MovieChat Forums > His Kind of Woman (1951) Discussion > Talk about overrated

Talk about overrated

posted 17 years ago by pninson
34 replies | jump to latest

I was very disappointed with this film, as I have been (so far) with the other selections in the Fox Film Noir V. 3 DVD set. Despite an excellent cast and the dazzling Jane Russell as the romantic lead, this film plods interminably. Almost half an hour goes by before Vincent Price makes his entrance, and by that time I'd lost interest in the story.

Mitchum, usually a commanding presence, is obviously suffering from weak direction, as he seems to be moving at a glacial pace. His dialogue is terrible and falls flat. Price is hyper-active, and Raymond Burr and Jim Backus are wasted in this terminally boring mix of suspense and strained attempts at comedy.

Worst of all, it's almost two hours long. Most "thrillers" of this vintage benefit from being concise. You get the setup, the windup, and the pitch in an economical 90 minutes, give or take. This flick, however, is more than slow-paced. It crawls.

When I see "film noir" on a box, I'm hoping for skull-duggery, moral grey areas, twists, turns, baffling mystery, people seeming to be other than what they are. While noir films don't all have to be James M. Cain stories, this one is really too light-hearted and satirical to qualify.

[–] AlanSquier 17 years ago

I agree that this was very disappointing. I expected more from Vincent Price...I think his role was especially a downer for me. Yet there was Mitchum and the cinematography wasn't too shabby, so I will eventually be giving this a 2nd chance.

Captain Warren 'Rip' Murdock: I'm the brass-knuckles-in-the-teeth-to-dance-time type.

[–] wjmckelvey 17 years ago

The suspense factor falls a bit short with this one, but the humor and a scenery chewing Vincent Price help things. The sinking boat scene was priceless. The only major disappointment was Mitchum here; he lacks the presence he had in films from the same time and looks bored in a lot of scenes. I guess this kind of noir-farce wasn't really his bag.

[–] AlanSquier 17 years ago

This movie definitely isn't without merit. It just isn't a must-see, but it's worth looking at anyway.

Captain Warren 'Rip' Murdock: I'm the brass-knuckles-in-the-teeth-to-dance-time type.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ksf-2 17 years ago

poss Spoilers - yeah, the last 1/2 hr got pretty hokey with V price spouting his Shakespeare. was pretty good up until that point. Too bad they didn't use J Backus more (mr. howell....)
ksf-2

[–] the sphynx 17 years ago

I figured they wanted to keep Milner alive and unmarred as long as possible, not only to look at his face while doing the surgery, but also to make it less likely his body would be found or his disappearance questioned before Ferraro assumed his identity and arrived in the U.S.

Their chief mistake was the combination of paying too much and not concocting another criminal excuse for Milner's presence being required in Mexico. If he'd been asked to rob a bank or something while there, a nice payoff (though much less than $50K) might have seemed less suspicious.

Still, I agree that the plot device was strained at best.

[–] freudified_n_funkified 17 years ago

Quick question: How can this movie be overrated when practically nobody's heard of it or seen it? It's a sometimes cult favorite among the noir crowd, but that group doesn't exactly constitute the general consensus.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AlanSquier 17 years ago

I found it disappointing, but not overrated. Okay, TiVo is one thing, but it only has two fresh tomatoes out of two reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and a 7.3 rating here. I imagine that the majority who watch it on its own merits without expecting what many of us more immersed in film noir hoped for will enjoy it though probably not love it. I wouldn't say it's rated highly enough over-all to be called "overrated", although I still say it's disappointing. It does have some good quotes as do most Mitchum movies...

Where am I from, you ask? "Pomona, Glendale, ((Fullerton, La Habra, Anaheim)) whatever."

[–] gwen24 17 years ago

I would think that this film didn't aspire to be a world beater, just an entertaining film. Horses for courses. I enjoy the chemistry between Mitchum and Russell and also the carry on with Vincent Price always makes me laugh. so that at the end when they lose the plot and mayhem ensues, I forgive them.

[–] AlanSquier 17 years ago

Exactly, this wasn't made with expectation of awards or even great reviews. It is a quite entertaining film but I doubt that it's on anyone's best list and that's where I disagree with the OP It's not overrated for the simple fact that it isn't rated that highly to begin with.

Where am I from, you ask? "Pomona, Glendale, ((Fullerton, La Habra, Anaheim)), whatever."

[–] gwen24 17 years ago

If someone asked me to sum up what Mitchum delivered that was uniquely his own, I would show them the look Mitchum gave Russell in the cantina when they first met. And Russell gave as good as she got! Good fun even 56years later.

[–] cabbageboy316 16 years ago

His Kind of Woman rules. It is rated just about right, as in not quite an all time classic but very good. I will admit it is slightly overlong but Price has a field day as the ham actor and it is pretty much peak Mitchum.

[–] Jake-219 16 years ago

Um, excuse me for intruding guys...but perhaps the people that review movies for a living know a little bit more about them than you do?

Not that that's an important point. After all, I myself don't care what they say about something if it's something I love.

Still, there are times when you can listen and learn a thing or two.

Like...no, this isn't a classic film noir, not by any stretch. What it is, and what everyone always admitted, is a marvelously entertaining film noir...in a far broader sense than most of them were.

And before you get elitist on me with the "noir" classifications, pray remember...it didn't even exist before the 50's (well after noir films started to be made) and the term wasn't taken seriously here until the 70's (like, after "Chinatown.")

Noir didn't exist. It wasn't an objective, because it didn't exist.

So, what did? Yeah, there were dark films, but there were also light films.

I'll be the first to admit that Howard Hughes ruined RKO...and most of the films that came out under his jurisdiction.

But not this one. He actually improved this one.

Mitchum is his usual incredibly cool self, Russell shows her assets, and Vince, for the first time ever, is allowed to be the massive HAM that he wound up being wonderful at.

And you guys think this film is boring???

Go watch another Adam Sandler movie.

[–] AliciaHuberman59 16 years ago

I think the fact that it's a hybrid (noir/romance/swashbuckling farce) leaves those looking for something specific unsatisfied. I don't particularly care for humor mixed in with noir. As some other posters have pointed out, though, it's to be appreciated on its own merits and it does have wonderful moments and dialogue. I remember hearing either Bob Dorian (AMC host from the channel's glory days) or Robert Osborne (TCM) saying that Farrow and Mitchum got bombed one night and came up with an idea for the perfect movie they could make together. Unfortunately, the next day neither one could remember a thing discussed and wound up making "His Kind of Woman", instead.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 42ndStreetMemories 16 years ago

I agree. Really really disappointed with this mess. Way too long.

Talky 90 minutes with mercifully short Russell songs. And the sudden shift to burlesque in the final 30 minutes was tough to watch. I expected Price to break out in song.

Hughes must have had his hands all over this (as well as all over Jane). Two directors does not bode well.

And the biggest disappointment was the complete waste of Charle McGraw.

[–] Fetus_Sale 16 years ago

I enjoyed it very much until the last act. Then things just got hokey and embarrassing.

I like the first 2/3's though. It reminded me a bit of Kansas City Confidential in that regard. Only with less sweat, and not quite as good.

[–] Jake-219 16 years ago

Yeah, by the way, don't take what I said earlier the wrong way. I can readily see where this film's wandering all over the map wouldn't be to everyone's taste! And nobody's claiming this to be some overlooked masterpiece (well, at least not without some tongue in cheek, anyway); some just think it's more fun than others.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zuzupetal_99 13 years ago

pninson - totally agree w/ your post. The film was a bore to me too. And I can sit thru about anything, I love old movies, and I even love slow-paced stories when they WORK. However, I just didn't get much out of this. Vincent Price was fun to watch for awhile, but even he couldn't sustain my interest till the end. In the trivia here, it says that Mitchum admitted most of this was made up as they went along, and that explains a lot! I didn't even know this was considered "film noir" - I'm not a film expert, but this just seemed so all over the place, it was a mess. I like Mitchum a lot, but there was nothing special about his performance. Also, although I am a woman I can appreciate the beauty & charm of actresses from that era, however, I just don't get the appeal of Jane Russell...

"Are you going to your grave with unlived lives in your veins?" ~ The Good Girl

[–] AliciaHuberman59 13 years ago

Just watched this again recently and have to say I really enjoyed it a lot this time around. Might have something to do with the fact that I'm reading Lee Server's Mitchum bio ("Baby, I Don't Care") and the behind the scenes of this film (what Mitchum went through reshooting the scenes on Burr's boat when he's fighting for his life) have given me a whole new appreciation...and maybe because I'm older now, and not such a hard*ss about what defines "Film Noir".

P.S. I'm with you, Jake-219.

[–] smokehill retrievers 13 years ago

Just because it isn't the same as every film noir you've seen seems like a poor reason to downrate it. Part of the charm of this film is that it IS a deliberate mix of film noir and comedy, spectacularly delivered by Vincent Price.

Obviously you can't please everyone with every film, and clearly this one didn't please you. Fine.

However, I think it deserves every bit of an 8, if not higher. We get great performances from Raymond Burr as the thoroughly evil villain, a decent performance from Mitchum in a role that, unlike most of his, isn't the center of attention for the whole 2 hours. Personally I never liked Jane Russell's performances & this is no exception. But then we have The Vincent, swashbuckling everywhere with tongue firmly in cheek, overacting himself to the max. Superb!

If I were scripting this thing I'd have exchanged Russell for another actress, built up Mitchum's part a bit more, and probably have had a film I'd have given a 9 or more. But all things considered, this one will do nicely.

[–] snelling 12 years ago

This can't be over-rated if no one knows about it. The definition of 'over-rated' is something that everyone praises unquestionably. Nobody, not even film afficianados, know about this hidden masterpiece. And, to those who do not see Jane Russell's appeal (zuzu), I suggest you watch more of her. That kid is going places. Also, look up the definition of 'film noir' while you're at it.

"It's like I'm talking to my Aunt Sylvia here!"

[–] MystMoonstruck 11 years ago

Nobody, not even film afficianados, know about this hidden masterpiece.

I'm no genius about films, but I've seen this at least a dozen times throughout my six decades of life. Yes, it's relatively obscure, but how can you say that "nobody" has seen it?! I pride myself in being a film buff, but I don't think I'm some sort of brilliantly in-the-know movie fancier. Buffs are just the ones who know and love it, and I imagine there are many of us out there.

I gave the film a 10 to counterbalance some of those undeservedly low votes.

Vincent Price is the major reason I watch this, but I love everything about it. It's not deadly grim every moment, but the humor is wonderful! I also have many favorite lines from this~the funny stuff mainly.

I agree with the poster who points out that "noir" wasn't even around then! This is what movies should be: entertaining! It has a bit of everything.

*** The trouble with reality is there is no background music. ***

[–] geoffzman04 10 years ago

Not overrated and definitely worth it just from the cleaver dialogue full of innuendo and double and double entendre! Not sure what everyone expected here but a gem of a film mixing genres action/comedy...what more could you want for 2 hours of entertainment. Must have been fun on the set.

[–] TheHungryAndAngryShow 8 years ago

I had a similar argument in another thread about a movie that I called a horror comedy (though I can't for the life of me remember what movie). Someone freaked out on me telling me there is no such genre as a horror comedy and accused me of trolling. People have such issues when genres are mixed, or not what they expect from a movie. Even though I have had the same issues at times, I do get that it is done regularly, with varying results. Sometimes I love it, sometimes I hate it. This time I loved it.

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

Btw - why is this thing called His Kind Of Woman in the first place? Seems there´s quite a serious mismatch between the content and the title; Jane Russell´s character surely ain´t the center of things.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] CBikle 11 years ago

Oh come on now, how can anyone NOT like this film ?

The entire cast was fantastic in this !