Fannish 50 S3 Post 55: Johnny O'Clock (NOIRVEMBER)
Nov. 14th, 2025 11:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
glitteryvJohnny O'Clock
A 1947 movie from J.E.M. Productions directed by Robert Rossen.
Johnny O'Clock (played by Dick Powell) co-runs a casino alongside Guido Marchettis (S.Thomas Gomez). He's a guy who knows all the angles, moves, scams, and whatnot. Harriet (played by Nina Foch), a hat-check girl, is someone Johnny's friendly with. She happens to be in a volatile relationship with crooked cop!Chuck Blayden (played by Jim Bannon).
Things get v. complicated when Blayden disappears and Harriet is found dead.
AND THEN, Nancy (played by Evelyn Keyes), Harriet's sister, shows up wanting answers. Not to mention the dangerous mess that is Nell (played by Ellen Drew), Guido's wife, who won't let Johnny go.
ON TOP OF ALL THAT, there's a cop named Koch (played by Lee J. Cobb) who keeps clashing with Johnny. (Personally, I got the feeling he was envious or jealous of him? #Unsure)
This is a CHAOTIC story, hahah. Everyone's acting is on deck. Dick Powell is someone who I first met in musicals, so it wasn't until much later that I discovered his noir movies. In this case, he plays the part really well. The film has extremely snappy dialogue, the kind that calls attention to itself. The artificiality of it all actually works; EVERYONE has at least two lines that are ridic witty.
It's a v. interesting noir.
Do I have any criticisms?
The story's kinda convoluted. There's the mystery of Harriet's death, the disappearance of the crooked cop, the mobster's wife who is obsessed with Johnny, and the viewer is never quite sure WHAT KIND OF CHARACTER Johnny actually is. OTOH, he's not a villain, but he's not an anti-hero either.
There's a scene where another character calls him out for being the type of person who not only will never pick a side, but who is also deeply selfish. And Johnny shrugs that character off. I do agree with that character's assessment of Johnny cuz, FWIW, you're never quite sure of his motivations. Even after finding out abt his background and how he ended up as a casino co-owner.
Finally, Powell has some chemistry with Evelyn Kayes (who I know as the wife in The Seven Year Itch movie with Marilyn Monroe.) But it's not strong enough.
Do I recommend it?
Sure. I had a good time watching it despite the jumbled plot and my ??? abt Johnny and Koch's motivations. I think you can watch it on Tubi (plus additional copies floating on YouTube.) Gonna give it a 2.9 out of 5
Queerness level:
None.
Le trailer
A 1947 movie from J.E.M. Productions directed by Robert Rossen.
Johnny O'Clock (played by Dick Powell) co-runs a casino alongside Guido Marchettis (S.Thomas Gomez). He's a guy who knows all the angles, moves, scams, and whatnot. Harriet (played by Nina Foch), a hat-check girl, is someone Johnny's friendly with. She happens to be in a volatile relationship with crooked cop!Chuck Blayden (played by Jim Bannon).
Things get v. complicated when Blayden disappears and Harriet is found dead.
AND THEN, Nancy (played by Evelyn Keyes), Harriet's sister, shows up wanting answers. Not to mention the dangerous mess that is Nell (played by Ellen Drew), Guido's wife, who won't let Johnny go.
ON TOP OF ALL THAT, there's a cop named Koch (played by Lee J. Cobb) who keeps clashing with Johnny. (Personally, I got the feeling he was envious or jealous of him? #Unsure)
This is a CHAOTIC story, hahah. Everyone's acting is on deck. Dick Powell is someone who I first met in musicals, so it wasn't until much later that I discovered his noir movies. In this case, he plays the part really well. The film has extremely snappy dialogue, the kind that calls attention to itself. The artificiality of it all actually works; EVERYONE has at least two lines that are ridic witty.
It's a v. interesting noir.
Do I have any criticisms?
The story's kinda convoluted. There's the mystery of Harriet's death, the disappearance of the crooked cop, the mobster's wife who is obsessed with Johnny, and the viewer is never quite sure WHAT KIND OF CHARACTER Johnny actually is. OTOH, he's not a villain, but he's not an anti-hero either.
There's a scene where another character calls him out for being the type of person who not only will never pick a side, but who is also deeply selfish. And Johnny shrugs that character off. I do agree with that character's assessment of Johnny cuz, FWIW, you're never quite sure of his motivations. Even after finding out abt his background and how he ended up as a casino co-owner.
Finally, Powell has some chemistry with Evelyn Kayes (who I know as the wife in The Seven Year Itch movie with Marilyn Monroe.) But it's not strong enough.
Do I recommend it?
Sure. I had a good time watching it despite the jumbled plot and my ??? abt Johnny and Koch's motivations. I think you can watch it on Tubi (plus additional copies floating on YouTube.) Gonna give it a 2.9 out of 5
Queerness level:
None.
Le trailer
Reading post: recs-from-DW-friends edition
Nov. 14th, 2025 12:19 pmlucymonsterThe upside of being stupidly busy is that, somewhat counterintuitively, I end up getting lots more reading done; I'm too tired by the end of the day to socialise or catch up on chores or pursue any of my usual hobbies, so I might as well curl up with a book till lights-out time. In the past week and a bit I've wolfed down several books based on Dreamwidth chatter and really enjoyed all of them! Thoughts below.
Piranesi by Susanna Clark: I've been meaning to read this ever since that time earlier this year when we were all making book lists, and virtually everyone seemed to be including it on theirs. The description - guy lives in magical house full of ocean, wanders around discovering endless rooms - did not sound especially gripping to me. But oh, the execution! I think this is a book that, by the necessity of avoiding spoilers, it's really almost impossible to pitch in terms of its actual plot. Cleverer readers than me have tried, and I'm not going to poorly duplicate their efforts here. But I will just say that the experience of reading it was exquisite. The prose was beautiful in its simplicity: I could taste the brine, hear the waves, see the towering marble. The protagonist was a rare example of childlike innocence done in a way that's genuinely touching, never twee. The mystery of the house was gripping, the sense of building tension was deliciously awful, and the bittersweet ending tore a hole in my heart that's still aching days later.
The Only Good Indians by Stephen Graham Jones: This is literary horror about a group of Blackfeet men haunted by the murderous spirit of a pregnant elk who they killed on a hunt many years ago. A better description is here viapauraque; their review convinced me to give it a try, and I'm glad I did. I had to work for it. SGJ's prose is assertive and heavily sylised in the way that I always seem to stumble over in litfic written by men (which, admittedly, isn't often; I don't know if Rough Tough Manly Man Words are endemic to the whole genre or just to the books whose concepts I find interesting enough to reach for). It took me time to get into the flow of it and for the first few chapters I thought I would probably DNF. The pacing also sags in the middle; the first and final acts are electrifying, but in between them is a long stretch of meandering reflection on cultural identity and generational trauma that rather bleeds away the tension. I actually really like the idea of two horrors intertwining - the white-hot shock of being pursued by a vengeful supernatural entity, versus the numbing daily violence of systemic racism - but the balance between the two was off. I wish that section had been tightened up a bit.
There's some reasonably high impact gore, most of it directed at animals, but even as a squeamish softie I agree with pauraque that it felt necessary and effective. No children are killed or permanently harmed. (I include that mild spoiler because without it I'd have quit the book.) My few gripes not withstanding, this was a chewy, thought-provoking read with a pleasantly scary atmosphere and a villain who I genuinely loved and cared for so much despite all the killing.
Katabasis by RF Kuang: A confession: I had written off this author based entirely on internet hearsay untiltroisoiseaux convinced me to give her a chance. I think possibly there's a benefit to arriving late on the scene of any new cultural phenomenon. The readers who've heard Kuang built up as a genius have had the understandable hype-backlash response; I've had time to digest their backlash, come in with greatly lowered expectations, and rediscover the hype for myself in a more organic way than those who were fed the promise of Groundbreaking Literature. Katabasis is not groundbreaking anything. It's an indulgent piece of pop academia in a similar vein to The Good Place, where deep scholarly questions of philosophy and religion (and also, in this case, logic and maths) are deliberately given the most superficial treatment possible for the sake of entertainment. It's a witty, quick-for-its-length romp of a story about two PhD students of magic journeying through Hell to rescue the soul of their abusive former advisor so they can graduate. Like the SGJ book it sagged in the middle; the first and last few levels of Hell were delightfully imaginative (I especially liked the sinners sentenced to work on their dissertations for eternity, never passing or receiving any feedback that could help them pass) but the middle couple were so perfunctory and unimaginative that I genuinely think Kuang must have just run out of ideas for satirical hellscapes. But the rest of the book was enough fun to be worth enduring that lull. I loved the magic system in all its dry, pedantic detail, and I loved the idea that magic could be real and end up occupying much the same space in our culture as linguistics or advanced mathematics: theoretically impressive and prestigious, but in practice an academic circlejerk whose real world applications are barely understood by anyone outside the bubble.
A lot of the online discourse I've seen about this book has centred on ( spoilers, and my thoughts thereon )
( More slight spoilers, cw: abuse )
So this wasn't a life-changing read and I'm not rushing out to buy myself a permanent copy, but I did thoroughly enjoy the experience, enough to then also pick up:
Yellowface by RF Kuang: When Athena, a young literary darling of Chinese descent, dies in a freakish mishap, her white friend June - also a novelist, though massively less successful - steals her latest manuscript and passes it off as her own. The manuscript in question? A deeply sensitive, passionately angry, very much Own Voices oriented story about the WWI Chinese Labour Corps. June reworks the story to include a bunch of noble white allies, remakes her authorial persona to be racially ambiguous, and launches herself towards literary stardom with all the reckless confidence of Icarus charging headlong at the sun.
( More thoughts )
Piranesi by Susanna Clark: I've been meaning to read this ever since that time earlier this year when we were all making book lists, and virtually everyone seemed to be including it on theirs. The description - guy lives in magical house full of ocean, wanders around discovering endless rooms - did not sound especially gripping to me. But oh, the execution! I think this is a book that, by the necessity of avoiding spoilers, it's really almost impossible to pitch in terms of its actual plot. Cleverer readers than me have tried, and I'm not going to poorly duplicate their efforts here. But I will just say that the experience of reading it was exquisite. The prose was beautiful in its simplicity: I could taste the brine, hear the waves, see the towering marble. The protagonist was a rare example of childlike innocence done in a way that's genuinely touching, never twee. The mystery of the house was gripping, the sense of building tension was deliciously awful, and the bittersweet ending tore a hole in my heart that's still aching days later.
The Only Good Indians by Stephen Graham Jones: This is literary horror about a group of Blackfeet men haunted by the murderous spirit of a pregnant elk who they killed on a hunt many years ago. A better description is here via
pauraque; their review convinced me to give it a try, and I'm glad I did. I had to work for it. SGJ's prose is assertive and heavily sylised in the way that I always seem to stumble over in litfic written by men (which, admittedly, isn't often; I don't know if Rough Tough Manly Man Words are endemic to the whole genre or just to the books whose concepts I find interesting enough to reach for). It took me time to get into the flow of it and for the first few chapters I thought I would probably DNF. The pacing also sags in the middle; the first and final acts are electrifying, but in between them is a long stretch of meandering reflection on cultural identity and generational trauma that rather bleeds away the tension. I actually really like the idea of two horrors intertwining - the white-hot shock of being pursued by a vengeful supernatural entity, versus the numbing daily violence of systemic racism - but the balance between the two was off. I wish that section had been tightened up a bit.There's some reasonably high impact gore, most of it directed at animals, but even as a squeamish softie I agree with pauraque that it felt necessary and effective. No children are killed or permanently harmed. (I include that mild spoiler because without it I'd have quit the book.) My few gripes not withstanding, this was a chewy, thought-provoking read with a pleasantly scary atmosphere and a villain who I genuinely loved and cared for so much despite all the killing.
Katabasis by RF Kuang: A confession: I had written off this author based entirely on internet hearsay until
troisoiseaux convinced me to give her a chance. I think possibly there's a benefit to arriving late on the scene of any new cultural phenomenon. The readers who've heard Kuang built up as a genius have had the understandable hype-backlash response; I've had time to digest their backlash, come in with greatly lowered expectations, and rediscover the hype for myself in a more organic way than those who were fed the promise of Groundbreaking Literature. Katabasis is not groundbreaking anything. It's an indulgent piece of pop academia in a similar vein to The Good Place, where deep scholarly questions of philosophy and religion (and also, in this case, logic and maths) are deliberately given the most superficial treatment possible for the sake of entertainment. It's a witty, quick-for-its-length romp of a story about two PhD students of magic journeying through Hell to rescue the soul of their abusive former advisor so they can graduate. Like the SGJ book it sagged in the middle; the first and last few levels of Hell were delightfully imaginative (I especially liked the sinners sentenced to work on their dissertations for eternity, never passing or receiving any feedback that could help them pass) but the middle couple were so perfunctory and unimaginative that I genuinely think Kuang must have just run out of ideas for satirical hellscapes. But the rest of the book was enough fun to be worth enduring that lull. I loved the magic system in all its dry, pedantic detail, and I loved the idea that magic could be real and end up occupying much the same space in our culture as linguistics or advanced mathematics: theoretically impressive and prestigious, but in practice an academic circlejerk whose real world applications are barely understood by anyone outside the bubble.A lot of the online discourse I've seen about this book has centred on ( spoilers, and my thoughts thereon )
( More slight spoilers, cw: abuse )
So this wasn't a life-changing read and I'm not rushing out to buy myself a permanent copy, but I did thoroughly enjoy the experience, enough to then also pick up:
Yellowface by RF Kuang: When Athena, a young literary darling of Chinese descent, dies in a freakish mishap, her white friend June - also a novelist, though massively less successful - steals her latest manuscript and passes it off as her own. The manuscript in question? A deeply sensitive, passionately angry, very much Own Voices oriented story about the WWI Chinese Labour Corps. June reworks the story to include a bunch of noble white allies, remakes her authorial persona to be racially ambiguous, and launches herself towards literary stardom with all the reckless confidence of Icarus charging headlong at the sun.
( More thoughts )
Fannish 50 S3 Post 54: The Amazing Mr. X (NOIRVEMBER)
Nov. 13th, 2025 12:14 pmglitteryvThe Amazing Mr. X (YouTube)
A 1948 horror noir from Eagle-Lion Films.
Christine (played by Lynn Bari) is a rich widow who believes that someone from the great beyond is trying to contact her. Janet, her sister (played by Cathy O'Donnell) repeatedly tells Christine that she's imagining things. They live in a big house by a cliff and the combination of the waves from the sea below and the wind results in strange noises.
However, Christine is not convinced. One night, she's walking down the beach, on her way to her boyfriend Martin's house (played by Richard Carlson) for dinner. She begins to hear the voices again. It puts her in a weird emotional moment. Just as she's starting to get a hold of herself, she runs into a guy named Alexis (played by Turhan Bey). This dude tells her that his powers led him to her and that he wants to help. He drops a few details abt her and her husband that he shouldn't know cuz he and Christine had never met before.
Afterwards, she asks Martin for a raincheck. After she calms down, he proposes to her. Once Martin leaves for his home, she begins to see and hear more stuff. She sits down with Janet and they agree to visit Alexis to see what he can do to help them.
A seance occurs…
This is an interesting movie in that it's half gothic horror and half film noir. There's the supernatural aspect including ghosts, seances, the idea of a love that goes beyond life and death, etc. Meanwhile, for the film noir, the main themes are obsession and fate. The cinematography (by John Alton) is moody AF.
All of the actors were fine (tho no one stood out for me.)
Do I have any criticisms?
Yeppers. I do feel that the story has uneven pacing after Christine and Alexis meet. Sometimes things take forever to happen, others things seem to speed up.
Even though this is mostly built as a film noir, IMO, it's more a gothic suspense movie. So I'm v. ??? as to why ppl keep bringing this movie up whenever someone asks for film noir recs. YMMV.
So the first half of the movie is abt Christine. But then, the plot jumps lanes and the focus shifts to another character all the way to the end. Which is odd. I wish the movie had been abt the other character to begin with.
Especially cuz I wanted some more info on Christine as the movie came into a close. She's been put thru the wringer psychologically speaking AND survives a truly dark moment. It's also hinted at (some 15-20 mins before the movie ends) that she's having suicidal ideations too. The rest of the characters don't seem concerned abt that? Given everything that happens to her, I don't see Christine having a happy ending.
IDK. It was unnerving cuz there's no closure to her character one way or another.
Do I recommend it?
#Unsure. It's not a bad movie, but I can't rec it as a full noir. So, I'm giving it a 2.1 out of 5.
Queerness level:
*Shakes head no*
Le trailer
A 1948 horror noir from Eagle-Lion Films.
Christine (played by Lynn Bari) is a rich widow who believes that someone from the great beyond is trying to contact her. Janet, her sister (played by Cathy O'Donnell) repeatedly tells Christine that she's imagining things. They live in a big house by a cliff and the combination of the waves from the sea below and the wind results in strange noises.
However, Christine is not convinced. One night, she's walking down the beach, on her way to her boyfriend Martin's house (played by Richard Carlson) for dinner. She begins to hear the voices again. It puts her in a weird emotional moment. Just as she's starting to get a hold of herself, she runs into a guy named Alexis (played by Turhan Bey). This dude tells her that his powers led him to her and that he wants to help. He drops a few details abt her and her husband that he shouldn't know cuz he and Christine had never met before.
Afterwards, she asks Martin for a raincheck. After she calms down, he proposes to her. Once Martin leaves for his home, she begins to see and hear more stuff. She sits down with Janet and they agree to visit Alexis to see what he can do to help them.
A seance occurs…
This is an interesting movie in that it's half gothic horror and half film noir. There's the supernatural aspect including ghosts, seances, the idea of a love that goes beyond life and death, etc. Meanwhile, for the film noir, the main themes are obsession and fate. The cinematography (by John Alton) is moody AF.
All of the actors were fine (tho no one stood out for me.)
Do I have any criticisms?
Yeppers. I do feel that the story has uneven pacing after Christine and Alexis meet. Sometimes things take forever to happen, others things seem to speed up.
Even though this is mostly built as a film noir, IMO, it's more a gothic suspense movie. So I'm v. ??? as to why ppl keep bringing this movie up whenever someone asks for film noir recs. YMMV.
SPOILERS FOR THE ENDING
Perhaps I'm overthinking this, but I was disappointed by some aspects of the ending.So the first half of the movie is abt Christine. But then, the plot jumps lanes and the focus shifts to another character all the way to the end. Which is odd. I wish the movie had been abt the other character to begin with.
Especially cuz I wanted some more info on Christine as the movie came into a close. She's been put thru the wringer psychologically speaking AND survives a truly dark moment. It's also hinted at (some 15-20 mins before the movie ends) that she's having suicidal ideations too. The rest of the characters don't seem concerned abt that? Given everything that happens to her, I don't see Christine having a happy ending.
IDK. It was unnerving cuz there's no closure to her character one way or another.
Do I recommend it?
#Unsure. It's not a bad movie, but I can't rec it as a full noir. So, I'm giving it a 2.1 out of 5.
Queerness level:
*Shakes head no*
Le trailer
Fannish 50 S3 Post 53: The Chase (NOIRVEMBER)
Nov. 12th, 2025 12:36 pmglitteryvThe Chase (YouTube)
A 1946 movie from Nero Films and directed by Arthur Ripley. It's based on the novel The Black Path of Fear by Cornell Woolrich.
The movie is abt Chuck Scott (played by Robert Cummings), a down on his luck WW2 veteran who, thru an act of kindness, ends up as the chauffeur for a Miami gangster called Eddie Roman (played by Steve Cochran). Now with a steady job and a place to live, Chuck is doing okay! That is, until he forms a bond with Lorna (played by Michèle Morgan)--who just happens to be Eddie's wife…
Actingwise, things are solid. Cummings and Peter Lorre (as Eddie's right hand man Gino) are good. Cochran plays his gangster role with this suave vibe who will turn violent in an instant. I like how he plays Eddie in a way that will unsettle viewers; he also has a v. magnetic persona.
Do I have any criticisms?
The plot feels like two movies in one (and not in a good way). With the first half being verrrrrry noirish as the suspense keeps building up. Then something happens that has the story change lanes in a way that made me MUPPET FACE at the screen.
Lorna as a character was uninteresting. I'm not sure if it was the direction or Morgan's own acting limits or what. She had a couple of good scenes with Cochran and then I'd be like "whatever, girl."
Do I recommend it?
I do as long as you accept that the movie will take a sharp turn. It's also only an hour and 30. I"m giving it a 2.1 out of 5. I didn't feel like I wasted my time watching it, but it's not one I'll rewatch any time soon or, like, ever.
Queerness level:
An argument can be made for Gino's closeness and protectiveness toward Eddie. At least, the way Lorre plays him. YMMV.
Le trailer
A 1946 movie from Nero Films and directed by Arthur Ripley. It's based on the novel The Black Path of Fear by Cornell Woolrich.
The movie is abt Chuck Scott (played by Robert Cummings), a down on his luck WW2 veteran who, thru an act of kindness, ends up as the chauffeur for a Miami gangster called Eddie Roman (played by Steve Cochran). Now with a steady job and a place to live, Chuck is doing okay! That is, until he forms a bond with Lorna (played by Michèle Morgan)--who just happens to be Eddie's wife…
Actingwise, things are solid. Cummings and Peter Lorre (as Eddie's right hand man Gino) are good. Cochran plays his gangster role with this suave vibe who will turn violent in an instant. I like how he plays Eddie in a way that will unsettle viewers; he also has a v. magnetic persona.
Do I have any criticisms?
The plot feels like two movies in one (and not in a good way). With the first half being verrrrrry noirish as the suspense keeps building up. Then something happens that has the story change lanes in a way that made me MUPPET FACE at the screen.
Lorna as a character was uninteresting. I'm not sure if it was the direction or Morgan's own acting limits or what. She had a couple of good scenes with Cochran and then I'd be like "whatever, girl."
Do I recommend it?
I do as long as you accept that the movie will take a sharp turn. It's also only an hour and 30. I"m giving it a 2.1 out of 5. I didn't feel like I wasted my time watching it, but it's not one I'll rewatch any time soon or, like, ever.
Queerness level:
An argument can be made for Gino's closeness and protectiveness toward Eddie. At least, the way Lorre plays him. YMMV.
Le trailer
current fandom events
Nov. 11th, 2025 11:01 pmsvgurl![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
werewolvesden is a community dedicated to any fandom or media that related to werewolves or other wereanimals or shapeshifters thylabang is a multi-verse Kirk/Spock community hosting future event series. allbingo is running Fairy Tales and Fantasy Stories Fest through the month of November. There are pre-made cards or you can create your own based on the available prompts. smallfandomfest has opened prompting for its 38th Small Fandoms Fest until November 21st. smallfandomfest is open for another round of Pimp Your Small Fandom.exesandohsexchange, an exchange based on the exes to lovers trope (though the ship doesn't have to canonically be exes to qualify), is open for sign-ups until November 14th, 11:59PM, 11:59PM Eastern. Nominations are also still open until November 13th, 11:59PM Eastern too. consent_issues_exchange, an exchange for works with a focus on dubious and non-consensual sex, has opened sign-ups until November 22nd, 10PM EST.rec_cember, a community for a month long rec event that will take place in December, is open for sign-ups.fancake's theme of the month is: mystery and suspense. Click on the banner below to learn more!
movies
Nov. 11th, 2025 11:13 amsnickficA lot of meh here.
Crash (1996). A man and his wife get involved in the car crash fetish scene. I really don't think "erotic thriller" is adequate preparation for this movie, but then again I'm not sure what is. I recently saw this described as "a series of sex scenes separated by car crashes," and that's about right.
I liked:
- The completely normalized polyamory. This married couple get off on fucking other people and telling each other about it, good for them.
- That it was a lot gayer than I expected, especially for 1996. Both m/m and f/f scenes (even if the latter felt a bit out of nowhere).
I was disappointed by:
- James Spader. THIS is James Spader? This is the guy everyone is low-key obssessed with? This gormless Zach Gilford lookalike?
- How we open with the wife, but the husband gets all the development, and she just gets pulled along in his wake. She seems to enjoy it, but I wanted to see her take some initiative, too.
- Somehow I'd osmosed that there was like car-related body mod stuff, like Cronenberg's version of Tetsuo: The Iron Man. The one gal with the leg brace was not really sufficient for my tastes.
--
Predator: Badlands (2025). A Yautja runt goes on a quest to kill an unkillable monster to avenge(?) his brother's death at his father's hands, and ends up teaming up with a Weyland-Yutani synth (Elle Fanning) with no legs.
This is by the same guy who directed Prey, Dan Trachtenberg. The writing felt more obvious and more cobbled-together than that movie, probably because it was trying to do more. I got tired of people stating the same obvious story beat multiple times.
I think this is the first time the Yautja have been humanized to nearly this degree, right? I've only seen Prey and the AvP movies, so I may be missing some lore. I'm not sure what I needed from a race of big game hunters was daddy issues, but otoh murderous patriarchy does go hand in hand with the big game hunting, I guess. IDK, I wanted the Yautja in general and our specimen in particular to be weirder.
However, I eventually enjoyed Thia the synth, who has a kind of anti-Gamora/Nebula relationship with a fellow synth. It passed the Bechdel test, good job! And the movie had some fantastic deadly alien fauna. Just completely bonkers creatures that want to kill you in the most unlikely ways. A+.
--
Die My Love (2025). A woman (Jennifer Lawrence) moves with her husband (Robert Pattinson) to his rural family home, has a baby, and has a mental breakdown.
My impression of this movie from the trailer was that this was maybe about a couple's relationship slowly escalating to bonkers attempted murder. (Pattinson's presence definitely contributed to my impression of it being bonkers.) There was no baby in the trailer I saw, and if there had been I wouldn't have gone to see it. That said, I don't know that it was ABOUT motherhood or post-partum depression or about the marital relationship. Frankly, I cannot confidently say what it was about. The choice of first and last shots suggest it's about the house?
I can't say it's not bonkers, but more in terms of its storytelling choices than its content as such. The timeline is weird and confused, but not in an interesting way. We learn literally nothing about the main character's background until about the 80% mark. (She was orphaned at age 10? Might be good to mention that earlier??)
Some of what we see on screen probably isn't happening. The ending, where she walks naked into a forest fire, I feel almost certainly didn't happen. There's a recurring theme where she prowls around on the ground but also might be pretending to be a horse? Also there's a horse that just wanders around and which they hit with their car at one point? (To be fair, it's not the first movie this year where a thematically significant horse just wanders through now and then. Looking at you, On Swift Horses.)
To be honest, JLaw was the biggest draw of this movie for me, and I did get plenty of her. It's a JLaw showcase, and I also enjoyed Sissy Spacek in a supporting role. But overall, man. I ventured outside my usual genre, and I had regrets!
Crash (1996). A man and his wife get involved in the car crash fetish scene. I really don't think "erotic thriller" is adequate preparation for this movie, but then again I'm not sure what is. I recently saw this described as "a series of sex scenes separated by car crashes," and that's about right.
I liked:
- The completely normalized polyamory. This married couple get off on fucking other people and telling each other about it, good for them.
- That it was a lot gayer than I expected, especially for 1996. Both m/m and f/f scenes (even if the latter felt a bit out of nowhere).
I was disappointed by:
- James Spader. THIS is James Spader? This is the guy everyone is low-key obssessed with? This gormless Zach Gilford lookalike?
- How we open with the wife, but the husband gets all the development, and she just gets pulled along in his wake. She seems to enjoy it, but I wanted to see her take some initiative, too.
- Somehow I'd osmosed that there was like car-related body mod stuff, like Cronenberg's version of Tetsuo: The Iron Man. The one gal with the leg brace was not really sufficient for my tastes.
--
Predator: Badlands (2025). A Yautja runt goes on a quest to kill an unkillable monster to avenge(?) his brother's death at his father's hands, and ends up teaming up with a Weyland-Yutani synth (Elle Fanning) with no legs.
This is by the same guy who directed Prey, Dan Trachtenberg. The writing felt more obvious and more cobbled-together than that movie, probably because it was trying to do more. I got tired of people stating the same obvious story beat multiple times.
I think this is the first time the Yautja have been humanized to nearly this degree, right? I've only seen Prey and the AvP movies, so I may be missing some lore. I'm not sure what I needed from a race of big game hunters was daddy issues, but otoh murderous patriarchy does go hand in hand with the big game hunting, I guess. IDK, I wanted the Yautja in general and our specimen in particular to be weirder.
However, I eventually enjoyed Thia the synth, who has a kind of anti-Gamora/Nebula relationship with a fellow synth. It passed the Bechdel test, good job! And the movie had some fantastic deadly alien fauna. Just completely bonkers creatures that want to kill you in the most unlikely ways. A+.
--
Die My Love (2025). A woman (Jennifer Lawrence) moves with her husband (Robert Pattinson) to his rural family home, has a baby, and has a mental breakdown.
My impression of this movie from the trailer was that this was maybe about a couple's relationship slowly escalating to bonkers attempted murder. (Pattinson's presence definitely contributed to my impression of it being bonkers.) There was no baby in the trailer I saw, and if there had been I wouldn't have gone to see it. That said, I don't know that it was ABOUT motherhood or post-partum depression or about the marital relationship. Frankly, I cannot confidently say what it was about. The choice of first and last shots suggest it's about the house?
I can't say it's not bonkers, but more in terms of its storytelling choices than its content as such. The timeline is weird and confused, but not in an interesting way. We learn literally nothing about the main character's background until about the 80% mark. (She was orphaned at age 10? Might be good to mention that earlier??)
Some of what we see on screen probably isn't happening. The ending, where she walks naked into a forest fire, I feel almost certainly didn't happen. There's a recurring theme where she prowls around on the ground but also might be pretending to be a horse? Also there's a horse that just wanders around and which they hit with their car at one point? (To be fair, it's not the first movie this year where a thematically significant horse just wanders through now and then. Looking at you, On Swift Horses.)
To be honest, JLaw was the biggest draw of this movie for me, and I did get plenty of her. It's a JLaw showcase, and I also enjoyed Sissy Spacek in a supporting role. But overall, man. I ventured outside my usual genre, and I had regrets!
Fannish 50 S3 Post 52: Farewell, My Lovely--1975 version (NOIRVEMBER)
Nov. 11th, 2025 11:25 amglitteryvFarewell, My Lovely
A 1975 adaptation of Dashiell Hammett's novel by the same name.
Just like with The Big Sleep, I read that novel some 20 yrs ago. I've watched (and own in physical format) the 1944 movie that was originally titled Murder, My Sweet. That movie starred Dick Powell and Claire Trevor.
Out of the two versions, the 1944 adaptation is the more faithful one to the novel. So, when compared to the 1975 film, there are some differences, but the overall storyline remained mostly the same. Acting and plot are good in both.
In this movie, Philip Marlowe (played by Robert Mitchum here and Dick Powell in the 1944 movie) is a private detective in 1941. He's not doing great, but he's deffo busy. The bulk of his cases tend to be abt cheating spouses or (like it happens at the start of the movie) finding missing people.
As soon as he returns a teenage runaway girl to her parents, he gets 'hired' by Moose Malloy (a thug who has just been released from prison for robbing $80k from a bank 7 yrs prior.) Malloy orders Marlowe to find his sweetheart, a woman named Velma, who was a dancer at a seedy bar. So Marlowe starts snooping around. The more he works the case, the wilder the search becomes until he senses that there's a bigger thing happening he hasn't quite connected the dots yet.
This is a REALLY GOOD movie. Extremely classic noir featuring Mitchum's Marlowe who has a frenemies situation with the police chief and Charlotte Rampling--who, at that time, was 29 y.o.--as Helen. She's a v. sensual, rich, and bored housewife. It's interesting that everything from her styling to her affectation and her voice is v., reminiscent of 1940s Lauren Baccall. Rampling does a good job as the femme fatale. (For context, the fabulous Claire Trevor, who played the same role in the 1944 movie, was slightly better, but I digress.) Rampling and Mitchum have a slow-burning intensity that works well considering Rampling's doing the most she can to embody the 1940s vamp and Mitchum (who was in his late 50s) starred in a lot of those 1940s noirs. I liked their interactions. Even though Helen was a little too much at times. Girl was horny, lordy lorde. XD
There are 2 differences between the 1944 and 1975 versions.
1. Because this movie was filmed after the Code was struck down, ppl curse, there are plenty of boobs (such as a scene in which Marlowe opens doors while searching for someone and finds different groups of ppl in which all of the women are topless), and the violence is more graphic (again, bullet wounds, blood, ppl getting punched and slapped.).
2. Also certain details: a character got genderswapped, two characters never show up (they were main characters), and two new characters were created for the movie. It was a bit confusing, but it worked for me. Oh, and out of nowhere, a v., v. young Sylvester Stallone shows up as a secondary character that's a thug dude. It was hilarious to see baby!Stallone, IDK.
It's not a perfect movie. There was one character that had a connection to the Big Bad, but I didn't quite understand how this partnership worked.
Do I recommend it? YES! If you're a fan of film noir or crime movies in general, this one will be a treat for sure. Content Warning for a lot of racial slurs in some scenes, on-screen violence against women, and some graphic stuff. I'm giving it a 4.5 out of 5.
Queerness level
There's a female character who is v. explicitly a lesbian. However, she's also an abuser and overall terrible person.
P.S.: One funny thing abt this movie being filmed in 1975 but depicting 1941 is that it'd be as if a movie coming out in 2025 that was set in 1990. I was a teenager in 1991! WHAT IS TIME?! O__o
Le trailer
A 1975 adaptation of Dashiell Hammett's novel by the same name.
Just like with The Big Sleep, I read that novel some 20 yrs ago. I've watched (and own in physical format) the 1944 movie that was originally titled Murder, My Sweet. That movie starred Dick Powell and Claire Trevor.
Out of the two versions, the 1944 adaptation is the more faithful one to the novel. So, when compared to the 1975 film, there are some differences, but the overall storyline remained mostly the same. Acting and plot are good in both.
In this movie, Philip Marlowe (played by Robert Mitchum here and Dick Powell in the 1944 movie) is a private detective in 1941. He's not doing great, but he's deffo busy. The bulk of his cases tend to be abt cheating spouses or (like it happens at the start of the movie) finding missing people.
As soon as he returns a teenage runaway girl to her parents, he gets 'hired' by Moose Malloy (a thug who has just been released from prison for robbing $80k from a bank 7 yrs prior.) Malloy orders Marlowe to find his sweetheart, a woman named Velma, who was a dancer at a seedy bar. So Marlowe starts snooping around. The more he works the case, the wilder the search becomes until he senses that there's a bigger thing happening he hasn't quite connected the dots yet.
This is a REALLY GOOD movie. Extremely classic noir featuring Mitchum's Marlowe who has a frenemies situation with the police chief and Charlotte Rampling--who, at that time, was 29 y.o.--as Helen. She's a v. sensual, rich, and bored housewife. It's interesting that everything from her styling to her affectation and her voice is v., reminiscent of 1940s Lauren Baccall. Rampling does a good job as the femme fatale. (For context, the fabulous Claire Trevor, who played the same role in the 1944 movie, was slightly better, but I digress.) Rampling and Mitchum have a slow-burning intensity that works well considering Rampling's doing the most she can to embody the 1940s vamp and Mitchum (who was in his late 50s) starred in a lot of those 1940s noirs. I liked their interactions. Even though Helen was a little too much at times. Girl was horny, lordy lorde. XD
There are 2 differences between the 1944 and 1975 versions.
1. Because this movie was filmed after the Code was struck down, ppl curse, there are plenty of boobs (such as a scene in which Marlowe opens doors while searching for someone and finds different groups of ppl in which all of the women are topless), and the violence is more graphic (again, bullet wounds, blood, ppl getting punched and slapped.).
2. Also certain details: a character got genderswapped, two characters never show up (they were main characters), and two new characters were created for the movie. It was a bit confusing, but it worked for me. Oh, and out of nowhere, a v., v. young Sylvester Stallone shows up as a secondary character that's a thug dude. It was hilarious to see baby!Stallone, IDK.
It's not a perfect movie. There was one character that had a connection to the Big Bad, but I didn't quite understand how this partnership worked.
Do I recommend it? YES! If you're a fan of film noir or crime movies in general, this one will be a treat for sure. Content Warning for a lot of racial slurs in some scenes, on-screen violence against women, and some graphic stuff. I'm giving it a 4.5 out of 5.
Queerness level
There's a female character who is v. explicitly a lesbian. However, she's also an abuser and overall terrible person.
P.S.: One funny thing abt this movie being filmed in 1975 but depicting 1941 is that it'd be as if a movie coming out in 2025 that was set in 1990. I was a teenager in 1991! WHAT IS TIME?! O__o
Le trailer
fic: 'tis the season (for pumpkins)
Nov. 7th, 2025 12:05 pmsvgurltrickortreatex had creator reveals and this is what I wrote. :)Title: 'tis the season (for pumpkins)
Fandom: Gilmore Girls
Pairing/Characters: Rory/Jess
Rating: Teen
Word Count: 990
Summary: Rory and Jess celebrate Halloween, Stars Hollow style.
ao3 tag meme game
Nov. 6th, 2025 11:41 amsvgurlI snagged this from maevedarcy. :)
Go to your Works page on AO3, look at the tags, and see what the answers to these questions are. (Or any other site that has tags, I don’t know if FFnet or Wattpad does)
I'm![[archiveofourown.org profile]](https://p2.dreamwidth.org/b164c54b26e4/-/archiveofourown.org/favicon.ico)
svgurl410 on AO3 and most of my fics are on there so I'll go with that. :D
1. What rating do you write most fics under?
General Audiences (157 out of 277)
2. What are your top 3 fandoms?
1. Smallville (176 out of 277 works on AO3)
2. Marvel Cinematic Universe (58 out of 277)
3. Gilmore Girls (23 out of 277)
3. What is your top character you write about?
Clark Kent (138 works)
4. What are the 3 top pairings?
1. Clark Kent/Oliver Queen (81 out of 277 works)
2. Clark Kent/Lois Lane (45 out of 277 works)
3. James "Bucky" Barnes/Sam Wilson (18 out of 277 works)
5. What are the top 3 additional tags?
1. Alternate Universe - Canon Divergence (111)
2. Established Relationship (81)
3. Getting Together (57)
6. Did any of this surprise you? e.g. what turned out to be your top tag.
Most of it was what I expected - the ratings, the top ships, since I was very mono fandom for a long time, etc. I was surprised I've written more established relationship than getting together, since I thought I wrote more the latter, but I think that some of my older fics haven't been tagged properly so if I went back and updated, that might change. Then again, I also used to write a lot of flashbacks in my fics so technically the fic would have them established but I would want to write how they got together in the first place so I'd throw it in.
The code if you want to do it:
maevedarcy. :)Go to your Works page on AO3, look at the tags, and see what the answers to these questions are. (Or any other site that has tags, I don’t know if FFnet or Wattpad does)
I'm
1. What rating do you write most fics under?
General Audiences (157 out of 277)
2. What are your top 3 fandoms?
1. Smallville (176 out of 277 works on AO3)
2. Marvel Cinematic Universe (58 out of 277)
3. Gilmore Girls (23 out of 277)
3. What is your top character you write about?
Clark Kent (138 works)
4. What are the 3 top pairings?
1. Clark Kent/Oliver Queen (81 out of 277 works)
2. Clark Kent/Lois Lane (45 out of 277 works)
3. James "Bucky" Barnes/Sam Wilson (18 out of 277 works)
5. What are the top 3 additional tags?
1. Alternate Universe - Canon Divergence (111)
2. Established Relationship (81)
3. Getting Together (57)
6. Did any of this surprise you? e.g. what turned out to be your top tag.
Most of it was what I expected - the ratings, the top ships, since I was very mono fandom for a long time, etc. I was surprised I've written more established relationship than getting together, since I thought I wrote more the latter, but I think that some of my older fics haven't been tagged properly so if I went back and updated, that might change. Then again, I also used to write a lot of flashbacks in my fics so technically the fic would have them established but I would want to write how they got together in the first place so I'd throw it in.
The code if you want to do it:
Fannish 50 S3 Post 51: The Big Sleep - 1978 version (Noirvember)
Nov. 5th, 2025 11:23 amglitteryvThe Big Sleep (Hoopla)
This is for the 1978 version of the movie that's based on Dashiell Hammet's noir novel by the same name.
I'd say that the most popular adaptation of that story is the 1946 one--which is the first adaptation--with Humphrey Bogart as Phillip Marlowe and Lauren Baccall as Vivien Rutledge nee Sternwood. That's a movie I've watched a lot of times, and one I own in physical and digital formats. I love it backwards and forwards. As for the book…I read it almost 20 yrs ago and the most I can say is that it's v. much of its era. Obvs, certain things were softened for the 1946 movie due to the censorship code thingie that was in effect at that time.
But, when I found out that there's a 1978 version, my curiosity was piqued.
FTR, it follows the same premise as the book and the 1946 movie so, if you've read the novel or watched the Bogart film, this movie is mostly on track with those two.
The premise is abt Phillip Marlowe (played by Robert Mitchum), a private detective that gets hired by General Sternwood to assist him in a blackmailing case against the Sternwoods. At first, Marlowe thinks it's going to be easy. However, the more he gets involved, the deeper the rabbit hole goes.
I'd say that the best things abt this movie are James Stewart as General Sternwood and Robert Mitchum as Phillip Marlowe. They're both FANTASTIC actors who bring their A-game to a movie that's…not so great. Because Mitchum's got a laconic, slightly rebellious persona, I don't mind the fact that he's in early 60s at time of filming while, in the novel, the same character is in his early 30s. FTR, Bogart was in his late 40s in his version. So, yeah, Mitchum's a bit older BUT he's got the vibe and the presence.
Annnd that's pretty much it for the positive. This is a hella terrible movie, LOLsob. #SadTrombone
Do I have any criticisms?
For reasons I don't think anyone can explain, the setting was moved from California to London? Also, the only USians are Phillip Marlowe and the three remaining Sternwoods.
Secondly, the casting is just BAD outside of Stewart and Mitchum. No one else can act or, at least, embody the characters they're supposed to be portraying. Frex, there's Agnes, a secondary character that's still a little important to the overall plot. She's a secretary who is v. memorable in the 1946 version (played by Sonia Darrin in an uncredited role.) In the 1978 movie, she's played by Joan Collins. Even with her trampy vibes (per the character), she's not convincing enough.
As for the rest of the cast, well, their range goes from "super mediocre" to "oh, you poor soul. Who told you that you can act?"
The problem is that there are certain key scenes that are meant to be impactful, but the viewer can only laugh. Their acting is THAT crummy.
Also, since this is from the late 70s, there are several scenes of topless women (whether in photos or in a scene.) And, for reasons (I guess), every female character either decides to walk around without a bra OR they wear the equivalent of a handkerchief so their boobs are always bouncing around. Finally, the two main female characters (the Sternwood sisters) tend to mainly wear see-through tops just because. The violence is more in your face than expected. Many close ups of ppl with gunshot wounds, blood, etc. Finally, there are some 15-20 minutes toward the end of things that never happen in the novel. It goes somewhere but IHNI where that is.
One thing that surprised me was that this was the second out of two Phillip Marlowe movies starring Robert Mitchum.
Do I recommend this? No, LOL. It's a waste of time. LIke, Mitchum and Stewart try to do the best they can do, but it's not worth it. I'm giving it a 0.5 out of 5.
Queerness level
Don't even bother cuz there's none.
Le trailer
This is for the 1978 version of the movie that's based on Dashiell Hammet's noir novel by the same name.
I'd say that the most popular adaptation of that story is the 1946 one--which is the first adaptation--with Humphrey Bogart as Phillip Marlowe and Lauren Baccall as Vivien Rutledge nee Sternwood. That's a movie I've watched a lot of times, and one I own in physical and digital formats. I love it backwards and forwards. As for the book…I read it almost 20 yrs ago and the most I can say is that it's v. much of its era. Obvs, certain things were softened for the 1946 movie due to the censorship code thingie that was in effect at that time.
But, when I found out that there's a 1978 version, my curiosity was piqued.
FTR, it follows the same premise as the book and the 1946 movie so, if you've read the novel or watched the Bogart film, this movie is mostly on track with those two.
The premise is abt Phillip Marlowe (played by Robert Mitchum), a private detective that gets hired by General Sternwood to assist him in a blackmailing case against the Sternwoods. At first, Marlowe thinks it's going to be easy. However, the more he gets involved, the deeper the rabbit hole goes.
I'd say that the best things abt this movie are James Stewart as General Sternwood and Robert Mitchum as Phillip Marlowe. They're both FANTASTIC actors who bring their A-game to a movie that's…not so great. Because Mitchum's got a laconic, slightly rebellious persona, I don't mind the fact that he's in early 60s at time of filming while, in the novel, the same character is in his early 30s. FTR, Bogart was in his late 40s in his version. So, yeah, Mitchum's a bit older BUT he's got the vibe and the presence.
Annnd that's pretty much it for the positive. This is a hella terrible movie, LOLsob. #SadTrombone
Do I have any criticisms?
For reasons I don't think anyone can explain, the setting was moved from California to London? Also, the only USians are Phillip Marlowe and the three remaining Sternwoods.
Secondly, the casting is just BAD outside of Stewart and Mitchum. No one else can act or, at least, embody the characters they're supposed to be portraying. Frex, there's Agnes, a secondary character that's still a little important to the overall plot. She's a secretary who is v. memorable in the 1946 version (played by Sonia Darrin in an uncredited role.) In the 1978 movie, she's played by Joan Collins. Even with her trampy vibes (per the character), she's not convincing enough.
As for the rest of the cast, well, their range goes from "super mediocre" to "oh, you poor soul. Who told you that you can act?"
The problem is that there are certain key scenes that are meant to be impactful, but the viewer can only laugh. Their acting is THAT crummy.
Also, since this is from the late 70s, there are several scenes of topless women (whether in photos or in a scene.) And, for reasons (I guess), every female character either decides to walk around without a bra OR they wear the equivalent of a handkerchief so their boobs are always bouncing around. Finally, the two main female characters (the Sternwood sisters) tend to mainly wear see-through tops just because. The violence is more in your face than expected. Many close ups of ppl with gunshot wounds, blood, etc. Finally, there are some 15-20 minutes toward the end of things that never happen in the novel. It goes somewhere but IHNI where that is.
One thing that surprised me was that this was the second out of two Phillip Marlowe movies starring Robert Mitchum.
Do I recommend this? No, LOL. It's a waste of time. LIke, Mitchum and Stewart try to do the best they can do, but it's not worth it. I'm giving it a 0.5 out of 5.
Queerness level
Don't even bother cuz there's none.
Le trailer
Fannish 50 S3 Post 50: Suspense (Noirvember)
Nov. 3rd, 2025 03:07 pmglitteryvOMG, I'VE COMPLETED THE FANNISH 50 FOR A THIRD TIME!!!!. NGL, I tried to make sure to have some stuff to talk abt BUT, at the same time, I wasn't fully sure it'd be enough to reach the finish line. 😅😅😅
In any case, I do plan to keep posting. At the v. least continue Noirvember and then a couple of posts for December. Woo-hoo to me, tho! 🥳
Suspense (YouTube)
A 1946 Monumental Pictures film that stars Barry Sulivan as Joe Morgan, Belita as Roberta Leonard, Albert Dekker as Robert Leornard, Eugene Palette as Harry Wheeler, and Bonita Grenville as Ronnie.
It begins with Joe, a drifter from the East Coast, who is now looking for work in Los Angeles. One guy tells him to talk to Mr. Leonard, the owner of an ice capade-type of show. Joe gets a job as a peanut seller. He's kinda 'meh' abt but, whatever. That is until Roberta (Mr. Leonard's wife) does her floor show. Suddenly, Joe is MESMERIZED, TAKEN, DROOLING, GAGA OVER THE HEAD with her. Afterwards, he begins to insinuate himself a little both with Roberta (i.e. pursing her romantically) and with Mr. Leonard (by showing him that he's got what it takes to be the general manager of the show).
After a promotion as Assistant Stage Manager, Joe redoubles his efforts to woo Roberta. Meanwhile, there's a woman named Ronnie who shows up back in Joe's life. It seems they have some history; Ronnie's DETERMINED to try to win him back, I guess?
Despite sounding like some melodrama, this is a 100% noir film. It deffo has the beats (questionable pasts for several characters, business that might or might not be on the level, Roberta AND Ronnie being femme fatales, Joe's obsession with Roberta, and the cinematography presenting the whole mess in fascinating shots.).
HOWEVER, the thing that makes this movie stand out from other noirs is that Belita (the actress portraying Roberta) was an ex-Olympic ice skater. So there are a lot of scenes where she's doing her thing on ice. And, like, at first, it sounds v. gimmicky. How the hell is noir gonna mix with someone skating on an ice rink? IDK what to tell you other that it all works really well, LOL.
The acting, lighting, and dialogue are all good!
I liked Barry Sullivan the most out of the cast. His portrayal of Joe as a guy who is dark in a way that is obnoxious but intriguing. Belita's Roberta is such a mystery. IHNI what her game was until near the end.
Do I have any criticisms?
Out of the 7 ice skating sequences, there were two scenes that I was v. meh abt. I kinda wish they'd been cut from the final edit.
Do I recommend it?
Yes! I know it's a weird premise, but the movie has a tight plot. I'm giving it a 4 out of 5. I think the only place it's currently available is YT right now.
Queerness level:
Non-existent, maybe? I'm kinda 🤔at Mr. Leonard cuz there are some vibes I picked up abt him and Joe that made me go "HMMMMMMMMMM".
In any case, I do plan to keep posting. At the v. least continue Noirvember and then a couple of posts for December. Woo-hoo to me, tho! 🥳
Suspense (YouTube)
A 1946 Monumental Pictures film that stars Barry Sulivan as Joe Morgan, Belita as Roberta Leonard, Albert Dekker as Robert Leornard, Eugene Palette as Harry Wheeler, and Bonita Grenville as Ronnie.
It begins with Joe, a drifter from the East Coast, who is now looking for work in Los Angeles. One guy tells him to talk to Mr. Leonard, the owner of an ice capade-type of show. Joe gets a job as a peanut seller. He's kinda 'meh' abt but, whatever. That is until Roberta (Mr. Leonard's wife) does her floor show. Suddenly, Joe is MESMERIZED, TAKEN, DROOLING, GAGA OVER THE HEAD with her. Afterwards, he begins to insinuate himself a little both with Roberta (i.e. pursing her romantically) and with Mr. Leonard (by showing him that he's got what it takes to be the general manager of the show).
After a promotion as Assistant Stage Manager, Joe redoubles his efforts to woo Roberta. Meanwhile, there's a woman named Ronnie who shows up back in Joe's life. It seems they have some history; Ronnie's DETERMINED to try to win him back, I guess?
Despite sounding like some melodrama, this is a 100% noir film. It deffo has the beats (questionable pasts for several characters, business that might or might not be on the level, Roberta AND Ronnie being femme fatales, Joe's obsession with Roberta, and the cinematography presenting the whole mess in fascinating shots.).
HOWEVER, the thing that makes this movie stand out from other noirs is that Belita (the actress portraying Roberta) was an ex-Olympic ice skater. So there are a lot of scenes where she's doing her thing on ice. And, like, at first, it sounds v. gimmicky. How the hell is noir gonna mix with someone skating on an ice rink? IDK what to tell you other that it all works really well, LOL.
The acting, lighting, and dialogue are all good!
I liked Barry Sullivan the most out of the cast. His portrayal of Joe as a guy who is dark in a way that is obnoxious but intriguing. Belita's Roberta is such a mystery. IHNI what her game was until near the end.
Do I have any criticisms?
Out of the 7 ice skating sequences, there were two scenes that I was v. meh abt. I kinda wish they'd been cut from the final edit.
Do I recommend it?
Yes! I know it's a weird premise, but the movie has a tight plot. I'm giving it a 4 out of 5. I think the only place it's currently available is YT right now.
Queerness level:
Non-existent, maybe? I'm kinda 🤔at Mr. Leonard cuz there are some vibes I picked up abt him and Joe that made me go "HMMMMMMMMMM".
gift fic: it happened one night (diana/natasha)
Nov. 3rd, 2025 10:26 amsvgurltrickortreatex opened its collection a few days ago and this is what I got. :DTitle: It Happened One Night
Author:
Fandom: DCEU/MCU
Pairing/Characters: Diana/Natasha
Rating: Teen
Word Count: 959
Summary: Natasha meets Natasha. Well, not exactly. But that is how the story starts.
This was cute and fun!
Fannish 50 S3 Post 49: Jin and his special brand of magic!
Nov. 2nd, 2025 11:38 amglitteryvI'll be dropping context throughout this post (for added understanding), but let me start at the beginning: after SUGA's extremely successful D-Day AND J-Hope's triumphant "Hope On The Stage" world tours, Jin decided to hit the road for his "RunSeokjin_Ep._Tour". It kicked off June 28th, 2005 in Seoul and ended in Amsterdam on August 10, 2025. After that, Jin flew over to the US to work on the upcoming BTS album.
Ppl LOVED the tour's concept. There were several articles abt how brilliant and unique it was. Everyone wanted more BUT, at the same time, the Tannies were hunkered in, writing, recording, and focused on their first full album in years.
However, Jin is THE Chaos King and so, on a literal whim, he asked Jin Crew (his team) to see if there were any availability anywhere to perform an encore show or two.
Which led to the surprise announcement of the 2-Day "RunSeokjin_Ep._Tour_Encore" on October 31st and Novemeber 1st in Incheon, South Korea.
*takes a deep breath and exhales*
Both concerts were, ofc, gonna be livestreamed as per the Kpop system, LOL. Jin mentioned some changes to the show and so we waited.
Trigger/Content Warnings: These are fancams and so they feature a lot of happy screaming. They're all from a concert featuring bright and flashing lights as well as sparks/pyrotechnics.
Day 1
CONTEXT: After losing in a game against ARMYs, Jin walked out wearing the same fit from this year's DESTA. He and Hobi wore each other's costumes from their respective concepts ("The Astronaut" and "Jack in the Box".) So he walked out wearing a white and black suit, Hobi's jester hat on his head.
And then he started performing "Super Tuna" . . . with a full choreo FEATURING HOBI AND JUNGKOOK. You can tell cuz the screaming got even higher at the 1:37 mark, hehehe. Also, the video is set to start at the performance (what comes before it is Jin talking abt wearing the costume and how heavy is the hat. There are no subtitles.
Back during the original run, the BTS medley section consisted of Dynamite, Butter, Mikrokosmos, and Spring Day. This time around, the songs were switched. The inclusion of "So What" meant that there was going to be a water fight, heheh. Especially because of Jin and Jungkook's friendly ongoing rivalry.
Day 2
This concert's main surprise began with Jimin cheering Jin on as he ran around the venue and then the vibes got better when Taehyung went onstage and sang for the first time in 2 yrs. He sounded amazing.
Afterwards, Jin walked him back out for his piano performances because, according to him, Taehyung was crying due to being so happily overwhelmed. ;___;
And then, during the medley, chaos reigned: Jimin sounded great, Taehyung walked on stage wearing his backpack (and also forgot some of the lyrics), all three sang an improvised version of "Spring Day", and it was softly chaotic.
Such as the moment when Jin made suggestions of what else they could sing together, Jimin goes "can we do that?" only for Jin to say "hell yeah, we can do anything you want to do!" MEANWHILE, the production team is trying to find the soundtrack for "Spring Day" and failing to do so. Only for the live band to start playing a version of it, heheheh.
Even though I had to wake up shortly before 5 a.m. Friday and Saturday, everything was worth it. I cried, laughed, and squeed online alongside other fans. CANNOT WAIT FOR 2026 AND THE REUNION TOURRRRRRR!
Ppl LOVED the tour's concept. There were several articles abt how brilliant and unique it was. Everyone wanted more BUT, at the same time, the Tannies were hunkered in, writing, recording, and focused on their first full album in years.
However, Jin is THE Chaos King and so, on a literal whim, he asked Jin Crew (his team) to see if there were any availability anywhere to perform an encore show or two.
Which led to the surprise announcement of the 2-Day "RunSeokjin_Ep._Tour_Encore" on October 31st and Novemeber 1st in Incheon, South Korea.
*takes a deep breath and exhales*
Both concerts were, ofc, gonna be livestreamed as per the Kpop system, LOL. Jin mentioned some changes to the show and so we waited.
Trigger/Content Warnings: These are fancams and so they feature a lot of happy screaming. They're all from a concert featuring bright and flashing lights as well as sparks/pyrotechnics.
Day 1
CONTEXT: After losing in a game against ARMYs, Jin walked out wearing the same fit from this year's DESTA. He and Hobi wore each other's costumes from their respective concepts ("The Astronaut" and "Jack in the Box".) So he walked out wearing a white and black suit, Hobi's jester hat on his head.
And then he started performing "Super Tuna" . . . with a full choreo FEATURING HOBI AND JUNGKOOK. You can tell cuz the screaming got even higher at the 1:37 mark, hehehe. Also, the video is set to start at the performance (what comes before it is Jin talking abt wearing the costume and how heavy is the hat. There are no subtitles.
Back during the original run, the BTS medley section consisted of Dynamite, Butter, Mikrokosmos, and Spring Day. This time around, the songs were switched. The inclusion of "So What" meant that there was going to be a water fight, heheh. Especially because of Jin and Jungkook's friendly ongoing rivalry.
Day 2
This concert's main surprise began with Jimin cheering Jin on as he ran around the venue and then the vibes got better when Taehyung went onstage and sang for the first time in 2 yrs. He sounded amazing.
Afterwards, Jin walked him back out for his piano performances because, according to him, Taehyung was crying due to being so happily overwhelmed. ;___;
And then, during the medley, chaos reigned: Jimin sounded great, Taehyung walked on stage wearing his backpack (and also forgot some of the lyrics), all three sang an improvised version of "Spring Day", and it was softly chaotic.
Such as the moment when Jin made suggestions of what else they could sing together, Jimin goes "can we do that?" only for Jin to say "hell yeah, we can do anything you want to do!" MEANWHILE, the production team is trying to find the soundtrack for "Spring Day" and failing to do so. Only for the live band to start playing a version of it, heheheh.
Even though I had to wake up shortly before 5 a.m. Friday and Saturday, everything was worth it. I cried, laughed, and squeed online alongside other fans. CANNOT WAIT FOR 2026 AND THE REUNION TOURRRRRRR!
Fannish 50 S3 Post 48: Niagara (NOIRVEMBER)
Nov. 1st, 2025 11:14 amglitteryvAnd so, we arrive at November and the first of several posts abt film noirs I've watched.
Niagara (Hoopla)
From 1953, this film is a surprisingly intense movie.
Ray (Casey Adams) and Polly (Jean Peters) are a married couple who are enjoying their honeymoon some three years after their wedding. The plan is to spend a longish weekend at Niagara Falls AND for Ray to also do a bit of networking with the main boss of his company. ANYWAYS, once they get to the lodge place, they find out that there's another couple staying in the cabin they'd reserved.
Rose (Marilyn Monroe) manages to convince everyone to allow them stay a bit longer in the cabin because George (Joseph Cotten), her husband, is recovering from something after leaving the hospital. FWIW, there's a lot of tension between them. It's not clear how long they've been married, but George is not okay. Meanwhile, Rose treats him with a lot of contempt. The rest of the time, she likes to poke at his jealousy for funsies? Their dynamic is v. odd.
Ray and Polly do the tourist-y things, generally having a good time. During one of the excursions, Polly happens to find out that Rose is stepping out on George with someone else…
It had been at least 15 yrs since I first watched this movie. In all truth, I don't think I paid that much attention the first time around since I only had the vaguest of memories abt the plot this time around. The more I watched, the more I started to remember.
This is a FANTASTIC MOVIE FROM BEGINNING TO END. It's extreeeeeeeeeeeeemely noir: v. suspenseful, and gorgeously photographed. Marilyn Monroe was at the height of her power as a sex symbol. However, her role in this movie is the opposite of her happy-go-lucky, coquettish and ditzy persona. Rose is manipulative and will do whatever she needs to do to get ahead. So, if you're someone whose exposure to her filmography has only been the comedies (The Seven-Year Itch, How To Marry a Millionaire, etc), this is a movie that shows the depth of her acting talent.
OFC, Joseph Cotten NEVER made a bad movie. George is super complex yet easy to feel sympathy for.
The MVP is Jean Peters as Polly. She is a character who is kind and smart. At times, she shows lets some of her steeliness/backbone show and I applauded her for that. Especially at times when she's repeatedly dismissed by people (including her husband Ray who should've known better.) That said, it is because of her kindness that she's able to persevere. Peters was soo good that I want to check out other movies she's in.
As for the rest of the cast, everyone's fine?
Again, since the movie was filmed in Technicolor, the cinematography is AMAZING. Everything just pops off the screen. The movie itself is so engaging that, even when there are long scenes with little to no dialogue, viewers can't take your eyes off the screen. It's THAT good.
Do I have any criticisms?
There's a B plot abt Ray's boss (Mr. Kettering) who was obnoxious AF. Kudos to Don Wilson (the actor who portrayed him) for getting on my nerves, I guess. LOL. I think my annoyance was compounded by the fact that I really didn't care abt Ray. He was SUCH a loser.
I also don't know how I feel abt some parts of the ending (specifically the climax.)
Do I recommend it?
Hell fucking yeah! This movie has everything working so well that even the Mr. Kettering scenes weren't enough to deter me. I'm giving it a 4 out of 5.
Queerness level:
It's so low that one would have to jump thru many logic loops to come up with crumbs. :(
Le Trailer
IHNI WHY the trailer is in B&W given that the actual!film is a technicolor paradise, but there we are!
Niagara (Hoopla)
From 1953, this film is a surprisingly intense movie.
Ray (Casey Adams) and Polly (Jean Peters) are a married couple who are enjoying their honeymoon some three years after their wedding. The plan is to spend a longish weekend at Niagara Falls AND for Ray to also do a bit of networking with the main boss of his company. ANYWAYS, once they get to the lodge place, they find out that there's another couple staying in the cabin they'd reserved.
Rose (Marilyn Monroe) manages to convince everyone to allow them stay a bit longer in the cabin because George (Joseph Cotten), her husband, is recovering from something after leaving the hospital. FWIW, there's a lot of tension between them. It's not clear how long they've been married, but George is not okay. Meanwhile, Rose treats him with a lot of contempt. The rest of the time, she likes to poke at his jealousy for funsies? Their dynamic is v. odd.
Ray and Polly do the tourist-y things, generally having a good time. During one of the excursions, Polly happens to find out that Rose is stepping out on George with someone else…
It had been at least 15 yrs since I first watched this movie. In all truth, I don't think I paid that much attention the first time around since I only had the vaguest of memories abt the plot this time around. The more I watched, the more I started to remember.
This is a FANTASTIC MOVIE FROM BEGINNING TO END. It's extreeeeeeeeeeeeemely noir: v. suspenseful, and gorgeously photographed. Marilyn Monroe was at the height of her power as a sex symbol. However, her role in this movie is the opposite of her happy-go-lucky, coquettish and ditzy persona. Rose is manipulative and will do whatever she needs to do to get ahead. So, if you're someone whose exposure to her filmography has only been the comedies (The Seven-Year Itch, How To Marry a Millionaire, etc), this is a movie that shows the depth of her acting talent.
OFC, Joseph Cotten NEVER made a bad movie. George is super complex yet easy to feel sympathy for.
The MVP is Jean Peters as Polly. She is a character who is kind and smart. At times, she shows lets some of her steeliness/backbone show and I applauded her for that. Especially at times when she's repeatedly dismissed by people (including her husband Ray who should've known better.) That said, it is because of her kindness that she's able to persevere. Peters was soo good that I want to check out other movies she's in.
As for the rest of the cast, everyone's fine?
Again, since the movie was filmed in Technicolor, the cinematography is AMAZING. Everything just pops off the screen. The movie itself is so engaging that, even when there are long scenes with little to no dialogue, viewers can't take your eyes off the screen. It's THAT good.
Do I have any criticisms?
There's a B plot abt Ray's boss (Mr. Kettering) who was obnoxious AF. Kudos to Don Wilson (the actor who portrayed him) for getting on my nerves, I guess. LOL. I think my annoyance was compounded by the fact that I really didn't care abt Ray. He was SUCH a loser.
I also don't know how I feel abt some parts of the ending (specifically the climax.)
Do I recommend it?
Hell fucking yeah! This movie has everything working so well that even the Mr. Kettering scenes weren't enough to deter me. I'm giving it a 4 out of 5.
Queerness level:
It's so low that one would have to jump thru many logic loops to come up with crumbs. :(
Le Trailer
IHNI WHY the trailer is in B&W given that the actual!film is a technicolor paradise, but there we are!
beyond my wildest dreams
Oct. 31st, 2025 08:41 pmsnickficstripysock, in response to the photo below: This must surely be the most satisfying fandom you've ever been in, for real time live contentme: Yes. I will never have it this good again.
This is from their official socials, by the way.