Announcing the Have Yourself a Comic Little Christmas Blogathon

 

The blessings of the season upon you! The world needed a laugh! The Spirit of Christmas Comedy came and showed man the error of his humdrum existence.

(Not good? Ok, how about this...?) 

Behold! And God said let there be... comedy! And the light shone upon the season and the comedy was born! And God saw the comedy and declared it was good! 

(Oh, come on... I'm trying!) 

Let's just put it this way. Christmas is a happy time. Unless, of course, terrorists have invaded the building during your office Christmas party...

("Stop that! That's NOT a Christmas movie...")

Rachel of Hamlette's Soliloquy invited me to join in the fun of celebrating the holidays. Christmas movies, generally, can be categorized into several different genres. Many of them, of course, are family oriented, involving the interrelationship of characters in a traditional family milieu (Little Women).  Some involve the redemption of a character who, at the outset, is despicable, but experiences a change of heart (A Christmas Carol). There are also a smattering of films that turn Christmas on it's head (The Nightmare Before Christmas).

We are looking at yet another genre, one that could include one or more of the above categories, but also has some comedic twists mixed in. The topic, as such, is wide open. Humor can come from just about any direction. In the tradition of Hollywood, comedy has many different angles. Straightforward comedy with films like National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation compete with black comedies like The Ref and even the occasional irreverent "Christmas comedy-horror" film, like Krampus. 

The main theme for this blogathon is comedy and Christmas. As such, it is both wide-open and limited. We, of course, want Christmas themed movies (thus summer comedies are out, unless, of course, your choice is a movie set in Australia during Christmas. 1998's Crackers, for example), but we also want to focus on the fun and comedic side of the season (movies like A Midnight Clear and Joyeaux Noël, although endearing, are not really the thing we are seeking).

For this blogathon we are kick starting the season early to get your mood juices flowing. The official dates are Dec 5th and 6th. You could post a little early if you need to, or even a couple of days late. We are giving consideration that the ramping up of the season may be too intense, so it is coming at you early in the month as opposed to the week before...

If you need inspiration, here is a wikipedia list of movies we will accept. Or perhaps you have another one. Feel free to make a plea, as the above link is not the limited list.

The rules for the blogathon are as follows:

1. Choose a movie. We are allowing one duplicate, so if someone else has chosen your first choice, there is still an opportunity, as long as it hasn't been claimed twice.

2. Let one or both of us know of your choice so we can add it to the blog roll.

3. Grab one of these exquisite buttons Rachel made to adorn your post.

 

 

  

4. Let us know when you have posted your review so we can add it to the wrap up post on December 6th.

5. Have fun. Christmas is a fun time.

Merry Christmas!  ¡Feliz Navidad!  Joyeux Noël!  Mele Kalikimaka! (Or whatever your native version is.)

Blogathon Roll:

 

The Midnite Drive-In: The Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)  and It's A Very, Merry Muppet Christmas Movie (2002).

Hamlette's Soliloquy: The Santa Clause (1994). 

Dubsism: Christmas in Connecticut (1945). 

 

 

Pious Paladins and Holy Hand Grenades

 

The Midnite Drive-In has passed another milestone with this post!

Going back, since beginning this blog in 2015, my most prolific years were 2017 and 2018, when I managed to hit the mark of 85 posts. I passed that mark this year back in September, but it escaped my notice. So, at the time I did notice, I decided I was going to do something special for post #100. Admittedly, today's post doesn't mark any drastic difference from my usual stuff, but I thought that the movie ought to be at least something with which most people would be familiar, if not enamored. 

 

If you've been reading this blog for a while you are probably thinking along these lines:

Monty Python and the Holy Grail?? Haven't you covered that movie before, Quiggy?

Well, believe it or not, and I'm just as shocked as you are, it turns out that in the 11 years of writing this blog I have never actually sat down and wrote a piece on this classic.  I THOUGHT I had. I really did. But, I was looking at my movies list, the section of this blog where I try to keep an ongoing list of post entries, the other day, and I realized it was missing. Well, since I do have a tendency to procrastinate sometimes, as well as a tendency to forget to add updates to the archive, I thought it might be possible that I just never put a link to that entry in the list. So I searched the entire blog and sure enough it's not here. So I decided it was high time, and what better way to celebrate the 100th post...?

 

 (And there was much rejoicing!)

The Monty Python troupe came into my world the same way that it probably came into your world (if you are, like me, an American). That is, the original BBC production, Monty Python's Flying Circus, showed up in the programming on the local PBS station, which is where almost every British made show got it's start for American audiences back in those days. Anybody in my age range probably remembers seeing Masterpiece Theater or maybe Are You Being Served? (and there was an addictive program...)

The original show featured 5 British comedians (Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Jones, Eric Idle and Michael Palin, and an American transplant, Terry Gilliam), and the show was a sketch comedy featuring stuff that was a far cry from the typical British fare at the time on the BBC. Many of the sketches have gone on to become a part of the zeitgeist in modern times. Probably very few people of a certain age have never heard of at least some of them.

For instance: Who today hasn't heard of such lines as "NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!"? Or "You call that poor? We used to live in a shoe-box in the middle of the road!" (or a similar line...)? Possibly even "I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK!" will trigger a memory. 

When I was a college student there was a couple in my group of friends, who eventually got married, whose relationship got started because they both could sing/recite one of the songs from a sketch on the show... ("Emmanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable...") {This relationship was in 1989, but I could see it happening today...}

A typical episode would usually begin with a cold opening, often involving Michael Palin, dressed as an old man, struggling to reach the camera, collapsing just as he gets there, saying "It's..." and then the opening credits featuring Terry Gilliam's cartoon artwork and the theme music (which, surprisingly enough, was musically accompanied by John Philip Sousa's "The Liberty Bell", an American tune... go figure.)

The chaos of the show would include jarring sudden endings to a skit that were totally unexpected. And many of the "female" roles were played by Python members in drag. (Usually, only if the female character was supposed to be attractive, were the females played by real female actresses, and this was part of the irreverence of the show). 

I have the entire series on DVD now. I recently stumbled across it at a local resale place operated by one of the local churches, and got it for only $5.00(!!!)  

So, now, on to the review of Monty Python and the Holy Grail...

 

 (And there was much rejoicing!)

 

 

 

 Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975):

The film starts out with the credits, and those are a hoot, just in themselves...

 

(Hopefully that link above is still active by the time you read this, because I can't really give it justice in description...) 

In the year 932 A.D. (or maybe that's 93² A.D. 93 squared? That would mean this film actually takes place in 8649 A.D... Talk about post apocalypse devastation...)

 

Arthur, King of the Britons, is on a quest to garner brave knights to join him at Camelot, and from there for his quest to find the "Holy Grail". That is the basic plot of the film, although, essentially that's just the glue that holds the entire movie together.

What it really is is an excuse to throw a bunch of medieval times sketches together that center around said quest. And satire, to boot. You don't actually get a story, per se, but a series of tweaks and fidgets that are melded together around the "quest". But that, my friends, is what makes this whole endeavor so endearing.

So I won't spend a lot of time trying to point out any of the basic plot or it's relation to the legend of the "historical" quest surrounding it.... Rather, I am going to be looking at some of the various sketches.

 

(And there was much rejoicing!)  

The first segment involves King Arthur (Graham Chapman) approaching a castle to ask the lord of the manor to join his quest, only to be hindered by a couple of guards who argue with him. Mainly because instead of coming on horseback Arthur approaches with his servant, Patsy (Terry Gilliam) clashing two halves of a coconut together. The guards argue with Arthur about just how coconuts could have ended up in Britain...

 

The second scene involves Arthur arguing with an old man, Dennis (Michael Palin), and his wife [or mother] (Terry Jones) about the correct form of government in Britain. Dennis insists that king rule is akin to a dictatorship, even though Arthur claims a sort of "divine right" to rule.

 

The skits involve such things as a battle with a Black Knight (John Cleese) who refuses to yield passage over a bridge, despite losing both his arms and legs in a sword battle to Arthur ("It's only a flesh wound, you pansy!"). 

 

Another that has a band of peasants, (led by Cleese again) trying to convince a knight, Sir Bedevere (Jones again) to execute a woman they claim to be a witch ("She turned me into a newt!.... I got better..."). 

 

and Sir Galahad the Pure (Palin again) trying to fend off the amorous advances of a commune full of nubile females. 

 

(Every member of the troupe plays multiple parts throughout the film. Don't let that distract you, it's part of the fun...)

Eventually the knights do make their way to the ultimate hiding place of the Holy Grail, but to get there they have to not only face off against a guy who insists they have to answer three questions to prove their worthiness to pass on the bridge, but they also have to face off against one of the most vicious and dangerous monsters to ever appear on film.

(No. I'm not going to post a pic of that monster... why spoil the fun for someone who hasn't seen the movie yet...?)

 (And there was much rejoicing!)

This being a Python endeavor, the movie just couldn't end in a normal fashion, and if you've never seen it I won't reveal it but it is just as chaotic and irreverent as anything that came previously.

(Again, no pic. Watch the film...) 

 (And there was much rejoicing!)

Back in 2019 I had the opportunity to watch this film at a revival at a movie house. As I recall, I think I was only one of about three in the theater, which I thought was a shame, since it's such a classic. However, I give a nod to the fact that it was an afternoon showing on a work day and a school day, so it wasn't entirely unprecedented.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail was not exactly a resounding success in it's first week or so. But it did manage to make a huge profit after that first week. What with only a £250,000 production cost, it eventually garnered about £2.5 million by the time it's first run ended in the UK alone. Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 92% Fresh rating. Critics have been kind to it also. One of my favorites was one written by Charles Champlin, who said the film "like Mad comics, is not certain to please every taste. But its youthful exuberance and its rousing zaniness are hard not to like."

The film, I admit, does have some moments were the humor seems to drag a bit. I personally found the sequence where the troupe interacts with the "Knights who Say 'Ni'"  to be a little dull, but most of it has me sniggering even after the dozen or so times I've watched it.

That wraps up this "100th post" outing. 

(And there was much rejoicing!)

 

Drive safely, folks. And be sure to pack along the "holy hand grenade" when you leave the theater. You never know when it might come in handy.

Quiggy

 

 

 

 

Nothing is Real

 

This is my third entry in the Back in Black: Another Film Noir Blogathon hosted by Hamlette's Soliloquy and The Midnite Drive-In.

 

The film noir category of films may be firmly entrenched in most people's eyes in the 1940's and 50's, with it's ubiquitous femme fatales and private detectives and unscrupulous gangsters et. al. Additionally some more adventurous souls might include what certain people call "neo-noir", that genre which has all the elements of the classic movies, albeit in more modern settings and in color. 

I submit that there is a qualified third division of that theme in what has been referred to as "tech-noir", adding elements of science fiction into the mix. The header at the beginning of this piece features a poster from the film Blade Runner, which although it's setting is in the future, (or it was the future when the movie came out in 1982... although the setting year is now past {2019, in case you've never seen it}), has elements that could easily fit into any standard noir of the 40's. 

I submit that thematically film noir elements can appear in virtually any genre. I have yet to see a noir musical, but that doesn't mean it's not possible... Wikipedia lists as an adjunct to it's list of classic film noir movies both "noir westerns" and "noir comedies". As I have noted before, the first "noir" I actually watched, and the one that inspired my interest in the genre was a Steve Martin parody of the film noir genre, Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid (which I highly recommend...) 

 

 

 The Thirteenth Floor (1999): 

Firstly: Read the top part of that movie poster above: Question Reality. Remember that. Otherwise you are going to be scrambling for a grasp.

Secondly: I HIGHLY recommend you go watch this movie before reading another word. Trust me. There is no way I can talk about this movie without revealing stuff that is intricate to the whole story. If you thought The Matrix was complex you'll be just as lost without a road map reading this review. And spoiler alert applies for the entire damn review. Go watch it first. You've been warned.

The film opens in a familiar setting for anyone who is well acquainted with the classic film noir setting; a standard late 1930's world, in which an older man (Armin Mueller-Stahl), is out dining and dancing in typical 1930's fashion. 

 

 

 

 

 

He leaves a message with the bartender, Ashton (Vincent D'Onofrio), to be given when called for by someone named "Douglas Hall". 

 

But then reality shifts. It turns out that the 1930's world is part of a virtual reality simulation that had been created by Hannon Fuller (Mueller-Stahl, again) and Douglas Hall (Craig Bierko). Hannon had been testing out the VR game, without the knowledge of his partner.

 

 

It seems that there is something going on in the real world that Hannon wanted to clue his partner in on. But, wait! Just before Hannon can contact Douglas he is murdered. And guess who the prime suspect is...? If you said Douglas, well, congratulations! You are officially at least a film noir novice, if not an expert.

The police, especially Detective Larry McBain (Dennis Haysbert), think that Douglas is guilty. And to make matters more complicated, Douglas seems to have trouble remembering where he was when Hannon was murdered. Also evidence keeps pointing it's accusatory finger at him as, indeed, being the guilty party.

 

Appearing on the scene is Jane Fuller (Gretchen Mol), who claims to be the daughter of Hannon. Except that Douglas, who has known Hannon for years, was not aware that he even had a daughter. 

 

Douglas, who initially isn't quite sure whether he is innocent or guilty, decides to enter the VR world to look for clues. One of the first clues he actually discovers is that the virtual reality characters are more or less real, at least in their own minds. They are living lives independently of the interaction with the virtual reality players.

 

 

Lost yet? Go back up and read the first sentence of this blog entry...

 

 

As Douglas enters the world he finds that he is actually taking over a simulacrum of himself, only this character is known by his associates in the VR world as "John Ferguson" (also Bierko). And he meets up with the VR persona of Hannon who is a book dealer named "Grierson". He also meets the bartender, Ashton,, who turns out to be another simulacrum of an associate of his in the real world, Whitney (also D'Onofrio). But when he gives his name to Ashton, the bartender acts like he's never even heard the name "Douglas Bell", even though the older man, who was Hannon in the Grierson simulacrum had specifically named Douglas as the recipient of the note. 

See, in the 30's VR world, after Hannon/Grierson left, Ashton had opened the note and read it. We later find out that the note informed Douglas that reality is not what it seems. Ashton deduces the fact from the note that the '30's world is only a false world. And had even proven it to himself by going beyond the barriers in the simulation and discovering it for himself.

Only, now if you are paying attention, that would mean that Hannon was trying to tell Douglas that the virtual reality was just virtual reality. But then, why would Hannon try to tell Douglas something he already knew in the first place?

Go back up and read that first sentence again, if you've already forgotten it...

Because, as you've probably deduced by this point, the "real" world that Douglas knows is not so real as he had assumed.

 

 It turns out, of course, that "Douglas" did actually kill "Hannon", but it wasn't "Douglas" that killed "Hannon". There are even more plot twists yet to come.

Remember that first sentence now?

The Thirteenth Floor has elements of what I like about Philip K. Dick stories and films. Dick's overriding theme in many of his books is that reality is not always so cut and dried. Ever see Total Recall? Or A Scanner Darkly? Or Minority Report? The whole concept of what we think we know not necessarily being the real thing is a common theme in his books, and although this story was not written by Dick, I would be willing to bet that the author of the original novel this movie was based on, Simulacron-3 (by Daniel F. Galouye), was inspired by Dick's work. The original novel had a previous life in film in the form of a two-part German TV presentation "Welt am Draht" (1973), which I intend to give a watch sometime later next week. 

The film here barely made back it's original investment. It was budgeted at $16 million and only pulled in about $18 million in ticket sales. In the science fiction world of 1999, it competed for a Saturn Award as the Best Science Fiction film, but it had competition from the likes of Star Wars I- The Phantom Menace, Galaxy Quest and the eventual winner, The Matrix. It only has a 29% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which I think is a crime. It's not near as dense and confusing as it's competitor, The Matrix, nor does it drag as much as that movie. The only downside to it, as far as I can tell, is that it takes a bit more effort to grasp on to the intricacies of the science part. As far as the entertainment value, well, if you approach this film from a viewpoint that it is a gritty futuristic version of the classic film noir, you won't be entirely disappointed.

One could say that the "reality" of the simulated 1990's in the film is much more exciting than the humdrum existence of what was real for the 1990's (or maybe we are all part of a VR world now, and this world is just a distraction for an even more humdrum existence of the people controlling us in the "real" world. (BTW: in the film the actual real world was the future of 2024, so I can say I'm a little disappointed that the VR simulation that was effectively "predicted" to occur by now hasn't come to fruition. Science fiction often does that... I'm still waiting for my flying car that should have been reality by 2015, according to the Back to the Future films.)

That wraps it up for now. Drive safely, folks. Or, maybe you don't really have to worry about doing that...

Quiggy

 

    

 

Poison Pen

 

 

 

This is my second entry in the Back in Black: Another Film Noir Blogathon, hosted by Hamlette's Soliloquy and The Midnite Drive-In

 

 

In 1987 I was in the process of deciding where I wanted to continue my search for a college degree. By that time I had been working off and on in the quest, just flagellating in my decision of what area I wanted to focus. In that aim I had (finally) decided on a degree in history. I ventured south, to San Marcos, where the Southwest Texas State University (now just Texas State University) was putting the finishing touches on a new history department building. OK, to be honest, part of my decision was finding out that the female to male ratio of students was 2:1, but hey, I was 26... what do you think influenced me more?

While I was visiting the campus, parts of it were roped off, because a film company was using portions of it to make a movie. The movie was a remake of a classic film noir movie from the 40's: D.O.A.  The new film starred Dennis Quaid and Meg Ryan. Unfortunately I didn't meet either of them,  (It would have been cool if the producers spotted me and asked if I would be in a scene, but that didn't happen...) But, be that as it may, seeing the movie later on the big screen was a neat thrill, since by now some of the buildings had become familiar. And it's still fun now, even 40 years later.

For instance: There is a scene early on where the Quaid character wakes up in the Ryan character's dorm room. As he leans out the dorm window, it turns out that the dorm is what was, at that time, the university library (affectionately known as "the cheese grater" by locals).

 

Also, at a later point in the film, Quaid and Ryan go to a funeral. The church where the funeral is taking place is actually the theater arts building (thus explaining it's round shape... "theater in the 'round", y'know...)

The finished film was entertaining mostly because of it's (now) home town connections (although my current residence is no longer there...)  It had been filmed mostly in nearby Austin, although it is never really stated anywhere in the film where the location is. The bar that the main character, Dex, is in when he gets poisoned is The Continental Club, whose house band is on stage, Timbuk 3. (Remember them? Their biggest hit was probably, for you, "Future's So Bright I Gotta Wear Shades").  If you weren't familiar with any landmarks in the area you could easily suppose it was in California. Or Atlanta. Or Tampa Bay, Florida. Or some other southern US locale. (It is repeatedly emphasized how hot it is, and since this is taking place close to Christmas, you certainly wouldn't confuse it with Chicago or New York City, anyway...) BTW: a side note, that scene in the film that involves a tar pit? There is no tar pit in the Austin or San Marcos area. They built that thing for the film on the campus of St. Edward's University.  

 

 

D.O.A. (1988): 

As pointed out earlier, this is essentially a remake of the 40's classic Edmond O'Brien noir classic, so the film opens much as that older film did, with our main character, Dex Cornell (Dennis Quaid) walking the streets to his destination, the police precinct, where as it turns out he is going to report a murder, himself being the victim.

 

 

He begins by telling the police what has happened to him in the past 36 hours. It all began a day or so earlier, when he was still going about his duties. See, Dex is (or I guess now that should be was...) a professor of English. He is teaching his students, not in English, as much as I guess it was a creative writing class. One of his students, Nick (Robert Knepper), pressures Dex to give him some input on his creative writing assignment, but Dex hasn't actually read the tome that Nick wrote yet, so he brushes Nick off. 

 

 

Additionally in the class is a young student, Sydney (Meg Ryan), who obviously has a crush on her professor.  

 

 

After leaving the class he has a confrontation with a fellow professor, Corey (Jay Peterson), who is incensed that Dex passed him over and recommended another fellow professor, his friend Hal (Daniel Stern) to the dean for the next tenure slot at the university.

 

Shortly thereafter, while in his office, Nick falls to his death outside his office window. Suicide? Well, if that was all, then this would just be a straightforward drama and not a film noir...

Later, Dex has some brief confrontation with his soon to be ex-wife, Gail (Jane Kaczmarek), with whom he is still in love. 

 

 

(BTW: Just a personal note. It was a result of seeing Kaczmarek as a guest star on the TV show Big Bang Theory that inspired this blogathon. I had one of my "Hey! I know that girl!" moments. When I looked up her filmography I saw that she had been in this film, so I got with Rachel to do this blogathon just so I could review this film...) 

He goes to a bar where he ends up hooked up with his enamored student Gail. The next thing he knows he wakes up in Sydney's girls' dorm room. He overhears Sydney who is talking to her brother:

Sydney: "OK, Eddie, I give up where do the female reindeer go?"

Sydney won't explain the joke to Dex, but she does reveal that nothing happened between Dex and her because he passed out. He still feels like crap, however, but he initially thinks it's just a plain old everyday hangover. After Sydney leaves, Dex goes to the hospital where he finds out, to his horror, that he is dying from being poisoned and has less than 48 hours to live. 

 

 

Thus we get into the meat of the noir. Dex is not so willing to go gentle into that good night. (Would you?) He wants to know who the hell poisoned him. And a lot of red herrings are going to come our way as Dex stumbles around trying to get to the bottom of it all.

He becomes convinced at first that it was his ex-wife, whom he had just earlier discovered had been having an affair with his student Nick. But upon arriving at the house he witness her being murdered. Unfortunately, he only glimpses the murderer as he (or she) leaves, so like the mysterious "one-armed man" from the old TV series The Fugitive, no one believes him, especially the police.

  

  

Dex begins a long and somewhat convoluted search for his murderer. There are many missteps, as would be expected in a classic film noir outing. At one point he even suspects Sydney, since it was with her he was getting drunk at the bar and he finds out that the poison was somehow passed on to him through his drinking that night. He even pretty much kidnaps her and forces her to accompany him on his quest, even though he determines that she was not involved.   

Somehow, he determines, Nick's murder (I did say it wasn't suicide...) has some connection point. In the process of his investigations he discovers that Nick was the benefactor from a rich woman, Mrs. Fizwaring (Charlotte Rampling), who was paying for his college education. Ostensibly, the story is that his father tried to rob Mrs. Fitzwaring and her husband several years earlier. Even though Nick's father was killed after shooting her husband, Mrs. Fitzwaring was paying for his college education. 

 

 

The real reason she was doing is one of those neat little twists that you don't entirely see coming. But even that little revelation is not all of the story. Since this movie is not one of those I can assume  everyone has seen, I won't reveal how that story plays out, nor will I reveal the real reason Dex was killed, although if you are familiar with the "Macguffin" trope that was a part and parcel of many Hitchcock films, you might already have an idea of what the basic reason was, if not actually who was guilty.  That Macguffin crops up often enough it's hard to miss, even though it doesn't actually become relevant until late in the movie.

In the process to get to the end of the story, Dex finally gets Sydney to tell the rest of the joke. And it is worth the wait. "Where do the female reindeer go when Santa and the male reindeer are out delivering Christmas gifts?"

(I'll bet you're expecting me to tell you the punch line... Hah! Go watch the movie!)

D.O.A. was not a huge success, although it did manage a profit. It debuted at #3 that week, but tapered off pretty quickly. It's early success may have had more to do with the fact that it starred Quaid and Ryan, since there wasn't a heck of a lot of big name stuff out in early 1988. The biggest movies of the year didn't even start hitting the theater until that summer (this one was released in March). It got decent reviews. Roger Ebert gave it 3 out of 4 stars. It has an 89% Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

My opinion is that it is probably the best of the 6 (count 'em, 6!) versions of this theme, that of a guy trying to figure out who poisoned him. I admit I haven't seen all of them, particularly the recent 2022 version. A poorly received 1968 Australian version, Color Me Dead, and an equally pretty shoddy 2017 remake can't even compare, and even though I like the original, I will stand by that opinion. 

The best part of this film lies in the fact that Quaid can pull it off without over-stretching it. Which is more than I can say for Edmond O'Brien in the original. And that said with the caveat, like I say, I actually like the original. Just that sometimes O'Brien seems to be overdoing it in that one.

Come back tomorrow for the third entry in this film noir triumvirate, when I will be getting into what is often referred to as tech noir, a little film that impressed me called The Thirteenth Floor.

Drive safely, folks. And keep a watchful eye on your drinks,

Quiggy

 

 

The Back in Black Blogathon is Here!

 

 

"Film noir" has always been a favorite genre of film for me. As I have stated before several times I was introduced into the film noir world through a Steve Martin film which parodied the genre, but it inspired me to look for classics.

My friend, Rachel at Hamlette's Soliloquy, has an equal enthusiasm for this genre, so we teamed up for this blogathon. Over the next couple of days several other film noir enthusiasts will be joining us in celebrating what is often termed as "Noir-vember". Keep checking back periodically to see the great films that have been chosen. Additionally, it's not too late to join in if you have a last minute entry. Check out this link to the announcement page for the brief rules (and a definition if you don't know exactly what film noir is.) 

 

Blogathon Roll Call:

 

 

The Midnite Drive-In points out how the past never really disappears in Out of the Past. 

 

RealWeegieMidget Reviews focuses on a French couple's marriage in turmoil in La femme infidèle.

 

The Midnite Drive-In remembers hometown vibes found in D.O.A. (1988): 

 

Hamlette's Soliloquy shows what happens with a bunch of crooks with The Asphalt Jungle. 

 

 

Smoke in the Library covers another band of ne'er do wells in Odds Against Tomorrow. 

 

 

Bill LeFurgy gives film noir the silent treatment with The Docks of New York. 

 

 

Kristina's Speakeasy takes a look at doppelgangers with Hollow Triumph.  

 

 

Make Mine Film Noir delves into the world of Philip Marlowe with Murder, My Sweet.  

 

Diary of a Movie Maniac goes deep into the horror noir of Angel Heart. 

 

Movies Meet Their Match clues us in on early Hitchcock with The 39 Steps. 

 

Seven Doors of Cinema looks at the fringes of fantasy, of sorts, with The Woman in the Window. 

(There's also a video review: See the blog entry above.)

 

Crítica Retrô gives a look at Johnny Eager, which switches the standard gender roles of noir. 

 

Hamlette's Soliloquy defends her affinity for film noir vs. her faith. 

 

Whimsically Classic discusses the film noir of Ida Lupino. 

 

Happy Noir-vember to all.

Quiggy