This is a 2K version from Criterion, but the restoration is… odd? Like, the titles had a lot of sideways judder, and some scenes seem inexplicably dark… but perhaps they were that way to start with?
Err… I think that used to be a Hazel Flagg post? But now it’s something else? The ways of Twitter are inscrutable. But it’s the reason I’m watching this.
Where’s the RSPCA!?
Huh, the blu-ray package is very thick…
Oh! It includes an entire novel!?
That’s new.
Nooo! Quicksand! The most lethal substance on Earth!
This movie is just odd. There’s strange continuity problems, and the plot is just… odd.
Wat
*scratches head*
Sure sure she’s suddenly in love with this guy… but why!? He’s not shown to have any qualities, and whoever cast this actor in this role didn’t do a good job, because it’s just “wat”.
See?
I mean, if it had been, like, Clark Gable or something, it’d have made some kind of sense, but as it is, this bit just seems to tell the audience that the Stanwyck character is … stupid?
Which I don’t think is supposed to be the thing.
That’s an odd way to frame this scene. And what’s with that flare at the edge? Did they just mess it up and couldn’t re-shoot the paper maché boulder falling?
It’s just an odd, odd, movie.
Very day for night.
Excel(lent).
So weird.
Why is so much of this movie filmed in apparent semi-darkness? I mean, it’s a look, but…
I’m back to my original theory — that something went wrong during restoration.
In a way I admire the sheer weirdness of the plot. I mean, it’s not a standard western? And that’s fun? But I don’t think the movie works. Mann was known for B movie noirs, but in 1950 he did three (!) westerns, and you can definitely see that. I mean, both the noir background and that the movie was done in a hurry.
The lines are just preposterous, and while Stanwyck does a great job chewing the scenery, none of the other actors are compelling, really.
I think this is one of those rediscovered masterpieces that might as well have remained forgotten.
The Furies. Anthony Mann. 1950. ⚂
