Similar films, but much better than Casablanca. The chemistry and banter between Bogey and Bacall is electric. To me this movie seems much more interesting and alive than Casablanca. One of my top three favs.
"Thank you for the coffee...and the SEVENTEEN floor climb!"
[deleted]
Heresy. That's like saying Go-Bots were better than Transformers.
"Enough of that technical talk, Foo!"
[deleted]
I think Cassablanca will always be up there in the Best films list but To Have and Have not is without doubt one of the most underated films. The sheer chemistry between Bogie and Bacall alone makes it a great film but overall the storyline is good and other performances such as Eddie also add to the films greatness.
I thought that it was just me - but I always preferred To Have.... to Casablanca. I love them both, though (except for Bacall's singing).
shareThey're both great movies, though it's hard to compare them. They have similarities in the story, but THAHN is a much 'lighter' film. Right now THAHN ranks higher on my list because of the amazing chemistry between the greatest couple in Hollywood history and the atmosphere of the whole thing, but I don't doubt the greatness of Casablanca either.;)
Don't worry darling. If you can paint, I can walk. Anything can happen.
I would watch this over Casablanca any day.
"Reality ain't what it used to be."-In the Mouth of Madness
[deleted]
"To Have and Have not is without doubt one of the most underated films."
Under-rated how? IMDB rating 8.2 mean, 8.0 median, 8.1 weighted average. Doesn't seem very under-rated to me. You have a strange definition of under-rated. I say that any movie rated 8.0 or higher can't be considered under-rated. If anything, it should be considered over-rated. Most old movies are over-rated, just as most new movies are over-rated. Ratings seldom reflect the reality.
I think what they meant by underrated is that it's not nearly as well known as it should be.
shareI agree.
The chemistry between Bogey and Bacall was much, MUCH better than Bogey and Bergman, Plus "Slim' made for a much better leading female character than Ilsa.
Casablanca is much better. Ilsa was a lot prettier than slim. Slim was wild,sexy and full of star quality, but Ilsa was an angelic,devine beauty made of "non-planet-earth" chemistry.
shareNo way!! Their chemistry is phenomenal, but Casablanca has the more compelling story and more drama and is funnier too. But this one is good, no doubt.
shareFunnier? Funnier than
Bacall: Give her my love
Bogey: If she was wearing that dress, I'd give her my own.
I can't agree with funnier.
Are you crazy? It can't even be compared with Casablanca, it is just little revival from it.
shareOh no! What I've lost in translation!
I watched the Italian dubbed version and the line was translated in a very stupid way. I can't recall it exactly, but it goes more or less like this:
Bacall: Give her a kiss too
Bogart: If she was wearing that dress, you bet I would
I want to cry...
If you find my answers frightening, Vincent, you should cease askin' scary questions. Pulp Fiction
ha ha !
you made me laugh out loud with your post manutwo, thanks :)!
Not really stupid I think, though it will be much better if they had translated it accurately.
shareCompare that with:
Reynaud: Round up twice the number of usual suspects!
or
Reynaud: I am shocked, shocked, shocked to discover that there is gambling taking place at Ricks cafe!
Waiter: Here are your winnings Monsieur Le Prefect.
Reynaud: Thank you very much.
Compare that with:
Reynaud: Round up twice the number of usual suspects!
or
Reynaud: I am shocked, shocked, shocked to discover that there is gambling taking place at Ricks cafe!
Waiter: Here are your winnings Monsieur Le Prefect.
Reynaud: Thank you very much.
I utterly disagree. I don't think this movie offers much besides the undeniable chemistry between Bogart & Bacall. Their scenes together make the movie. Other than that, it's a rehash of Casablanca with a weak plot and little action.
"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
I think THAHN unashamedly borrows many elements from Casablanca, so it's not really an original film. Yet it's still a great film. Bogart and Bacall are electric together, it has superb dialogue and an interesting array of supporting characters.
shareI've yet to be able to watch Casablanca the whole way through. I guess I was spoiled. I watched THAHN first, was stunned by how exciting a black-and-white hollywood movie could be. Then watched Casablanca, and was bored to tears. Bacall is absolutely perfect in THAHN.
If it supposedly borrows from Casablanca, then it's one of the first examples I can think of as a remake that improved on the original. The other example of an improvement over the original, off the top of my head (though neither in the same league)... The Thing.
First of all, THAHN may borrow some elements from Casablanca, but it is a loooong way from being a remake of it.
Secondly, there have been a fair number of remakes that were better than the original movie. It just almost never happens now (or over the last couple decades or so) because the studios now insist on remaking the wrong movies. Now they tend to remake great movies counting on the recognizable name to bring people into the theater on the opening weekend. There was a time when a studio that owned the rights to a good story for which the first movie didn't click (just didn't gel as cast-director-script combination), would try again 7 or 10 years later when the mediocre version had been mostly forgotten. This latter approach is far more likely to produce a movie that compares favorably with the original, in no small part because in that case "the original" is a lower bar.
The Maltese Falcon with Bogart was a remake. His Girl Friday with Cary Grant and Rosalyn Russell was the second movie version of the play "The Front Page".
No, I feel it borrows way too much from Casablanca, and it ruins much. Using the "roulette guy" from Casablanca, does really make it much of a rip-off to me. It is much more of a tribute to Casablanca than anything else. Unfortunately that isn't enough. Yes it was enjoyable enough to watch, but not anything more.
The light of it, was without doubt Bacall. She stole the show. It did very nicely portrait just how good of an actress she was (or should I say is?). On another note, Bogie only delivers a decent performance. His obvious love for Bacall, did make his performance weaker. No doubt I have seen him much better.
Anyway, to me this film was "Casablanca with a good ending". But then again, I did not want Casablanca to end good. And quality wise, with the plot, the lines, everything, Casablanca was better. If someone even called it a rip-off, I would not argue with him. People say it is underrated, but I disagree. It is worth a watch, but completely ends up in the shade of Casablanca.
And I must say, that using very much of the same plot, and the same actors, it looked like the director didn't want it any other way.
The whole film is pretty much Casablanca 2. Hawks was very obviously trying to recapture the magic of Cutriz's film.
He suceeded, and "To have and have not" is still a great film. But Casablanca still has that intangible magic. Hawks' film feels very mechanical and constructed when stacked up to Casablanca.
"Rape is no laughing matter. Unless you're raping a clown."
Warner Bros. made some war romance movies with Bogart that tried to re-capture the magic of Casablanca. Most of these are misses (Passage to Marseilles), but this is a good movie. The chemistry between Bogie and Bacall (she was his happiest marriage) is undeniable, Bacall is magnificent. It's a very light and funny movie, but it still doesn't stack up to the endearing quality of Curtiz's masterpiece. Even though Slim is a much stronger and exciting character, I think that Ingrid Bergman gives Ilsa so many complexities and she beautifully underplays a lot of her scenes (the look on her face as she hears "As Time Goes By" is proof that you don't need dialogue to show turbulent emotions), and she retains a haunting combination of mystery and romance. Bogart was very good in To Have and Have Not, but his Rick is so enigmatic, cool and above all, vulnerable that it's a highpoint in his screen portrayals.
As a side note, Howard Hawks was approached to direct Casablanca. Exactly how involved he was varies from sources--Hawks tells it that he was supposed to direct Casablanca and Curtiz was supposed to direct Sergeant York. The two directors had lunch together and complained that they didn't know how to approach their films, so they switched. In Nancy Gross' (Hawks' wife at the time and trusted adviser) memoirs she says that she read the script, didn't think much of it, and threw it away before Hawks could read it. Curtiz once said that Hawks did most of the pre-production work. How much he put into Casablanca and how much he took from it into To Have and Have Not is debatable, but he took a great film and made it his own. For the most part he did a great job but you can't catch lightening in the same place twice.
I was born when she kissed me
I died when she left me
I lived a few weeks while she loved me
I think with To Have and Have Not, Hawks was less keen on the plot then Michael Curtiz was. Like the opening scene with Harry Morgan, Eddie and Mr. Johnson fishing has absolutely nothing to do with plot and seems to have been there because Hawks liked the fishing scenes and for Walter Brennan's sake. The other thing that Hawks adds is that his characters aren't motivated at all by patriotism or the like. It's absolutely outside the propaganda trappings of Casablanca. The main plot starts out having to do with those Resistance fighters at first but then we have the couple assigned to break open Devil's Rock(a mission whose success/failure is not even the concern for the film).
I think To Have and Have Not is a more interesting film cinematically than Casablanca. The main reason I love To Have and Have Not because it is the epitome of Bogie cool. Harry Morgan is to Bogart what Walter Burns is to Cary Grant, a character absolutely indomitable character and just as incorruptible. In an odd way, Bogart is a kind of a director-figure, in that the way he deals with people and directs incidents is a lot like a movie director. Consider the final bit when Bogie guns down that guy, he tells Slim to go to the desk to get that cigarettes where she sees the gun and obviously Harry expects her to use it but then she doesn't and he goes and does it himself.
"Ça va by me, madame...Ça va by me!" - The Red Shoes
I have to disagree very strongly. Casablanca is simply the greatest Hollywood picture ever made. Period. To Have and Have Not (surprisingly for the great Howard Hawks) is largely a mediocre rehash of Casablanca, except without the mythic love triangle, without the uniformly great dialogue, without the palpable lived-in athmosphere or noirish sensibility, without the raft of great character actors beyond the three leads (To Have and Have Not has a very mediocre supporting cast, Casablanca has Rains, Veidt, Greenstreet, Lorre, Sakall, Kinsky and more), without the theme of redemption and self sacrifice. I could go on. What To Have and Have Not does have (and I admit it is not inconsiderable) is three things: the always charismatic Bogart, a (as usual) standout performance by Walter Brennan, and, above all, the electrifying encounters between Bogart and Bacall. Yes, the Bogart/Bacall scenes are simply wonderful and have kept the movie alive over the decades, unlike several other mediocre attempts to recapture the magic of Casblanca with Bogart. I'm not saying that To have and Have Not is a bad movie, It's not. It's eminently watchable, but, aside from the mythic meeting of Bogart and Bacall, there is nothing particularly memorable about it. Essentially, To Have and Have Not is Passage to Marseille with a far better romantic interest.
shareCasablanca is simply the greatest Hollywood picture ever made. Period.
I can name a dozen Hollywood films more creative and stimulating then Casablanca made in the 40's, make that early 40's. Casablanca is an excellent film and immensely watchable and a lot of fun but it's essentially a work of accidents not of artists. By that I mean it's a film where the script wasn't especially the great. Even the dialogues aren't that well done, it's just well delivered. And Curtiz' direction is standard stuff at most, well paced but certainly not engaging or anything really different. Yet somehow it comes together because of it's cast.
To Have and Have Not (surprisingly for the great Howard Hawks) is largely a mediocre rehash of Casablanca,...
It might interest you to know that the director who was going to make Casablanca first was Hawks himself but he backed out and exchanged the film with Curtiz. In any case Casablanca itself is a rehash of a dozen Hollywood romances and melodramas.
Hawks' film itself is by no means a rehash. The film is less plot focused than that film, has a more vague ending(there's no guarantee of the success of the Resistance or any propagandastic stuff) and the action is more episodic. It's a fairly different film and one that's less dated than Casablanca.
..., without the palpable lived-in athmosphere or noirish sensibility,...
Casblanca...noirish? I wish people try and understand what film noir sensibility actually is, instead of applying it randomly to any old melodrama. Pretty soon, they'll be calling City Lights a film noir.
To Have and Have Not actually does have a film noir sensibility in it's early bits. Especially when Bogart notices that she didn't flinch when she got slapped by that Inspector noting that she must have had a lot of...well fill in the blanks.
...without the theme of redemption and self sacrifice. I could go on.
And what is Slim and Steve's love story if not redemption for each other?
To Have and Have Not has a very mediocre supporting cast, Casablanca has Rains, Veidt, Greenstreet, Lorre, Sakall, Kinsky and more),
You are forgetting the great Marcel Dalio. The only actor aside from Bogie who's in both films. This great actor of the 30's French Cinema(he acted in Grand Illusion and La Regle du Jeu, two Jean Renoir masterpieces that routinely top the 10 best lists internationally). He has a thankless part in Casablanca but he shines in To Have and Have Not. And Hoagy Carmichael is brilliant as well.
...unlike several other mediocre attempts to recapture the magic of Casblanca with Bogart.
Magic of Casablanca? You do know that in it's day, Casablanca was seen as just another WB wartime romance, it didn't have any of the special aura it does today.
I'm not saying that To have and Have Not is a bad movie, It's not. It's eminently watchable, but, aside from the mythic meeting of Bogart and Bacall, there is nothing particularly memorable about it.
What do you mean by mythic? You are watching a film, you are watching three-dimensional actors. In other words you are seeing characters played by Bogart and Bacall actually meeting and actually falling in love, which is highly convincing because both of them were falling in love during production. No myth there. Rick Blaine and Ilse Lund on the other hund is very mythic.
In any case you are looking at To Have and Have Not and seeing it as a Casablanca re-hash and naturally are passing judgment in relation to that film. To Have and Have Not deals with a similar story(to which Casablanca held no monopoly) but it's treatment and sensibility is far different from Casablanca. That's because Howard Hawks was a great artist with a strong individual quality, that's immediately recognizable...relaxed approach to plot, narrative driven to interactions between characters, dialogue is dialogue and not used to spell out the story. The exact opposite to Casablanca where everything is driven by plot.
"Ça va by me, madame...Ça va by me!" - The Red Shoes
I agree with a lot of what artihcus022 said, but I'm curious how are Harry and Slim redemption for each other?
You are forgetting the great Marcel Dalio....He has a thankless part in Casablanca but he shines in To Have and Have Not. And Hoagy Carmichael is brilliant as well.
Claude Rains really the reason why Casablanca's supporting cast is considered so great, but To Have and Have Not definitely has its merits--Dalio does shine indeed, as does Hoagy Carmichael and Walter Brennan. The only person who sticks out like a sore thumb is the actor whose name I cannot remember for the life of me, who plays the police captain. It's pretty obvious that the role was written for Sydney Greenstreet, but maybe for some odd reason Greenstreet couldn't play it, and this actor just has no life or humor in him. It's painful to watch. And Dolores Moran does nothing for me; she's pretty (Hawks had an affair with her) but dull. Even the Ingrid Bergman character in Casablanca, essentially the same role, got to pull a gun on Bogart.
I do, however, think that To Have and Have Not has some propaganda undertones to it, which is probably what Warner Bros. intended, considering how similar in plot that To Have and Have Not shares with Casablanca, and the reteaming of the "usual suspects." Towards the end of the film, Harry says that he's going on the good side "maybe 'cause I like you [Frenchy] and I don't like them [the police captain and his cronies]," when Frenchy says he's so happy. The biggest difference is that Hawks doesn't take the propaganda seriously and breaks the seriousness with humor, such as when Harry jokes to a Frency on his newfound patriotism, "Don't kiss me, Frenchy."
Magic of Casablanca? You do know that in it's day, Casablanca was seen as just another WB wartime romance, it didn't have any of the special aura it does today.
It's definitely true that it wasn't the pop culture phenomenon that it is today, but it was a popular Best Picture winner, and considering Warner Bros.' tendency to rehash/remake a lot of their older films, it isn't surprising that they'd want to try to do the same thing again (and again with Passage to Marseilles).
To Have and Have Not might be a better film (Howard Hawks was certainly a more interesting director than Michael Curtiz) that improves with each viewing, but I can't really shake off Casablanca yet.
"Go on, tell me...tell me something sweet. Smile at me and say I just misunderstood."
Claude Rains really the reason why Casablanca's supporting cast is considered so great
I think that's a bit of an overstatement. A supporting cast of Peter Lorre (!), Sydney Greenstreet, Conrad Veidt, Paul Henreid, Dooley Wilson, S.Z. Sakall, and Leonid Kinskey would be enough to call attention to itself; Rains clinches the deal. It's got a great collection of some of the best and most interesting character actors in film, each with a unique screen presence and a genuine European feel that adds to the realism.
To Have and Have Not might be a better film
How? The most interesting part of To Have and Have Not is the romance between Bogie and Bacall. The character of Slim might have been fleshed out better than Ilsa and the propaganda never veered on heavy-handed, yet it never came close to the touching pathos, hilarity, tenderness, and overall richness of Casablanca. To Have and Have Not is fun but fairly standard. Casablanca, despite its flaws, is more special.
This is so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again.
I started a thread on here to the effect that THAHN is basically Casablanca in Martinique. Agree that Casblanca has a magic quality, never get sick of it and it never gets old. Also agree much better story. Greenstreet, Lorre, Rains, Henreid, etc., what a cast.
share