The Maltese Falcon

Moderators: Sue Sue Applegate, movieman1957, moira finnie, Lzcutter

User avatar
ken123
Posts: 1807
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 4:08 pm
Location: Chicago

The Maltese Falcon

Post by ken123 »

The 1931 version with Ricardo Cortez and Bebe Daniels IMHO was pre - code and more frank in its sexual implications than the Bogart - Huston version, except when it came to " the Fatman - Wilmer - Cairo " connection, or am I missing something ? 8)
SSO Admins
Administrator
Posts: 851
Joined: April 5th, 2007, 7:27 pm
Contact:

Post by SSO Admins »

It's been a while since I watched it, but I'm pretty sure it's even more explicit. I'll have to dig that out and rewatch it, if I think I can stand watching a Ricardo Cortez movie where the director doesn't have enough respect for the audience to have some dame knock him off.
User avatar
Sue Sue Applegate
Administrator
Posts: 3325
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 8:47 pm
Location: Texas

Retort

Post by Sue Sue Applegate »

Good one! Hah! :lol:
Blog: http://suesueapplegate.wordpress.com/
Twitter:@suesueapplegate
TCM Message Boards: http://forums.tcm.com/index.php?/topic/ ... ue-sue-ii/
Sue Sue : https://www.facebook.com/groups/611323215621862/
Thelma Ritter: Hollywood's Favorite New Yorker, University Press of Mississippi-2020
Avatar: Ginger Rogers, The Major and The Minor
User avatar
dfordoom
Posts: 133
Joined: May 6th, 2007, 4:06 am
Location: Australia

Post by dfordoom »

I've heard very mixed reports on this 1931 version. Is it really worth getting?
User avatar
cinemalover
Posts: 1603
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:57 am
Location: Seattle, Washington

Post by cinemalover »

For what it's worth, here were my thoughts on it when I last watched it. I liked it, but it's tough to warm up to when you were raised on the remake as I was.

Date watched: 3/13/2007
Title: Dangerous Female aka The Maltese Falcon Made: 1931
Genre: Crime Drama Studio: Warner Brothers
Format: DVD-R Source: TCM
# of times viewed: 2

Stars: Ricardo Cortez--Bebe Daniels
Plot: Cortez as Sam Spade is portrayed as a bit more of an open womanizer than Bogey was in the famous remake. Spade is caught romancing Archer's (his partner) wife by Archer. Before he chooses to confront Spade on the issue he accepts a "shadow" job from a beautiful woman. Archer is killed on the job. From here on the movie unfolds very much like the 1941 classic. Cortez is more forward in his lust for Daniels than in the remake. He seems to mentally undress her. It's hard to see anyone else in the roles performed by the trio of Bogart, Lorre and Greenstreet, so this one pales in comparison in my biased eyes. If this were a stand alone movie and I had never seen the other version I would have held it in higher regard. So, even though it is the original, it's a distant second to my favorite version. Well worth a watch though.
6* (out of 10) Cortez is good, but he's no Bogey.
Chris

The only bad movie is no movie at all.
User avatar
dfordoom
Posts: 133
Joined: May 6th, 2007, 4:06 am
Location: Australia

Post by dfordoom »

cinemalover wrote:For what it's worth, here were my thoughts on it when I last watched it. I liked it, but it's tough to warm up to when you were raised on the remake as I was.
I'm not a great fan of the 1941 version, mostly because I'm not a fan of either Bogart or John Huston. Although it is one of Bogart's better efforts, and Peter Lorre is sensational. And I'm rather fond of Mary Astor's performance - she's not an effective femme fatale, but (IMHO) that's not what she was aiming for.
SSO Admins
Administrator
Posts: 851
Joined: April 5th, 2007, 7:27 pm
Contact:

Post by SSO Admins »

dfordoom wrote:I'm not a great fan of the 1941 version, mostly because I'm not a fan of either Bogart or John Huston. Although it is one of Bogart's better efforts, and Peter Lorre is sensational. And I'm rather fond of Mary Astor's performance - she's not an effective femme fatale, but (IMHO) that's not what she was aiming for.
My problem with the film is Cortez. He overplays his womanizer role, leering and slinking around through the whole movie. This is the kind of role he excelled at, but he usually wasn't the protagonist -- most of his roles were as the sleazy would-be lover who gets knocked off.

The upside is that The Maltese Falcon is a dirty story about dirty people, and that really comes through here. One pleasant surprise is Otto Matieson as Cairo. He's actually quite Lorre-ish -- I wonder if Lorre's career owed something to the fact that Matieson died in a car wreck in 1932 and wasn't available for the roles that Lorre ended up getting.

I think the story fares better in this version simply because it was a difficult tale to tell under the production code. But Cortez just sets my teeth on edge.
User avatar
dfordoom
Posts: 133
Joined: May 6th, 2007, 4:06 am
Location: Australia

Post by dfordoom »

jondaris wrote:I think the story fares better in this version simply because it was a difficult tale to tell under the production code. But Cortez just sets my teeth on edge.
Am I right in thinking that it's only available in a set with the '41 version? Which I already have, so I don't really want another copy. But you've got me really interested in seeing the 1931 version now!
User avatar
mickeeteeze
Posts: 9
Joined: August 1st, 2007, 2:38 pm
Location: ny
Contact:

I believe so....

Post by mickeeteeze »

But I bought the "threefers" anyway....it's got the Bette Davis version too.
The 41 classic has a commentary by Sklar. I'm glad I have it....just to have it.
You are wise in your generation!
User avatar
vallo
Posts: 280
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 8:39 am
Location: Long Island, N.Y.

Post by vallo »

I like the Davis version: Satan Met a Lady because of Warren William. I read that Dashiell Hammett hated it because they made it into a comedy for some reason.



vallo
"We're all forgotten sooner or later. But not films. That's all the memorial we should need or hope for."
-Burt Lancaster
User avatar
mickeeteeze
Posts: 9
Joined: August 1st, 2007, 2:38 pm
Location: ny
Contact:

Yeah

Post by mickeeteeze »

I'm glad I have that set. Well worth the $20.
You are wise in your generation!
pktrekgirl
Administrator
Posts: 641
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 1:08 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

Post by pktrekgirl »

Wow...I don't think I've ever seen this version.

Might I be lucky and discover it is a special feature on the Bogart version? :D
User avatar
Moraldo Rubini
Posts: 1107
Joined: April 19th, 2007, 11:37 am
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Blackbird

Post by Moraldo Rubini »

pktrekgirl wrote:Wow...I don't think I've ever seen this version.

Might I be lucky and discover it is a special feature on the Bogart version? :D
The Maltese Falcon set that came out last winter (or so) includes all three versions: 1931, 1936 and 1941 (among a plethora of extras).
User avatar
precoder
Posts: 59
Joined: May 21st, 2007, 6:54 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Blackbird

Post by precoder »

Moraldo Rubini wrote:
pktrekgirl wrote:Wow...I don't think I've ever seen this version.

Might I be lucky and discover it is a special feature on the Bogart version? :D
The Maltese Falcon set that came out last winter (or so) includes all three versions: 1931, 1936 and 1941 (among a plethora of extras).
Thanks for the info ... I've never seen this either ... :oops:
I absolutely adore movies. Even bad ones. I don't like pretentious ones, but a good bad movie, you must admit, is great. ~ Roddy McDowell
pktrekgirl
Administrator
Posts: 641
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 1:08 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

Re: Blackbird

Post by pktrekgirl »

Moraldo Rubini wrote:
pktrekgirl wrote:Wow...I don't think I've ever seen this version.

Might I be lucky and discover it is a special feature on the Bogart version? :D
The Maltese Falcon set that came out last winter (or so) includes all three versions: 1931, 1936 and 1941 (among a plethora of extras).
Thanks very much! I have that DVD - I have never watched it though because I've seen the Bogart film a ton of times, and it comes on TCM all the time.

Now I have a good reason to get out the DVD!
Post Reply