What's this about?

Lately, it seems like many of the movies/shows are just a rehash or reboot of things that have already been done. And so I started to dive into the past. It's been fun, but I find myself losing track of which ones I’ve seen and whether or not I enjoyed them. Sometimes the titles themselves just don't tell me enough to remember.

I wouldn’t have voluntarily watched a lot of these movies when I was younger. It’s strange how interests change. That goes for what I read, too. I have another blog that explores books. I’m mostly reading older fiction and memoirs, and some of the books have led me to movies/shows and vice versa. In those cases, I may post the book review over here as well.

There will be spoilers, which is different than my book reviews. That’s mostly because I want to have enough information to help me remember what I’ve seen. I’m getting older. The brain doesn’t cooperate like it used to. What can I say? The gray hairs are catching up with me!

Wednesday, March 6, 2024

In a Lonely Place - 1950

It took me a while to figure out, but I have seen this one before. It's based on a novel by Dorothy Hughes.

Humphrey Bogart plays the lead in this tale of love, anger and murder. He's a screenwriter who brought home a woman who ended up being found dead. Suspicion falls on him, but he claims innocence and goes on his merry way. The woman across the street gives him an alibi and falls in love with him.

He has a dark side that comes out at unpredictable times. The way his agent describes it is "he's dynamite. He has to blow eventually." It's not right. This is the same agent who was seriously asking if Bogart actually committed the murder. So he feels he's capable of it.

In the meantime, Laurel is gets hints of who he is underneath. Little outbursts and controlling events give her doubts about what to do. She loves him, but she's afraid of him. And with good reason. At the end, when he shows his true self (I'm not sure why she hadn't seen enough sooner), she acts like it would've made a difference if he'd actually been guilty of murder. The man is dangerous, and Laurel was better off without him.

Anyway, the movie was okay, but I don't understand why people were putting up with his crap. His agent was this nice, little old man, and Bogart's character straight hits him in the face. I'm not a fan of Humphrey Bogart to begin with, so seeing him as a villain didn't bother me. The movie was okay but not really enjoyable.



on

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)