While watching this I kind of thought it to be a rip off of Double Indemnity, What gal takes a shower at night with the shade wide open? and she was quick to catch on he was attracted to her, so why ask him in for a drink? To me she was
Phyllis but instad of sexy she was playing an innocent...
She was married to an old man and I think she was sexually attracted to this cop, but was afraid of her feelings. Double Indemnity was another story and way better !
share[deleted]
This (The Prowler) is better (than Double Indemnity).
The Barton Keyes character (in Double Indemnity) is preposterous.
"Double Indemnity" is an infinitely better film than "The Prowler."
I appreciate the restoration of "The Prowler," but I think it's a very minor film noir. Evelyn Keyes isn't good enough in the leading role, and the plot turns ridiculous. (Many others have pointed out the plot holes.) But it's a watchable, reasonably enjoyable movie.
I have no idea where people are taking from that the 'The Prowler' is some kind of minor noir. True, it's been vastly underseen for a few years, but it's now common opinion that it's one of Losey's finest works. And it was critically acclaimed from the start anyways. Manny Farber named it as one of the best films of the year. Bertrand Tavernier called it one of the 10 best noirs ever made and said that Trumbo's script is the best of his entire career. James Ellroy (who knew a thing or two about the genre) called it a masterpiece and considered it his favourite movie.
And this plot hole thing is starting to bore me. Whoever has read people complaining making questions about some plot points must have also read that other people have already answered them.
As a serious die hard Double Indemnity fan (so much so that I even went to the sets where they were filmed and photographed them) I have to say that I wouldn't call it "infinitely" better than The Prowler. Oh and by the way, the proper way to write a film title is in italics. Maybe you knew that but just FYI. I don't mean to sound condescending, honest.
DI is better by all means, but only because it had a higher budget, with A-list actors, writers and directors. The stories of both are really very well done and thought out. The acting is superb in both.
Still, both stories are very different and I think it's unfair to compare TP to DI.
I think the plot holes that you're referring to are MacGuffins and is just plain silly. DI, while being a near perfect film, has its own plot ginormous holes. How many men do you know would kill someone after having only met a woman two or three times? There would have been ligature marks around the neck of the victim and no cop in his right mind, even in those days, would ever have believed for even a nanosecond that he died from a broken neck... even if it were broken! I mean come on! Have you never even considered that? That alone is a gaping hole that is simply a suspension of disbelief.
No. I love DI and watch it probably every 3 months or so. I know the dialog by heart. I know every screen shot, every mannerism and every costume. I am an utter DI nerd. Still, I cannot say that DI is "infinitely better" nor can I even, with a straight face, imply that TP has worse plot holes than DI.
They're very different and so are non-comparable.
Random Thoughts: http://goo.gl/eXk3O
Differences:
1. Phyllis targeted Walter the moment she saw his interest in her, Susan held off his advances for a long time.
2. Phyllis wanted her husband dead, Susan wanted her husband alive.
3. Phyllis hated her step-daughter, neither Susan nor William had children.
4. Phyllis' husband worked on oil rigs, Susan's husband worked in radio.
5. Phyllis was never pregnant, Susan was pregnant.
6. Phyllis' love for Walter is questionable, Susan's love for Webb is obvious.
7. Walter felt guilt for being involved, Susan did not because she wanted to believe in Webb's innocence.
Similarities:
1. Phyllis was wearing a towel, Susan was wearing a towel.
2. Phyllis had an affair while married, Susan had an affair while married.
3. Phyllis' house with her husband had a rounded door with terracotta shingles, Susan's house had a rounded door with terracotta shingles (note: as does a lot of Los Angeles citizens; they're everywhere... even our older house had them)
4. Phyllis and everyone involved were in Los Angeles, Susan and earlier characters involved were in Los Angeles.
Notice that the similarities are mostly set related. LA was stylish in film during the late 40s and early 50s. We may as well throw in Sunset Boulevard for those similarities as well. The differences are plot related.
I think I've pretty well demonstrated that they are as alike as any film noir of the time involving having an affair. The main difference is the biggest overall plot. Susan was sucked into a toxic relationship but never participated. Walter on the other hand gladly helped.
Random Thoughts: http://goo.gl/eXk3O