The Maltese Falcon

nightwalker
Posts: 122
Joined: April 29th, 2007, 7:43 pm

Post by nightwalker »

I agree with Chris: I think the film, on its own merits, is a good one that, if the 1941 version had never been made, would probably be held in higher regard than it is.

Cortez is more of "ladies man" (to put it politely) than Bogie, but, as has been noted, this is the sort of role he usually played, although he didn't make a bad Perry Mason in THE CASE OF THE BACK CAT (1936). There again, however, he seemed a bit more interested in the ladies than the character as conceived and written by Erle Stanley Gardner (and played by Raymond Burr on TV).

For me, the real point of interest in the film is Dwight Frye's portrayal of Wilmer, proving that he could play more "normal" psychos as well as the crazed assistants to mad scientists he became best known for playing.

The 1936 version is something of an aberration. Apart from some basic similarities of plot, it's almost another story altogether. Alison Skipworth is definitely worth seeing as a distaff version of Kasper Gutman, and it's always great to see Bette Davis in practically anything she did, but on the whole the film is a curiosity, nothing more, with Warren William playing his patented bon vivant to little use here (IMHO).

Both earlier versions are worth seeing at least once. I got the set with all 3 last year on my birthday from my daughter, so for me the price was right!
Post Reply