Sergio Leone Web Board

Other/Miscellaneous => Off-Topic Discussion => Topic started by: dave jenkins on January 29, 2014, 06:34:28 AM



Title: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 29, 2014, 06:34:28 AM
U.S. Blu-ray press release
Quote
Universal Studios Home Entertainment will bring Billy Wilder's Double Indemnity (1944) and Orson Welles' Touch of Evil (1958) to Blu-ray this Spring. The former arrives via a 70th Anniversary Limited Edition Blu-ray/UltraViolet combo pack, while the latter arrives via a Limited Edition BD/UV combo. Both highly anticipated catalog classics make their Blu-ray debuts on April 15th.

Double Indemnity

Synopsis: Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck star in the gripping film noir classic Double Indemnity, directed by Academy Award winner Billy Wilder. A calculating wife (Stanwyck) encourages her wealthy husband to sign a double indemnity policy proposed by smitten insurance agent Walter Neff (MacMurray). As the would-be lovers plot the unsuspecting husband's murder, they are pursued by a suspicious claims manager (Edward G. Robinson). It's a race against time to get away with the perfect crime in this suspenseful masterpiece that was nominated for seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture.

Double Indemnity is presented in 1080p with a DTS-HD Master Audio 2.0 Mono track. Special features include:
•Introduction by Robert Osborne
•Commentary with Film Historian Richard Schickel
•Commentary with Film Historian/Screenwriter Lem Dobbs and Film Historian Nick Redman
•Shadows of Suspense Documentary
•Double Indemnity (1973) TV Movie
•Theatrical Trailer


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 27, 2014, 08:04:16 PM
How could I have known that murder can sometimes smell like honeysuckle?


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 06, 2014, 12:57:40 AM
I got the BRD.

In addition to all those bonus features on the disc that DJ mentioned above, there is a nice physical-item bonus as well: there is an envelope with 5 cards in it (size: 6.5 inches X 5 inches). There is a reproduction of the U.S. theatrical poster; 3 U.S. lobby card reproductions, and a black-and-white still photo from the original gas-chamber ending scene.


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on September 02, 2014, 07:23:36 PM
one of the bonus features is a 73-minute TV-movie remake of Double Indemnity, with Richard Crenna, Smantha Eggar, and Lee J. Cobb, in 1973 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070000/
According to one of the people interviewed on another bonus feature, story goes that the night this TV movie aired, as soon as it was over, Billy Wilder calls Barbara Stanwyck, she says hello, and he says, "Missy, they didn't do it right."
I decided to watch it for the hell of it; I had zero expectations that it would be any good, and, sad to relate, I was right. I knew there was no chance it would be as good as the original or anything close to it – really, why the hell would you remake one of the great movies of all time? – but still, there is the possibility to make it so that there is something to enjoy, like an individual performance or whatever. But there really is nothing to enjoy here.
The one good thing I could say about it is that this TV movie has terrific image quality, which means they must have done a serious restoration of it for this BRD release, even though it's just a bonus feature. That is definitely to Universal's credit.
Nedless to say, when watching this movie, I am (at least subconsciously) comparing to the original, so it's a very unlikely I'd like anything here - and I didn't.
I can't remember seeing Eggar anywhere before, but Crenna and Cobb are actors who are generally good, but here none of them offer anything special whatsoever. Crenna reads the confession like straight, with almost no emotion; even though he is shot (right through the left side of the chest - now ay he'd be alive!) he walks normally to his desk, speaks without difficulty; only in the very last scene does he finally look to actually be speaking with the sort of difficulty/pain that MacMurray showed throughout the movie. He says some lines straight, with no emotion; same for Eggar; sometimes it seems as if they think acting means simply reading lines off a paper. Eggar is certainly not pretty, but far better-looking than Stanwyck (not that high a bar), and I am not a very big fan of Stanwyck as an actress either; but Eggar here does nothing special. Cobb spaks slowly like an old man - maybe the actors were consciously using different speaking/acting styles than in the original, so as not to be seen as copycats. But it's no good. On its own, maybe Cobb's performance would be decent as Keyes; but compared to Robinson's - well, it's no comparison. The girl who played Lola is decent, though Lola's role is much shorter than in the movie.
This TV movie is in color, but there is no attempt to make it a neo-noir. None of the noir visuals that we associate with Double Indemnity.
The women – Phyllis and Lola – wear these awful huge 1970's pants, which are as unsexy as women's clothing can get.
I literally can't think of one thing – performance, dialogue, visual, music, anything at all – in which this remake gives you anything better than the original. The exception is that Stanwyck is ugly as sin whereas Eggar is merely nothing special. If you are like a little kid who simply always prefers to color to black-and-white, maybe. Otherwise, there is nothing.
So ... this bonus feature may be interesting as a curiosity and nothing more – kinda like if they put the butchered version of OUATIA as a bonus feature on the BRD. If you do actually watch the whole thing beginning to end once, you'll certainly never do it twice.
Bottom line: If you are gonna spend an evening with Walter Neff, Phyllis Dietrichson, Barton Keyes, et al., you're gonna go with the original, every time  :)


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on September 02, 2014, 07:32:31 PM
DJ, do you own either of the BRD's, the Masters of Cinema Region B or the Universal?

I have the Universal, I am looking at Beaver's screencap comparisons between the BRD's
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdreviews15/double_indemnity_dvd_review.htm

if these screencaps and beaver's writing are to be trusted as accurate, looks like there are big differences between the two. As beaver says, the MoC looks like it has much more grain, the Universal looks much darker, and there is significant shifting within the frame: e.g., in some screencaps, the Universal has more information on the left of the frame, wheras the MoC has more on top and on the right, and the bottom is about the same. It's not like you can consistently say one version or the other has more info; it depends which shot and which side of teh frame you are talking about. Weird.

I just watched a few minutes of the movie itself on the BRD, but I noticed – specifically, it was on the day that Neff first drives out to the Dietrichson home to renew their auto-insurance policies – that there is no grain there.

BTW, I noticed that sometimes, when discussing image quality, Beaver will say something about "waxiness" – can someone please enlighten this ignoramous as to what the word "waxiness" means in this context? Thanks  ;)


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 03, 2014, 10:02:50 AM
DJ, do you own either of the BRD's, the Masters of Cinema Region B or the Universal?

MoC, because it was released as a steelbook.

Quote
I just watched a few minutes of the movie itself on the BRD, but I noticed – specifically, it was on the day that Neff first drives out to the Dietrichson home to renew their auto-insurance policies – that there is no grain there.
Hard to believe. Are you sure the grain just isn't very noticeable?

Quote
BTW, I noticed that sometimes, when discussing image quality, Beaver will say something about "waxiness" – can someone please enlighten this ignoramous as to what the word "waxiness" means in this context? Thanks  ;)
Lacking detail.


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: dave jenkins on November 09, 2014, 04:47:48 PM
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/what-wilder-did-to-brackett/


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: titoli on February 20, 2016, 04:14:00 AM
What I don't like about this movie? Only MacMurray calling "baby" Stanwick. Can't remember if it was in the novel (and I don't remember if I still have it: if I gave it away I was stupid as it was one of those beautiful strip sized army forces edition). I also wondered where that idea of the lighting up of cigar came from. And I don't want to see the alternative finale.

The greatest mystery about the movie is the cameo of Chandler in the movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN9THMXxndw

If it's really him a wonder he never mentioned it in his letters and Wilder himself never mentioned it in the interviews.


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: titoli on May 29, 2016, 06:20:39 PM
I've re-read the novel (I hadn't given it away). The end is completely different. Walter plans to kill Phyllis and gives her a date in an isolated  place but she beats him to it and shoots him. He is saved by Lola and her fiancé (who was on Phyllis track because she had ruined his father's reputation as a doctor by killing some children under his care!). When Walter regains consciousness in the hospital, he confesses his misdeeds to Keyes to save Lola, who might take the rap, with whom he has fallen in love. Keyes has a notary take Walter's confession and arranges things as to let him escape abroad. On the liner Walter meets again Phyllis and then maybe he will marry her and then kill her and himself by a plunge into the ocean where a shark is waiting for them or they will be arrested as they put into Mexico.
So Chandler, of all people, had to make simpler a convoluted story!
And there's no "baby" anywhere in the text.


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 29, 2016, 06:33:28 PM
I'm crazy about this movie, baby.


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 29, 2016, 07:33:48 PM
Right down the line, baby.


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: kjrwe on February 26, 2017, 04:25:55 PM
I've seen this film probably about 10 times or so, and I love it each time.

Last time I saw it (about a week or two ago), it struck me that the two criminals here came up with an absolutely stupid plan.

Basically they thought that the insurance company would believe that the victim fell off the train and was killed that way, but at the same time, the salesman had no problems with jumping off the train, without worrying that he himself might get killed? Oy. No wonder they got caught so quickly! The salesguy should have known better than to try to outsmart a guy like Keyes (Robinson).


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 26, 2017, 04:57:25 PM
There's a difference between falling off a train and jumping. When jumping you know what's happening and you can prepare for the landing. When falling you may not even know what happened before you land. And if you land on your head, that's it, baby! Just ask Dr. Atkins, of the Atkins Diet fame. He might have lived forever except for some ice beneath his feet. Humans are delicate instruments indeed.


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 26, 2017, 06:21:33 PM
dj is correct

 The theory was that the guy got tangled up in his crutches or something and fell off the train. When  you are not expecting it, you can easily hit your head on the track and die, even from a minor fall

 There was a very tragic story in New York recently, a  doorman was shoveling snow off a few basement steps. He slipped on the steps, crashed into a glass window which cut his neck and he died.

When you are not expecting it, crazy shit can happen. ( that should be a promo for noir  ;) )


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: kjrwe on February 26, 2017, 07:27:27 PM
So basically there are two theories:

1. A person can die when falling off a train by accident. In that case, the salesguy was putting himself at risk because he had never jumped off a train before (or so I'm assuming) and he couldn't have known the dangers of doing this, even when the train was going at a slow speed.

2. As Keyes said, it would be pretty much impossible for someone to die by falling off the train, with the train going at such a slow speed. In that case, the plan couldn't possibly work (and it didn't).

In other words, either the salesguy's life would have been over when he jumped, or it would have been over when he was sent to the chair.


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: Dust Devil on February 27, 2017, 10:07:02 AM
Hmm, I have this somewhere. I might give it a try.


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 27, 2017, 11:29:46 AM
So basically there are two theories:

1. A person can die when falling off a train by accident. In that case, the salesguy was putting himself at risk because he had never jumped off a train before (or so I'm assuming) and he couldn't have known the dangers of doing this, even when the train was going at a slow speed.

2. As Keyes said, it would be pretty much impossible for someone to die by falling off the train, with the train going at such a slow speed. In that case, the plan couldn't possibly work (and it didn't).

In other words, either the salesguy's life would have been over when he jumped, or it would have been over when he was sent to the chair.

Again, you are confusing the intentional with the accidental.

Keyes does not say it is impossible to die by falling off a slow-moving train. He says it is unlikely that the a person will commit suicide by jumping off  a slow-moving train. Suicide = intentional. If you are going to kill yourself, you are not going to jump off a train like that. Keyes said he has never seen that happen. There are a million better, more-certain, less crazy ways of killing yourself. Bo way would a man try to kill himself by jumping off a slow=moving train.

If you jump intentionally off a train moving 15 miles per hour (as Walter Neff does) there is about a zero% chance you will die. You would barely even be scratched. So Neff was not putting himself in danger by jumping off.

HOWEVER, if someone falls off a train, unexpecting, like  a man on crutches got tangled up on his crutches and slipped, he is not expecting it, it happens instantly, he does not have time to brace himself, and he can hit his head on the track and die.



Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 27, 2017, 12:15:34 PM
And remember, Keyes isn't suspicious of the "accident" simply because his actuarial tables tell him to be. He also realizes there's something odd about the fact that a man with a broken leg who also has accident insurance never filed a claim for his medical expenses. Now, why would that be the case? Keyes thinks and decides it's probably because he didn't KNOW he had the insurance. But wait, Walter assures him that isn't so. But that Little Man in Keyes' stomach won't leave the matter alone . . .

DI is a very good example of the perfect crime that goes wrong because of a series of unforeseeable events. No single mistake is damning, but the confluence of all events is sufficient to derail the scheme.


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: kjrwe on February 27, 2017, 07:15:49 PM
Even so, what is the chance that a guy on crutches would have accidentally fallen off the train and gotten killed when the train was going so slowly?

Also, the salesguy should have known that if the victim knew that he had accident insurance, he would have filed a claim when he broke his leg. The salesguy should have suggested to the femme fatale that they wait in order to commit the crime. He had been in the insurance business so long that he should have thought of these things.

That was my point - that these two came up with a lousy plan which was poorly timed. No wonder their plan didn't work!


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: cigar joe on February 28, 2017, 03:43:45 AM
Even so, what is the chance that a guy on crutches would have accidentally fallen off the train and gotten killed when the train was going so slowly?

It's not that far fetched, even going slowly if a train switches tracks and you are not braced for it, it will throw you off balance with two good legs.


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 28, 2017, 04:34:13 PM
Even so, what is the chance that a guy on crutches would have accidentally fallen off the train and gotten killed when the train was going so slowly?

Also, the salesguy should have known that if the victim knew that he had accident insurance, he would have filed a claim when he broke his leg. The salesguy should have suggested to the femme fatale that they wait in order to commit the crime. He had been in the insurance business so long that he should have thought of these things.

That was my point - that these two came up with a lousy plan which was poorly timed. No wonder their plan didn't work!
I don't think you fully appreciate how well plotted this film is. The train death is necessary to activate the double indemnity clause. The fact that people almost never die that way allows the insurance company to double the payout: 100,000 big ones. There is added risk in going the limit--the company is sure to check more closely on this than for other claims. But Neff figures he can "crook the house" with his inside knowledge. And a train death isn't impossible and insurance companies do pay off on long shots from time to time. It's not a bad plan as such plans go.

But events conspire to trip him up. The victim has an accident and breaks his leg. This would seem to put the scheme on hold, but after not hearing anything from Phyllis for a week, suddenly she calls to tell Neff the guy is taking the train that very night. It's all Neff can do to reactivate the plan and swing into action. He doesn't have time to think about how the broken leg will screw things up. He only knows that the plan was off but now it's on again. He probably hasn't thought about the plan for a week, and when he swings into action his thoughts are focused on all the details he must take care of to fix his alibi and complete a very complicated murder. He's relying on his past planning, which was good. Given enough time, he would have thought the matter through and realized the broken leg changes everything. But he doesn't have the time. The broken leg was never part of the original equation. He is improvising, and he doesn't even realize it.

Most viewers are so caught up in the events that they don't anticipate the problem either. Neff apparently is so occupied with other concerns--the various post-murder problems that arise--that he never gets a chance to go back over his plan. He's as surprised as anyone when Keyes points to the broken leg clue. Because he's on the inside he's able to stall, but at that point he knows it's just a matter of time before he's caught. Unless Phyllis dies, of course.

No, the plan as originally formed is sound. It founders on unforeseen events that rapidly unfold. The film provides a great example of the perfect plan that goes awry due to chance.


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: Novecento on February 28, 2017, 05:55:39 PM

The greatest mystery about the movie is the cameo of Chandler in the movie:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN9THMXxndw

If it's really him a wonder he never mentioned it in his letters and Wilder himself never mentioned it in the interviews.

That's interesting. Your link also links to a Guardian article:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/jun/05/raymond-chandler-double-indemnity-cameo


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 28, 2017, 06:14:55 PM
I don't think you fully appreciate how well plotted this film is. The train death is necessary to activate the double indemnity clause. The fact that people almost never die that way allows the insurance company to double the payout: 100,000 big ones. There is added risk in going the limit--the company is sure to check more closely on this than for other claims. But Neff figures he can "crook the house" with his inside knowledge. And a train death isn't impossible and insurance companies do pay off on long shots from time to time. It's not a bad plan as such plans go.

But events conspire to trip him up. The victim has an accident and breaks his leg. This would seem to put the scheme on hold, but after not hearing anything from Phyllis for a week, suddenly she calls to tell Neff the guy is taking the train that very night. It's all Neff can do to reactivate the plan and swing into action. He doesn't have time to think about how the broken leg will screw things up. He only knows that the plan was off but now it's on again. He probably hasn't thought about the plan for a week, and when he swings into action his thoughts are focused on all the details he must take care of to fix his alibi and complete a very complicated murder. He's relying on his past planning, which was good. Given enough time, he would have thought the matter through and realized the broken leg changes everything. But he doesn't have the time. The broken leg was never part of the original equation. He is improvising, and he doesn't even realize it.

Most viewers are so caught up in the events that they don't anticipate the problem either. Neff apparently is so occupied with other concerns--the various post-murder problems that arise--that he never gets a chance to go back over his plan. He's as surprised as anyone when Keyes points to the broken leg clue. Because he's on the inside he's able to stall, but at that point he knows it's just a matter of time before he's caught. Unless Phyllis dies, of course.

No, the plan as originally formed is sound. It founders on unforeseen events that rapidly unfold. The film provides a great example of the perfect plan that goes awry due to chance.

I don't think the broken leg fouls him up. (Unless I'm forgetting something,) the broken leg actually adds to the plausibility of the death: Being unstable due to the broken leg, or possibly getting tripped up in the crutches, he slips and falls off the train.  That is more plausible than an able-bodied man slipping and falling off the train.

This is a great, great movie. One flaw, and that's all: Barbara Stanwyck. Can you imagine any man in the world losing his mind over HER??? The second he sees her is consumed by HER??? Even with that anklet on her leg, you would have to put a LOT of rum into my iced tea to get me to even want to look at Barbara Stanwyck. Ugh. And it's not like  she was the greatest actress in the world, either.
Usually I am happy with a great actress who isn't the best looking rather than a pretty one who cannot act. I love watching Meryl Streep. But with a movie like this, you have to believe that the woman is able to drive the guy CRAZY. If Barbara Stanwyck visited a prison in a bikini, I do not think she would drive any men crazy. And on top of that, she was no great actress.  Major flaw in one of the greatest movies of all time.


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: kjrwe on March 01, 2017, 01:42:37 AM

This is a great, great movie. One flaw, and that's all: Barbara Stanwyck. Can you imagine any man in the world losing his mind over HER??? The second he sees her is consumed by HER??? Even with that anklet on her leg, you would have to put a LOT of rum into my iced tea to get me to even want to look at Barbara Stanwyck. Ugh. And it's not like  she was the greatest actress in the world, either.
Usually I am happy with a great actress who isn't the best looking rather than a pretty one who cannot act. I love watching Meryl Streep. But with a movie like this, you have to believe that the woman is able to drive the guy CRAZY. If Barbara Stanwyck visited a prison in a bikini, I do not think she would drive any men crazy. And on top of that, she was no great actress.  Major flaw in one of the greatest movies of all time.

I have no opinion about Stanwyck's sex appeal, but she was an incredible actress! Have you seen her in Baby Face? The Strange Love of Martha Ivers? Sorry Wrong Number? That woman sure could act.

I agree that this is one of the greatest movies of all time, even though I still say that the plot itself was flawed. I read the replies here, but those haven't changed my mind. If it was possible for it to be an accidental death for the victim, then Neff was at risk as well when jumping off the train, even though his jump was planned ahead of time. It would have been very possible for him to have fallen awkwardly on the tracks and he could have injured himself.

And how could he have known that he wouldn't meet anyone he knew on the train? How did he know that Keyes wouldn't be on that train for some unexpected emergency, for instance?

Personally, I think that a lot of these so-called "perfect crimes" would never have worked in the real world. For example, the plot in Dial M For Murder wouldn't have gotten past the early stages in reality. Doesn't matter. I still love these far-fetched stories.


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 01, 2017, 02:38:33 AM
I have no opinion about Stanwyck's sex appeal, but she was an incredible actress! Have you seen her in Baby Face? The Strange Love of Martha Ivers? Sorry Wrong Number? That woman sure could act.

I agree that this is one of the greatest movies of all time, even though I still say that the plot itself was flawed. I read the replies here, but those haven't changed my mind. If it was possible for it to be an accidental death for the victim, then Neff was at risk as well when jumping off the train, even though his jump was planned ahead of time. It would have been very possible for him to have fallen awkwardly on the tracks and he could have injured himself.

And how could he have known that he wouldn't meet anyone he knew on the train? How did he know that Keyes wouldn't be on that train for some unexpected emergency, for instance?

Personally, I think that a lot of these so-called "perfect crimes" would never have worked in the real world. For example, the plot in Dial M For Murder wouldn't have gotten past the early stages in reality. Doesn't matter. I still love these far-fetched stories.


 It's a movie, not a documentary.

 Watching movies requires what is popularly known as a "suspension of disbelief."  Most things that happened in movies would not happen in the world real world exactly that way.  If you want absolute documentary-like realism, then feature films are probably not for you.

 Obviously, there's a certain level of un-realism beyond which a movie is so implausible that it's silly and you cannot enjoy it. That level depends on the viewer. IMO there is nothing in Double Indemnity that bothers me as being implausible in a movie world.

The fact that Neff was taking a risk should not bother you - and not just because this is a movie. OF COURSE WHAT HE DID IS RISKY! So is robbing a bank!  People take risks for money all the time. There is no such thing as a sure thing. People commit crimes all the time that involve risks of being caught or harmed, but they take the risk for money. If you think it's  implausible that someone would take a risk - even a major risk - then don't watch crime movies. That's what crime is all about. Taking a risk on the chance that they may get money. Or a women. Even though they know that the plot may fail and they may not get the money and they may not get the woman  ;)


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 01, 2017, 06:00:10 AM
I don't think the broken leg fouls him up. (Unless I'm forgetting something,)
Well, you are. As I mentioned just a few posts higher in this thread, the broken leg is the clue that makes Keyes suspicious. Why would a man who has accident insurance NOT file a claim on his broken leg? The only reason Keyes can come up with: he didn't know he had the insurance. But Walter assures him that that's not the case. Still, the problem continues to worry Keyes and his Little Man . . . eventually he's going to figure out that Walter is lying. Walter knows he's cooked at that point. His only hope had been that Keyes wouldn't look into the case deeply. Once Keyes gets his teeth into a case, though, he won't quit until he's solved it.


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 01, 2017, 06:08:14 AM
I agree that this is one of the greatest movies of all time, even though I still say that the plot itself was flawed. I read the replies here, but those haven't changed my mind. If it was possible for it to be an accidental death for the victim, then Neff was at risk as well when jumping off the train, even though his jump was planned ahead of time. It would have been very possible for him to have fallen awkwardly on the tracks and he could have injured himself.
Of course there's a risk, but it's slight and it can be managed. For 100,000 dollars you wouldn't try jumping off the back of a slow moving train? Again, the chance of dying from an accidental fall from a train is considerably greater than from a premeditated jump. Being prepared makes all the difference.


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: kjrwe on March 01, 2017, 05:13:49 PM

 It's a movie, not a documentary.

 Watching movies requires what is popularly known as a "suspension of disbelief."  Most things that happened in movies would not happen in the world real world exactly that way.  If you want absolute documentary-like realism, then feature films are probably not for you.


I'm a big fan of mysteries/thrillers which are far-fetched. I'm especially a fan of the locked room mystery/impossible crimes (many of which were written by author John Dickson Carr).


Title: Re: Double Indemnity (1944)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 02, 2017, 08:12:06 AM
I'm a big fan of mysteries/thrillers which are far-fetched. I'm especially a fan of the locked room mystery/impossible crimes (many of which were written by author John Dickson Carr).
I read Fredric Brown's "The Spherical Ghoul" recently; also the Cornell Woolrich one where people keep going out the window of the same hotel room (can't remember the title).