tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166297507174717122.post5525862175156711287..comments2024-03-27T21:42:56.131-05:00Comments on 1001plus: Junk MailSJHoneywellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13550007053995112090noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166297507174717122.post-57808378574794088192015-12-11T19:57:28.571-06:002015-12-11T19:57:28.571-06:00It leads one to strange expectations. If you see t...It leads one to strange expectations. If you see this one, you likely go into the Bette Davis version with subdued expectations. Watch Davis first, and this one can't come close to living up to her version. SJHoneywellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13550007053995112090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166297507174717122.post-21455690524804402002015-12-11T19:44:19.807-06:002015-12-11T19:44:19.807-06:00I watched this for one reason only, to see Jeanne ...I watched this for one reason only, to see Jeanne Eagels. I was familiar with her messy life and had seen the mediocre Kim Novak biography based on it, most of which was fiction, but had never actually seen the lady in anything. Of course there isn't much to see since she only made half a dozen films, only two with sound, and most of those are lost I believe. She was reputed to be electrifying on stage so I was curious to see if that translated to the screen.<br /><br />I didn't really think it did. She was an interesting performer given the allowance of several handicaps facing her...the newness of sound, her unfamiliarity with the medium, the brevity of the running time and the unsatisfying ending but based on this one film it's hard to fully judge her potential. <br /><br />I knew about Herbert Marshall playing the two different roles so that added a bit of interest to the film as well. <br /><br />I'm glad I caught it when TCM ran for those reasons but having done that I'd never feel the need to give it another look. Bette Davis's version on the other hand is one of her absolute best, both her performance and the inky dread that the film manages to convey with its wonderful cinematography and direction.joel65913https://www.blogger.com/profile/14526657073681774683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166297507174717122.post-33719280776208507732014-11-13T14:24:28.568-06:002014-11-13T14:24:28.568-06:00That's a good point. In the remake, there'...That's a good point. In the remake, there's not really much of anything in the relationship that leads to the murder and the focus is far more on the perjury.<br /><br />The 1940s version is far better than this one, and it's really the one to go with.SJHoneywellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13550007053995112090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166297507174717122.post-47334162523784076972014-11-13T09:08:43.336-06:002014-11-13T09:08:43.336-06:00That is interesting about Herbert Marshall! Also ...That is interesting about Herbert Marshall! Also interesting is that in the 1940 version we never meet the lover at all. I guess nobody could compete with Marshall's portrayal??marie_dresslerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06334550550983418668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166297507174717122.post-66486156083137651732014-11-13T07:00:36.829-06:002014-11-13T07:00:36.829-06:00Or Claus von Bulow.Or Claus von Bulow.SJHoneywellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13550007053995112090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3166297507174717122.post-69072169066894783502014-11-13T00:21:28.702-06:002014-11-13T00:21:28.702-06:00Maybe this movie reads better as a role-reversal c...Maybe this movie reads better as a role-reversal comedy about Oscar Pistorius.Kevin Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01328790917314282058noreply@blogger.com