|
|
Post by pimpinainteasy on Jan 15, 2019 4:17:03 GMT
a very enjoyable film despite the preposterous main plot, ridiculous sub plots and the long violent ending (which was sort of at odds with the rest of the film). a gambler/con man (mitchum) is paid $50,000 to go stay at a mexican resort. he is not really told what he is supposed to do there. the resort is host to a bunch of colorful characters - the sultry amazonian singer (jane russell), a movie star who acts in swashbuckling pictures (vincent price), a couple in which the husband is a compulsive gambler and a few others. the film takes its time to get going. there is a lot of character development and interaction between the characters at the resort (which i am sure was shot in a studio as there were hardly any outdoor shots). the stone walled bar at the resort made me long for a few drinks. anyway, it turns out that mitchum is to be bumped off because a mafia lord looks exactly like him and he can take mitchum's identity and reenter america. when mitchum is captured by the gangsters, jane russell (with whom he exchanged a few kisses) alerts the swashbuckling movie star and him and mithum take on the gangsters together. the action scenes towards the end went on for way too long and it was at odds with the film's first half which was quite idyllic and romantic. much of the action is set on a vessel and in the sea.
michum and russel shares great chemistry. there is an outdoor kissing scene during a plane landing with the wind beating down on them. that was well done. the film has a noirish beginning, an idyllic and romantic middle with very little suspense and an ultra violent ending. i enjoyed it even though i did not know what was going on all the time. it is a noir film with strong action adventure and romantic elements.
it is a shame that films like this do not get made anymore. the superhero movie has consumed films like this with a huge cast playing colorful characters.
(7/10)
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jan 15, 2019 5:01:26 GMT
That climactic fight, the extended action climax on a yacht at sea, is the stuff of movie legend. After the movie had wrapped and the director John Farrow had been released from the film, the producer, reclusive millionaire Howard Hughes (he had had control of RKO since about 1949), decided, several months after shooting had finished, that the ending was underwhelming. Farrow left in May. In December, Hughes hired writer Earl Felton and director Richard Fleischer to punch up the action in the finale. Story conferences went for another six weeks. In January 1951, “His Kind of Woman” was back before the cameras. Filming went on until the next May, a full year after the first wrap. The wacky ups and downs can be found in detail in Fleischer’s autobiography “Just Tell Me When To Cry” (1993) and, more recently, “Robert Mitchum: ‘Baby, I Don’t Care’” by Les Server (2001).
Last of all – and this one goes out to all the Ladies in the audience tonight – even though Robert Mitchum was a heavy drinker and party animal, he was usually in great physical shape. During most of the new footage shot for the picture’s New Big Action Set-Piece, Bob has his shirt off. Aficionados of the male physique will appreciate it.
|
|
|
|
Post by pimpinainteasy on Jan 15, 2019 5:42:52 GMT
Last of all – and this one goes out to all the Ladies in the audience tonight – even though Robert Mitchum was a heavy drinker and party animal, he was usually in great physical shape. During most of the new footage shot for the picture’s New Big Action Set-Piece, Bob has his shirt off. Aficionados of the male physique will appreciate it. i second this. in fact, the villain says at one point "let him sweat it out a little" referring to the bare chested MITCHUM. |
|
|
|
Post by telegonus on Jan 15, 2019 8:42:18 GMT
His Kind Of Woman: loads of fun; it makes almost no sense as a story. Kind of John Farrow and Mitchum's Beat The Devil (yes, I know others have said the same or similar things). The movie wasn't made with the same control that John Huston had with BTD, thus it's choppy, isn't nearly so fine tuned. Still, great cast; some choice dialogue; and the supporting players were well chosen.
Raymond Burr was a good villain; and he could convey menace well even as he lacked the bravura of more larger than life bad guys, whether little ones like Peter Lorre or big ones like Laird Cregar and Sydney Greenstreet. Burr might have been, with some vocal tweaking and tuning, more on a par with Barton MacLane, but he was maybe to refined as type for that more rugged kind if villainy.
But I digress; yes, the movie works like a charm for what it is. If I had to hang a label on it I'd call it more of a cult favorite sort of film than a classic.
|
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Jan 15, 2019 13:37:51 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jan 15, 2019 15:47:20 GMT
It's an odd one as far as film noirs go but a lot of fun. Loved Price in this. Jane Russell, god-damn!  |
|
|
|
Post by pimpinainteasy on Jan 16, 2019 2:17:15 GMT
It's an odd one as far as film noirs go but a lot of fun. Loved Price in this. Jane Russell, god-damn! yes, jane was so damn beautiful in this.
|
|
