Living vicariously through fiction

The Big Sleep (Hoopla)

This is for the 1978 version of the movie that's based on Dashiell Hammet's noir novel by the same name.

I'd say that the most popular adaptation of that story is the 1946 one--which is the first adaptation--with Humphrey Bogart as Phillip Marlowe and Lauren Baccall as Vivien Rutledge nee Sternwood. That's a movie I've watched a lot of times, and one I own in physical and digital formats. I love it backwards and forwards. As for the book…I read it almost 20 yrs ago and the most I can say is that it's v. much of its era. Obvs, certain things were softened for the 1946 movie due to the censorship code thingie that was in effect at that time.

But, when I found out that there's a 1978 version, my curiosity was piqued.

FTR, it follows the same premise as the book and the 1946 movie so, if you've read the novel or watched the Bogart film, this movie is mostly on track with those two.

The premise is abt Phillip Marlowe (played by Robert Mitchum), a private detective that gets hired by General Sternwood to assist him in a blackmailing case against the Sternwoods. At first, Marlowe thinks it's going to be easy. However, the more he gets involved, the deeper the rabbit hole goes.

I'd say that the best things abt this movie are James Stewart as General Sternwood and Robert Mitchum as Phillip Marlowe. They're both FANTASTIC actors who bring their A-game to a movie that's…not so great. Because Mitchum's got a laconic, slightly rebellious persona, I don't mind the fact that he's in early 60s at time of filming while, in the novel, the same character is in his early 30s. FTR, Bogart was in his late 40s in his version. So, yeah, Mitchum's a bit older BUT he's got the vibe and the presence.

Annnd that's pretty much it for the positive. This is a hella terrible movie, LOLsob. #SadTrombone


Do I have any criticisms?

For reasons I don't think anyone can explain, the setting was moved from California to London? Also, the only USians are Phillip Marlowe and the three remaining Sternwoods.

Secondly, the casting is just BAD outside of Stewart and Mitchum. No one else can act or, at least, embody the characters they're supposed to be portraying. Frex, there's Agnes, a secondary character that's still a little important to the overall plot. She's a secretary who is v. memorable in the 1946 version (played by Sonia Darrin in an uncredited role.) In the 1978 movie, she's played by Joan Collins. Even with her trampy vibes (per the character), she's not convincing enough.

As for the rest of the cast, well, their range goes from "super mediocre" to "oh, you poor soul. Who told you that you can act?"

The problem is that there are certain key scenes that are meant to be impactful, but the viewer can only laugh. Their acting is THAT crummy.

Also, since this is from the late 70s, there are several scenes of topless women (whether in photos or in a scene.) And, for reasons (I guess), every female character either decides to walk around without a bra OR they wear the equivalent of a handkerchief so their boobs are always bouncing around. Finally, the two main female characters (the Sternwood sisters) tend to mainly wear see-through tops just because. The violence is more in your face than expected. Many close ups of ppl with gunshot wounds, blood, etc. Finally, there are some 15-20 minutes toward the end of things that never happen in the novel. It goes somewhere but IHNI where that is.

One thing that surprised me was that this was the second out of two Phillip Marlowe movies starring Robert Mitchum.


Do I recommend this? No, LOL. It's a waste of time. LIke, Mitchum and Stewart try to do the best they can do, but it's not worth it. I'm giving it a 0.5 out of 5.


Queerness level

Don't even bother cuz there's none.


Le trailer

Watch on YouTube

OMG, I'VE COMPLETED THE FANNISH 50 FOR A THIRD TIME!!!!. NGL, I tried to make sure to have some stuff to talk abt BUT, at the same time, I wasn't fully sure it'd be enough to reach the finish line. 😅😅😅

In any case, I do plan to keep posting. At the v. least continue Noirvember and then a couple of posts for December. Woo-hoo to me, tho! 🥳

Suspense (YouTube)

A 1946 Monumental Pictures film that stars Barry Sulivan as Joe Morgan, Belita as Roberta Leonard, Albert Dekker as Robert Leornard, Eugene Palette as Harry Wheeler, and Bonita Grenville as Ronnie.

It begins with Joe, a drifter from the East Coast, who is now looking for work in Los Angeles. One guy tells him to talk to Mr. Leonard, the owner of an ice capade-type of show. Joe gets a job as a peanut seller. He's kinda 'meh' abt but, whatever. That is until Roberta (Mr. Leonard's wife) does her floor show. Suddenly, Joe is MESMERIZED, TAKEN, DROOLING, GAGA OVER THE HEAD with her. Afterwards, he begins to insinuate himself a little both with Roberta (i.e. pursing her romantically) and with Mr. Leonard (by showing him that he's got what it takes to be the general manager of the show).

After a promotion as Assistant Stage Manager, Joe redoubles his efforts to woo Roberta. Meanwhile, there's a woman named Ronnie who shows up back in Joe's life. It seems they have some history; Ronnie's DETERMINED to try to win him back, I guess?

Despite sounding like some melodrama, this is a 100% noir film. It deffo has the beats (questionable pasts for several characters, business that might or might not be on the level, Roberta AND Ronnie being femme fatales, Joe's obsession with Roberta, and the cinematography presenting the whole mess in fascinating shots.).

HOWEVER, the thing that makes this movie stand out from other noirs is that Belita (the actress portraying Roberta) was an ex-Olympic ice skater. So there are a lot of scenes where she's doing her thing on ice. And, like, at first, it sounds v. gimmicky. How the hell is noir gonna mix with someone skating on an ice rink? IDK what to tell you other that it all works really well, LOL.

The acting, lighting, and dialogue are all good!

I liked Barry Sullivan the most out of the cast. His portrayal of Joe as a guy who is dark in a way that is obnoxious but intriguing. Belita's Roberta is such a mystery. IHNI what her game was until near the end.


Do I have any criticisms?

Out of the 7 ice skating sequences, there were two scenes that I was v. meh abt. I kinda wish they'd been cut from the final edit.


Do I recommend it?

Yes! I know it's a weird premise, but the movie has a tight plot. I'm giving it a 4 out of 5. I think the only place it's currently available is YT right now.


Queerness level:

Non-existent, maybe? I'm kinda 🤔at Mr. Leonard cuz there are some vibes I picked up abt him and Joe that made me go "HMMMMMMMMMM".

And so, we arrive at November and the first of several posts abt film noirs I've watched.


Niagara (Hoopla)

From 1953, this film is a surprisingly intense movie.

Ray (Casey Adams) and Polly (Jean Peters) are a married couple who are enjoying their honeymoon some three years after their wedding. The plan is to spend a longish weekend at Niagara Falls AND for Ray to also do a bit of networking with the main boss of his company. ANYWAYS, once they get to the lodge place, they find out that there's another couple staying in the cabin they'd reserved.

Rose (Marilyn Monroe) manages to convince everyone to allow them stay a bit longer in the cabin because George (Joseph Cotten), her husband, is recovering from something after leaving the hospital. FWIW, there's a lot of tension between them. It's not clear how long they've been married, but George is not okay. Meanwhile, Rose treats him with a lot of contempt. The rest of the time, she likes to poke at his jealousy for funsies? Their dynamic is v. odd.

Ray and Polly do the tourist-y things, generally having a good time. During one of the excursions, Polly happens to find out that Rose is stepping out on George with someone else…

It had been at least 15 yrs since I first watched this movie. In all truth, I don't think I paid that much attention the first time around since I only had the vaguest of memories abt the plot this time around. The more I watched, the more I started to remember.

This is a FANTASTIC MOVIE FROM BEGINNING TO END. It's extreeeeeeeeeeeeemely noir: v. suspenseful, and gorgeously photographed. Marilyn Monroe was at the height of her power as a sex symbol. However, her role in this movie is the opposite of her happy-go-lucky, coquettish and ditzy persona. Rose is manipulative and will do whatever she needs to do to get ahead. So, if you're someone whose exposure to her filmography has only been the comedies (The Seven-Year Itch, How To Marry a Millionaire, etc), this is a movie that shows the depth of her acting talent.

OFC, Joseph Cotten NEVER made a bad movie. George is super complex yet easy to feel sympathy for.

The MVP is Jean Peters as Polly. She is a character who is kind and smart. At times, she shows lets some of her steeliness/backbone show and I applauded her for that. Especially at times when she's repeatedly dismissed by people (including her husband Ray who should've known better.) That said, it is because of her kindness that she's able to persevere. Peters was soo good that I want to check out other movies she's in.

As for the rest of the cast, everyone's fine?

Again, since the movie was filmed in Technicolor, the cinematography is AMAZING. Everything just pops off the screen. The movie itself is so engaging that, even when there are long scenes with little to no dialogue, viewers can't take your eyes off the screen. It's THAT good.


Do I have any criticisms?

There's a B plot abt Ray's boss (Mr. Kettering) who was obnoxious AF. Kudos to Don Wilson (the actor who portrayed him) for getting on my nerves, I guess. LOL. I think my annoyance was compounded by the fact that I really didn't care abt Ray. He was SUCH a loser.

I also don't know how I feel abt some parts of the ending (specifically the climax.)


Do I recommend it?

Hell fucking yeah! This movie has everything working so well that even the Mr. Kettering scenes weren't enough to deter me. I'm giving it a 4 out of 5.


Queerness level:

It's so low that one would have to jump thru many logic loops to come up with crumbs. :(


Le Trailer

IHNI WHY the trailer is in B&W given that the actual!film is a technicolor paradise, but there we are!

Watch on YouTube

Underskin is MY kind of beauty channel: in that they (I don't know what kind of pronouns the person running it uses, so I'm defaulting to "they") look at the creativity, business, and popularity angles. Everything is well-reseached, so even if the titles might be a tad clickbait-y, there's v. little (if any) room for weird/doubtful claims.

They've got videos on a lot of brands (from Fenty to Max Factor, r.e.m beauty, and more.) Here are some of my faves:

Watch on YouTube

This is one is super fascinating to me. Particularly cuz I was a teenager when The Body Shop was considered a good-to-upscale indication at USA malls. In addition to that was the marketing (appealing to cruelty-free and environmentally-centered products at a time where such labels were only a few years from total hippie-dom.) In any case, I love how deep of a look Underskin takes into the implosion of this once super popular brand.

Watch on YouTube

I do consider this video part 1 of why Pat McGrath as a brand has fallen out of favor within the beauty product world. Personally, I've liked some of their earlier products, but (v. mild spoiler for the video essay) I do agree with Underskin in that there's been a v. sad/unfortunate decline on the launches.

One thing I appreciate is how the video focuses on the brand itself and NOT Pat McGrath herself. She remains a v. talented MUA.

Watch on YouTube

And this is what I consider part 2. As the theme has to do with the Louis Vuitton x Pat McGrath collabo (launched back in late August this year. A controversial line that included $160 lipsticks. And there's the (alleged) shared PR packaging which FUCKING YIKES.

Watch on YouTube

I don't want to end this post on a downer/ragebait-y note, so I'm posting abt this cosmetic brand instead. It's also interesting in seeing a brand bounce back after a rather ho-hum, sort-of-plateau moment.