low budget classic - Born to Kill (1947) Discussion

[–] ladynoir15 19 years ago

I loved it and I liked it more than Out of the Past.

reply

[–] jasonbourneagain 17 years ago

It could've been better and it wasn't low budget. Born to Kill was an A-movie, but since you think it's low budget, it goes to show you its flaws.

Put Dirty Harry in the IMDB top 250!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066999/ratings

reply

[–] ladynoir15 17 years ago

I disagree. Lawrence Tierney and Claire Trevor were not quite A List stars then. The movie had a decent budget but was still low budget in feel.

The trouble with her is that she's here today and here tomorrow.
-Marian Webster

reply

[–] butaneggbert 8 years ago

I have to disagree. The train's club car set alone was a glorious study in Art Deco style, right down to the lamp. It showed design and attention to detail a lower-budget film wouldn't be allocated.

Likewise remote-location shooting. And those gowns weren't off the rack!

_______________

Nothing to see here, move along.

reply

[–] csu16387 19 years ago

Born to Kill is a very brutal, violent film-noir and a great one as well. Claire Trevor and Lawrence Tierney give excellent performances.

"Dry your eyes baby, it's out of character."

reply

[–] amidtownbachelor 18 years ago

Esther Howard gave a terrific Marie Dressler style over-the-top performance. Surprised she didn't have a bigger career. She's a hoot in all her scenes. The beach scene is classic. And her final scene where her spirit has been killed, makes this Best Supporting Actress Oscar worthy. Well her work here is it's own true reward but a shame it wasn't recogonized.

reply

[–] pdmh48 18 years ago

I was rooting for her all the way! I loved the way she fought back with her hat pin. She survived, but gave up when she realized that this new version of criminals were totally wacked! When she spat on Claire and said I couldn't curse you worse than you have cursed yourself- that was a great moral judgment from a woman who had seen a few things in life!

reply

[–] J. Spurlin 14 years ago

I was totally on Esther Howard's side as well. I was screaming at the screen, hoping she'd get away from Elisha Cook and that Lawrence Tierney would be hotheaded enough to concentrate on Cook and forget about her.

I have to admit, though, I was also on Claire Trevor's side. One: she's Claire Trevor. Two: I have a certain fondness for cold, calculating women who ruthlessly go after what they want. Helen's flaw was that she wasn't calculating enough. She let her attraction to Lawrence Tierney cloud her judgment and stand in the way of the money and security that were coming to her.

...Justin

reply

[–] Errington_92 11 years ago

Fantastic noir, one of the best I've seen. The ruthlessly immoral dynamic between Sam and Helen was brilliantly acted. The seediness running through Lady of Deceit was also a factor from my perspective in being a fantastic noir.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

reply

[–] EjioforBond 18 years ago

It's interesting to watch but far from perfect. As far as the plot goes, it's all a jumble of improbable events and hopeless passions. Somehow the director manages to mark it all out so that it makes movie sense but I don't think it ever really jells. What I did like is the tension, the individual scenes of menace, and above all the presence of the maniacal Lawrence Tierney, who seems to bring out the worst in others.

The camera angles are interesting too, especially the scene where Tierney is lying in bed smoking a cigarette and talking on the telephone. As he talks the camera eye slowly descends. But I get so caught up in the conversation that by the time he hangs up the camera eye is right down on his evil face and I can't figure out exactly how it got there.

This is definitely not Wise's best effort, but it's an early indication of how great he was to become.

reply

[–] jim-862 18 years ago

I agree with you. It wasn't about the plotting. Mood, camera, and acting were terrific. Use of darkness.

"You! Blabbermouth! OUT!--Ralph Cramden

reply

[–] spamtar 17 years ago

This is more of a “noir experience” then a standard film and should be approached as such. I for one believe that the characters were drafted intentionally so that we could not specifically relate to them. It is like going to another “noir world” where the inconsistencies noted in some other posts are presumably generally accepted in this universe. This film breaks a lot of rules and is unique because of this.

For example, there is a distortion of the main stars (center of focus) which gives a clarity/almost overemphasis by contrast to the supporting characters despite their limited impact to the plot. Despite this or more likely because of this and wonderful roles of the supporting cast character actors Elisha Cook Jr. Walter Slezak and Esther Howard makes this a noir classic. A person, love it or hate it, is not truly a “film noir” aficionado until they have experienced this film.

reply

[–] Devans00 15 years ago

Born to Kill reminds me how brutal some 1940s and 50s movies can be. The crude fight and murders near the beginning of the movie were intense.

I think violence in older movies is more shocking because it looks so real and raw. You KNOW there's no CGI or special effects involved. Only camera angles and timing.

No two persons ever watch the same movie.

reply

[–] prplayer 8 years ago

doesn't stand out from the other noir movies of the era, in fact it's quite forgettable compared to the best ones

so many movies, so little time

reply