Neo-noir: All the colors of noir post 1970 on Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Walter Kittel]

Today's revisit involved another '70s film that might stretch the definition of noir a bit...

1971's Get Carter. Directed by Mike Hodges and starring Michael Caine as English gangster Jack Carter investigating the death of his brother Frank. I tend to think of this more as a revenge film in terms of plot, but the atmosphere and Caine's performance make this feel like a contemporary noir.

It has been sometime since I last viewed this feature and I forgotten (to some degree) the overall seediness and smut in the film that really contribute to a grim, nihilistic tone for the film. The film's cinematography is almost monochromatic during the opening chapter with only the blue of Caine's shirt exhibiting any color. Following the service for Jack Carter's brother the film takes on more color but it always tends to be desaturated. (I viewed this on HBO Max and not having seen this theatrically I have no idea how faithful the color rendition is to what was originally shot.) Certainly the tone of the film does not suggest the use of vibrant color.

The film is set in and around Newcastle in the north of England. Many of the settings for the film are gritty urban and industrial areas that are almost a character in the film. They help establish a very bleak and unforgiving aesthetic for the feature and really enhance the tone of the movie. In addition to the settings themselves, nearly every character portrayed in the film has some sort of vice or flaw with perhaps only Jack Carter's niece Doreen (played by Petra Markham) being a true innocent. And even she is touched by the corruption and vice that inhabits the fabric of this film.

Caine portrays a tightly focused character with the singular goal of determining how and why his brother Frank died. The characters in this feature who get in his way tend to regret it. I really love his performance in his film and he snaps off some fairly tight dialog at times. His character has the appearance of civility at times, but when circumstances or his mood dictate he can be a bastard. And is called such many times in the film.

This is another time capsule with the fashions of the very early '70s dominating the costuming - particularly for the younger female characters in the film. There are one or two club and party scenes that feature a style of music that further cement this film in the early '70s.

The final resolution of the film really reminds me of another film from this era, which I'll keep to myself for now as I may revisit that movie as part of this thread. Get Carter is a hard edged film that features a riveting performance from Michael Caine. Definitely recommended.

- Walter.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Today's revisit involved another '70s film that might stretch the definition of noir a bit...

1971's Get Carter. Directed by Mike Hodges and starring Michael Caine as English gangster Jack Carter investigating the death of his brother Frank. I tend to think of this more as a revenge film in terms of plot, but the atmosphere and Caine's performance make this feel like a contemporary noir.

It has been sometime since I last viewed this feature and I forgotten (to some degree) the overall seediness and smut in the film that really contribute to a grim, nihilistic tone for the film. The film's cinematography is almost monochromatic during the opening chapter with only the blue of Caine's shirt exhibiting any color. Following the service for Jack Carter's brother the film takes on more color but it always tends to be desaturated. (I viewed this on HBO Max and not having seen this theatrically I have no idea how faithful the color rendition is to what was originally shot.) Certainly the tone of the film does not suggest the use of vibrant color.

The film is set in and around Newcastle in the north of England. Many of the settings for the film are gritty urban and industrial areas that are almost a character in the film. They help establish a very bleak and unforgiving aesthetic for the feature and really enhance the tone of the movie. In addition to the settings themselves, nearly every character portrayed in the film has some sort of vice or flaw with perhaps only Jack Carter's niece Doreen (played by Petra Markham) being a true innocent. And even she is touched by the corruption and vice that inhabits the fabric of this film.

Caine portrays a tightly focused character with the singular goal of determining how and why his brother Frank died. The characters in this feature who get in his way tend to regret it. I really love his performance in his film and he snaps off some fairly tight dialog at times. His character has the appearance of civility at times, but when circumstances or his mood dictate he can be a bastard. And is called such many times in the film.

This is another time capsule with the fashions of the very early '70s dominating the costuming - particularly for the younger female characters in the film. There are one or two club and party scenes that feature a style of music that further cement this film in the early '70s.

The final resolution of the film really reminds me of another film from this era, which I'll keep to myself for now as I may revisit that movie as part of this thread. Get Carter is a hard edged film that features a riveting performance from Michael Caine. Definitely recommended.

- Walter.

I think Get Carter is built on the noir model and so is a neo-noir.

 

[benbess]

The reason I started this thread is because I don't think noir ever went away. They have made loads of them....

Agreed.

In 2021 there were at least four movies that I'd consider to be good neo-noir movies—Nightmare Alley by Guillermo del Toro, No Sudden Move by Steven Soderbergh, Last Night in Soho by Edgar Wright, and The Little Things by John Lee Hancock. I sometimes have a somewhat tragic view of things, which is I guess part of why these movies work for me.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

So, the next neo/color noir I am going to talk about here is one that I was really disappointed with when I saw it in a cinema upon its release. On paper I felt it had a lot going for it, good cast, great director, interesting idea for a remake. I did not go for it at the time though. I believe I had only seen the film all the way through two or three times. I recall catching pieces of it on television once and a while a long time ago and finding it a film that when I just saw a piece of it, caused me to dislike it even more. Basically the total opposite of a picture that you love and if you stumble upon it on TV you get sucked in to watching the rest of it, this just made me turn off the TV or quickly change the channel.

The picture is Michael Cimino's remake of Desperate Hours.



Now, when this picture was released Rourke had not yet begun his epic tumble from leading man to garbage can and Cimino's career as a director was still viable if on life support. Cimino and Rourke had made another neo-noir together in 1985 called Year of the Dragon and in typical Cimino fashion it was a giant, epic noir, but man was it beautifully filmed and acted. Making that one, which I will delve into at another time, a lot of fun. Desperate Hours was savaged by critics and mostly avoided by audiences and I felt at the time it was a huge drop off from their previous collaboration.

In truth at the time I just did not like a single performance in this film and they all felt off. The film is, again typical of Cimino, beautifully shot. In fact the picture opens with these gorgeous wide panoramic shots of a sports car racing down a road winding through the mountains. Stunning shots. I can hear Cimino justifying this sequence and taking a crew out to the middle of nowhere in the mountains to shoot it. It's beautiful, the rest of the picture is basically inside an upscale suburban house, so the wide-open spaces of the opening will enhance the feeling of claustrophobia in the house...sure, but you know that Cimino shot it like that because he just loved that winding road through the mountains and knew it would look amazing. It does and I love that he shot it. Does it really need to be in this film? Nope, it is beauty for beauty's sake. That's how you know it is a Cimino picture. It really makes little sense in the grand scheme of the story but it looks amazing. Really, it is a highlight of this picture and when I saw it in a cinema, I was completely swept up by it.

Rourke, up to this point had really been an electric actor. The camera loved him and he was just fantastic in front of it. Here, not so much. He sits and points at people a lot. He is basically asked to do the same thing over and over in the picture and he is playing a role that Bogart played in a better version of the story. Mickey just never really finds a groove with this part. It's not a terribly well written role but with an actor like Rourke that's why you give it to him, so he can take what is thin on paper and elevate it. He seems either uninterested or just never really knows what to do with it. So, it comes across a bit as Mickey just playing Mickey playing this guy.

Anthony Hopkins chews the scenery playing a character he sort of seems miscast as. He plays his character as this tough guy that is also a dad but one that is so tough he can out tough Mickey Rourke. I remember when I saw this in the theater I thought they should have cast someone other than Hopkins in this because he does not at all seem like a guy that will out tough Rourke. It makes that part of the story pretty hard to swallow. I sort of felt this about all the actors here though, it is a good cast but they all feel a bit miscast.

Cimino overheats everything here. All of the scenes are done in stagey and melodramatic ways but I believe intentionally to give it some of that old noir feeling. Lindsey Crouse plays a cop tough enough that she probably chews on bullets for fun. Mimi Rogers is the angry wife. Kelly Lynch gets to cry and show off her boobs (it's really kind of a shit role).

This is definitely not a good film and I think a lot of my early feelings about it were correct but the strange thing is...on this last watch on the recently released MVD Blu-ray of the picture (which looks great) I actually enjoyed it. I don't feel it is any better a picture than it was back when it came out but somehow on this run through, I had a good time watching it.

Sure, if you want to see this story, see the Bogart version but this sort of nutty, way overbaked version from two guys that were about to fall off a career cliff is...pretty interesting.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

A couple other things I will say about Desperate Hours. When I heard Cimino and Rourke were doing this it sounded like a great idea. Rourke as an actor up to that point was basically noir gold. He grabbed your attention in the awesome 1980s noir Body Heat. Pope of Greenwich Village was noirish. Was great in the horror noir Angel Heart as the detective chasing a mystery man and in Walter Hill's Johnny Handsome. Wonderful in the skid row type noir of Barfly. Plus as the hardboiled detective in Cimino's Year of the Dragon. So, in the moment Desperate Hours seemed a perfect idea.

 

[Walter Kittel]

I was probably one of the few people to see Michael Cimino's Desperate Hours theatrically. I was a big fan of Cimino's and Rourke's earlier films so this was a highly anticipated release at the time. I don't remember much about the film, but a general sense of disappointment. My memories are vague, but I do seem to recall that it was visually fairly striking.

I may have to pick up the MVD Blu-Ray just for the sake of nostalgia and to fill in another title in my collection of Mickey Rourke titles. Rourke really seemed like he was going places before it all fell apart. Loved him in all of the previous titles mentioned in the prior post. He turned in solid performances in all of the works from his early career that I had viewed. Notably Body Heat, Diner, and Rumble Fish; but The Pope of Greenwich Village was the title that really cemented my impressions of him as an actor and established his screen presence.

- Walter.

 

[John Norris]

Oh, and don't forget The Limey with Terence Stamp and Peter Fonda. Our Melissa George as The Limey's daughter

 

[Bartman]

How about some sunny neo noirs from the UK: The Hit & Sexy Beast?

 

[benbess]

There was another neo-noir from 2021 that somehow slipped my mind—The Card Counter, directed by Paul Schrader.

On the one hand, the fact that there were five good film noirs released last year would seem to show the enduring power of this genre. But on the other hand, the box office for these movies was not a lot compared to how much they cost to make. A subset of film fans appreciated these movies, but for the most part they didn't find a big audience. Perhaps they'll be more seen and appreciated as time goes by, but going forward it might be a challenge to get studio execs to greenlight future neo-noirs.

The Card Counter had a worldwide box office of $5 million. I don't know how much it cost to make, but it was a well made movie, and it has some big stars. Maybe at least $20 million, and lot more once advertising costs are included.

Last Night in Soho cost about $43 million to make, again before marketing, and had a box office of $23m.

The lavish period noir Nightmare Alley had a production cost of $60 million, and a worldwide box office of about $40m.

The Little Things apparently cost about $30m to make and brought about the same amount in at the box office.

Anyway, here's a question I sort of know the answer to, but might be worth talking about a bit: What's the difference between a crime film and film noir? There are clearly some grey areas and overlap.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Anyway, here's a question I sort of know the answer to, but might be worth talking about a bit: What's the difference between a crime film and film noir? There are clearly some grey areas and overlap.

I certainly agree that there is a grey area, which is partly why I have put genre qualifiers on a few of my descriptions.

Characteristics I associate with noir include:
- A lone protagonist, usually self destructive and/or self loathing.
- A pervasive sense of fatalism, particularly when the protagonist doesn't survive the film.
- Femme fatales, especially where a weak willed man is tempted into going down the wrong path.
- Rain soaked, gritty urban environments where one or more of the above traits applies.

Examples: Memento, Sunset Blvd., Double Indemnity, Blade Runner.

Crime films include:
- Depictions of organized crime or criminal gang films.
- Caper / heist films.
- Drug trafficking in its many forms.
- Murder / Revenge stories.

Examples: The Godfather, Heat, Tequila Sunrise, Mr. Brooks.


Complicating things is that one trait generally doesn't preclude another. For me, it can come down to the aesthetics of the film. What is the dominant theme of the film?

- Walter.

 

[Robert Crawford]

My definition of film noir is broader than most. With that said, I don't consider The Godfather a noir film, but a crime saga. However, I do consider Heat a neo noir film.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Heat is one of those 'tweener' films with both crime and noir characteristics. Personally, I believe the heist aspect of the film tends to be the most pronounced element in the feature, but I certainly can accept the idea that it is neo-noir.

- Walter.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Heat is one of those 'tweener' films with both crime and noir characteristics. Personally, I believe the heist aspect of the film tends to be the most pronounced element in the feature, but I certainly can accept the idea that it is neo-noir.

- Walter.

Noir is about characters making bad choices. IMO, De Niro and his crew made some bad choices with their last job which is why I consider it neo noir.

 

[filmnoirguy]

A favorite neo-noir is Body Heat (1981) with William Hurt and Kathleen Turner. Another is L.A. Confidential (1997) with Kevin Spacey, Russell Crowe and Guy Pearce. And I consider the great Pulp Fiction (1994) with John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson and Uma Thurman to be a neo-noir.

 

[benbess]

A favorite neo-noir is Body Heat (1981) with William Hurt and Kathleen Turner. Another is L.A. Confidential (1997) with Kevin Spacey, Russell Crowe and Guy Pearce. And I consider the great Pulp Fiction (1994) with John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson and Uma Thurman to be a neo-noir.

I know this thread is mainly on post-1970 film noir, but if it's allowed I'd be interested to hear from filmnoirguy and anyone else what their top ten or so favorite film noirs are from the classic era from the early 40s to the late 50s.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I know this thread is mainly on post-1970 film noir, but if it's allowed I'd be interested to hear from filmnoirguy and anyone else what their top ten or so favorite film noirs are from the classic era from the early 40s to the late 50s.

I don’t think that should happen out of respect to this thread’s OP and the motivation for this thread.

Furthermore, I think such a subject matter should have its own thread.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I was probably one of the few people to see Michael Cimino's Desperate Hours theatrically. I was a big fan of Cimino's and Rourke's earlier films so this was a highly anticipated release at the time. I don't remember much about the film, but a general sense of disappointment. My memories are vague, but I do seem to recall that it was visually fairly striking.

I may have to pick up the MVD Blu-Ray just for the sake of nostalgia and to fill in another title in my collection of Mickey Rourke titles. Rourke really seemed like he was going places before it all fell apart. Loved him in all of the previous titles mentioned in the prior post. He turned in solid performances in all of the works from his early career that I had viewed. Notably Body Heat, Diner, and Rumble Fish; but The Pope of Greenwich Village was the title that really cemented my impressions of him as an actor and established his screen presence.

- Walter.

Desperate Hours is not a memorable film, hence why you likely don't remember much about it. It has a lot of problems and once we are out of the mountains in the opening, Cimino has to shoot in a bunch of interiors where he is somewhat limited as to what he can do. There are all kinds of scenes in the picture that as I watched it I thought, "Well, that was an interesting approach to that!"

What really stands out to me about it is how he shot things and how he staged certain scenes. Crouse and the FBI set-up a base of operations to work out of that quite frankly is totally off the wall. It almost looks like the inspiration for the set was Dr. Strangelove's war room set. I mean there is a massive lighted Mickey Rourke headshot hanging above them among the other weirdness that no temporary FBI base of operations would have. It is kind of hilarious in the scope of it and then that we don't see it much so it seems built for just a couple of shots.

The opposite end of this is a scene in the front seat of a car between Crouse and another agent, where they light the scene by having the two of them each holding a flashlight and shining it in the other's face. It almost seems like "Well, we blew the budget on the mountain scene and the big FBI base of operations scene so we'll just use a couple flashlights to get this scene."

I was sitting there expecting one of them to say "Stop pointing that light in my face!" but no, they have their overheated chat like a couple of kids during a sleepover in a tent. I did laugh during this scene.

It is all very "Only in a movie!" kind of stuff. Where it once annoyed me this time I just had fun with it.

I agree Rourke had a really good run in the 1980s. This is basically the picture where that run ends. Things kind of end for both Rourke and Cimino with this film. I've read that this picture was taken away from Cimino and they cut it way down. I think his version was two hours or more. The picture does feel choppy. It feels like they are rushing through the thing as quickly as they can. However, it might be best this way because the performances in the film I am not sure would be fun to sit through for over two hours and the material dictates that this really should be a fairly short film. It is not material to build an epic around.

 

[Walter Kittel]

I agree Rourke had a really good run in the 1980s. This is basically the picture where that run ends. Things kind of end for both Rourke and Cimino with this film.

Looking at Rourke's IMDB resume, after Desperate Hours his next features are:

Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man - Sort of a 'high concept' guilty pleasure film (which probably belongs in the 'guilty pleasures' thread, BTW.) Not exactly an actor's showcase film.

White Sands - As I recall, Rourke did not have a lot of screen time in this film. Willem Dafoe and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio were the primary actors. I am not sure how it would hold up now, but I seem to recall enjoying this feature back in the day. Director Roger Donaldson was pretty effective with this sort of film and Rourke was okay in a very limited role.

The Last Outlaw - Haven't seen this in ages, but I did sort of enjoy Rourke's scenery chewing anti-hero in this film when I saw it on cable a long, long time ago. Actually, I wouldn't mind taking a look at this again.

The next film (in terms of my viewing) in which he had a significant role was 2005's Sin City.

Pardon the off topic trip down memory lane.

- Walter.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Well, White Sands is another neo-noir. Yes, Dafoe is the lead in the film and Rourke just plays a shady CIA guy in a supporting role. He's good in the picture and it is a better film than Desperate Hours. Rourke always had the right mix of slime and charm to fit in a noir picture. He was a great noir actor.

I believe I have only seen Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and The Last Outlaw once each. I recall little from them but I do remember I was not impressed with either picture. I think it was said Rourke was a real pain in the ass for the people making The Last Outlaw. He wanted his dog in the picture, I believe, which I think became a recurring request when we was hired in this timeframe.

I think Rourke likes to say he had a decade of not working but his resume shows he continued to work consistently with the biggest break he took seeming to be a couple of years. What really happened was he was in a string of bad pictures in the 1990s with probably just a couple of exceptions, White Sands and Coppola's The Rainmaker.

In the 2000s he has a bit of a surprise comeback in the Sin City pictures and The Wrestler and he does do some good work in some other films. However, mostly supporting roles because his star has faded at this point and plastic surgery has now transformed him into someone that is hard to recognize as Mickey Rourke.

He has a whole bunch of upcoming projects so, people still want to cast him but who knows what the quality of the work will be.

Those Sin City pictures that he does are also done in a noir style and they are a lot of fun.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Agreed.

In 2021 there were at least four movies that I'd consider to be good neo-noir movies—Nightmare Alley by Guillermo del Toro, No Sudden Move by Steven Soderbergh, Last Night in Soho by Edgar Wright, and The Little Things by John Lee Hancock. I sometimes have a somewhat tragic view of things, which is I guess part of why these movies work for me.

View attachment 148482 View attachment 148483 View attachment 148484 View attachment 148485

I do think these pictures getting made speak to the continued love for noir that is out there and that you can use noir in some different ways. Last Night in Soho is a noir ghost story.