm reminded of that wonderful scene in Charlie Chan in Paris in which the one character thinks Chan speaks stereotypical pidgin English--Oland's accent for the movies, while significant, is far from pidgin--and Chan calmly responds in educated English right back in his face!) Both Roland Winters and Peter Ustinov played Charlie Chan with an accent, and neither came off as actually Chinese to me--so it's not the accent that's the criterion. Rather, to paraphrase Ron Backer (in his intelligently-written book Mystery Movie Series of 1930s Hollywood), a little greasepaint and slicked-back hair don't turn Karloff into Wong. That is not to say it's a bad performance, however--just that, say, Oland, a Swede, looked far more convincingly Chinese. (According to the late Ken Hanke's Charlie Chan at the Movies, Keye Luke, "Number One Son," was amazed at how convincing Oland was. In fact, that book documents Luke's enormous affection for Oland, which makes the father-son relationship in the movies seem even nicer than it did already.) __________________ Re: After the Thin Man Actually, it was exactly the fact that Jimmy was so unlikely as the murderer that tipped me off that he was the murderer the first time I saw it. You know--the "least-likely suspect" ploy?
(The studios always liked casting a preposterous choice as the killer: Clara Blandick ["Auntie Em"!], Mary Nash, Roland Young, Spencer Charters--even Franklin Pangborn!--have all apparently been surprise killers at once point or another.)
Ironically, as you note, the filmmakers couldn't have been trying to utilize that ploy, because he wasn't a big star at that point! Still, his revelation as murderer doesn't bother me, but the fact that the whole Forrest family doesn't care about him once he is revealed as murderer does bother me a bit.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Mar 30, 2017 3:21:46 GMT
Last of shiela.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 30, 2017 16:45:33 GMT
Which is, absolutely, a great choice.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 30, 2017 16:53:39 GMT
By the way, I may as well ask this question on this thread: Has anyone here seen The Phantom of Crestwood ('32), The Name of the Rose ('86), or Zero Effect ('98)? Scott Ratner (posting under the name "Freddybastion"), who's something of a student of the mystery genre, recommended them here. They're all interesting whodunits, though none of them was so good that I put it on my "best of" list. Phantom boasts a fine performance from Karen Morley in particular and is a good old dark house thriller, Rose is most interesting for its evocation of medieval life (and just for having Sean Connery in it!), and Zero Effect has a surprisingly intelligent version of the Sherlock Holmes-in-modern-times story, which it does more realistically (IMO), if less obviously, than the BBC series Sherlock. Has anyone else seen any of these?
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Mar 30, 2017 18:41:34 GMT
By the way, I may as well ask this question on this thread: Has anyone here seen The Phantom of Crestwood ('32), The Name of the Rose ('86), or Zero Effect ('98)? Scott Ratner (posting under the name "Freddybastion"), who's something of a student of the mystery genre, recommended them here. They're all interesting whodunits, though none of them was so good that I put it on my "best of" list. Phantom boasts a fine performance from Karen Morley in particular and is a good old dark house thriller, Rose is most interesting for its evocation of medieval life (and just for having Sean Connery in it!), and Zero Effect has a surprisingly intelligent version of the Sherlock Holmes-in-modern-times story, which it does more realistically (IMO), if less obviously, than the BBC series Sherlock. Has anyone else seen any of these? Not sure I've seen the other two, but I recall feeling that The Name Of the Rose's transposition of the whodunit genre to the medieval period was quite harmonious, providing tons of atmosphere. The film's tone anticipates that of Derek Jacobi's Cadfael mysteries that aired on U.S. PBS stations in the '90s (although the first publication of the stories on which they were based predates that of The Name of the Rose), which were most enjoyable.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 30, 2017 23:54:44 GMT
Thanks as always for responding, guys! spiderwort, I'm not surprised that you don't remember The Name of the Rose--it's not the most memorable movie--and I'm not sure I'd remember it myself were it not for (1) the fact that I tried and failed to tackle Umberto Eco's enormous tome of the same name, on which it's based, and (2) the fact that it's easily the most confusing murder-mystery movie I've ever seen, even in a genre filled with confusing plots. Still, its evocation of medieval life is effective, and Connery's performance is quite good. Doghouse6, I agree that the whodunit genre and the medieval setting were harmonious, but more, I think, in terms of atmosphere than plot (which really is awfully confusing and not very satisfying). I liked all the references to the outré religious sects that dotted the landscape in the period, an area of study in which I have some interest, and how they furnished the motive, but, even after the credits rolled, I had no idea what the murderer's plan was! (And it was not supposed to be confusing, unlike in Eco's book.) Still, as I noted above, there are good elements to it as well. Zero Effect has its good points, especially for the Sherlock Holmes connoisseur, but I would more recommend Phantom of Crestwood, which has a good Pre-Code set-up and tells its tale well, even if the puzzle plot is somewhat lacking. Thanks again!
|
|
|
Post by OldAussie on Mar 31, 2017 0:11:09 GMT
I quite liked The Name of the Rose, enough to read the novel which was VERY heavy going. Film - worth seeing. Novel - not so much.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 31, 2017 8:58:30 GMT
salzmank - It's been a while since I saw Breakheart Pass but I recall it as more a western spy/thriller than a whodunit, though the 2 can overlap. ... that is how I remember Breakhart Pass as well.
|
|
|
Post by fangirl1975 on Mar 31, 2017 19:06:40 GMT
D.O.A. starring Edmond O'Brien.
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Mar 31, 2017 20:41:11 GMT
Thanks as always for responding, guys! spiderwort , I'm not surprised that you don't remember The Name of the Rose--it's not the most memorable movie--and I'm not sure I'd remember it myself were it not for (1) the fact that I tried and failed to tackle Umberto Eco's enormous tome of the same name, on which it's based, and (2) the fact that it's easily the most confusing murder-mystery movie I've ever seen, even in a genre filled with confusing plots. Still, its evocation of medieval life is effective, and Connery's performance is quite good. Doghouse6 , I agree that the whodunit genre and the medieval setting were harmonious, but more, I think, in terms of atmosphere than plot (which really is awfully confusing and not very satisfying). I liked all the references to the outré religious sects that dotted the landscape in the period, an area of study in which I have some interest, and how they furnished the motive, but, even after the credits rolled, I had no idea what the murderer's plan was! (And it was not supposed to be confusing, unlike in Eco's book.) Still, as I noted above, there are good elements to it as well. Can't think of a thing with which to disagree here salzmank. Truth be told, there are any number of whodunits from which I've derived satisfaction only in the "getting there" and none in the "revelation." I'm really not the best judge anyway, as I've been left befuddled by more than a few summations by investigators official or ad hoc that went something like, "By the time McReedy realized Iris was double-crossing him with Thompson, Douglas was on to Kitty's blackmail scheme, so Moretti's life wasn't worth a plugged nickel. But Barbara already had the goods on Martin, so Cynthia had to be silenced. That's when Raymond saw his chance, because he'd never forgiven Davis for what he did to his father, and once Kathryn's diary was in his possession, he confronted Jameson and then arranged for Smitty to put the squeeze on Fallon. And there you have it: Maurice is the killer."
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Mar 31, 2017 22:56:15 GMT
Sure, Doghouse6 . Go ahead and reveal the entire plot of one of Hollywood's best WhoDunnits ever ! And even the name of the actual killer: Happy Early April 1
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Apr 1, 2017 0:23:44 GMT
Sure, Doghouse6 . Go ahead and reveal the entire plot of one of Hollywood's best WhoDunnits ever ! And even the name of the actual killer: Happy Early April 1
It just slipped out. To protect the innocent, I'd intended to change the names to Who, What, I Don't Know, Today, Tomorrow, Why, Because and I Don't Give A Damn. But now you know too much... (My birthday's ten days away, so I've always been an April fool.)
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Apr 1, 2017 2:24:26 GMT
That's ok, Bud. That plot sure was a LouLou wasn't it ? Doghouse6
|
|
|
Post by Doghouse6 on Apr 1, 2017 20:31:12 GMT
That's ok, Bud. That plot sure was a LouLou wasn't it ? Doghouse6 Abbottso Loutely. A pungent observation, to be sure. I might even say a home run. This being the first, you're clearly the Who that's on. No mystery there.
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Apr 3, 2017 17:54:54 GMT
[SPOILER FOR THE LAST OF SHEILA--DON'T LOOK UNTIL YOU'VE SEEN IT, BAT!]
Oh, great, guys, now you've got me trying to come up with a murder mystery plot based around the "Who's on First?" routine, just as the "SHEILA" code was based on the six secrets. Expect that novel to come to book stores next April 1.
|
|