To Have and Have Not (1944)

A good movie with weird and wonderful touches. It's not quite as good as its best scenes, but it's got a quirky sense of humor and honor. Like Bacall calling Bogart "Steve" throughout the movie. Or Hoagy Carmichael's odd musical numbers. Or the casting of Walter Brennan opposite Bogart - two more different styles of acting you will never find.

What makes it all work is the white hot chemistry between the two leads.

Fmovies: How to take advantage of Bogart's popularity and acting potential? I think that this, after Casablanca, was the real question. Simply create a similar atmosphere, ambiance, scenery and themes, and finally let Bogart to finish the job. Despite Have and Have Not is a very good movie. Play with writers on the script is certainly an interesting background. Despite that TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT is a very good movie. Play with writers on the script is certainly an interesting background.

In an adventurous world intriguing story to enter the fate of small but important people. Sports fisherman, ordinary pockets and old drunkard fit that description. The thesis according to which the battle or revolution express little people in this case is true.

Humphrey Bogart as Harry "Steve" Morgan He again works the sidelines. Skipper who minds his own business. All approach with a mocking cynicism. Of course, at any given moment things happen that his views absolutely disrupted. The young woman and the resistance movement. Character too similar to Mr. Blaine from Casablanka with the important fact that the "younger character" from the very beginning of the story is very important. Lauren Bacall as Marie "Slim" Browning is a migratory bird that finally landed in the arms of Bogart. Chemistry is so obvious that it is superfluous to say anything. "THE LOOK" is spontaneous and excellent. Walter Brennan as Eddie is absolutely at the height of the task. Very good complements Bogart's character. Description of the failed old sailors and drunk were irreconcilable.

Most film fans know the famous bet made between Ernest Hemingway and legendary director Howard Hawks (SCARFACE, BRINGING UP BABY). Hawks claimed he could make a good film out of Hemingway's worst novel. He does and Hemingway hopefully paid up. The great author must have forgot the star power Hawks had in access to in Bogart and Walter Brennan because that is exactly what drives the film. They are backed by the writing of William Faulkner and the direction of Hawks, who is always able to have his actors deliver slick lines quickly and effectively to have the story run smoothly. Oh yeah, an actress named Betty Bacall makes her debut opposite these screen legends and makes what I consider the most auspicious debuts of any actress from the 1940's. She meshes well with Bogie, trading quips and matching her future hubby line for line. The real star of TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT is Howard Hawks, a director who could create comedy, suspense, and art amidst a rather dull story.

I never read Hemingway's novel, so I couldn't tell you whether it was his worst. I believe Hemingway made the gesture and Hawks showed him up. Notice touches of the previous year's all-time classic CASABLANCA (this time the owner of the foreign booze bar is the roulette manager from CASABLANCA). World War II is a backdrop, Bogie is a cynic with that heart of gold, and he helps his "rummy" buddy, played by Walter Brennan. Bogie helped the low-life likes of Peter Lorre and Sidney Greenstreet in 'Blanca and in this one, his scenes with Brennan are comic relief. Brennan plays a funny drunk who is prone to spilling his guts after a few rums. Bogie's "Harry Morgan" rents his boat to rich Americans for fishing and will lend a hand towards the French war effort with his sailing skills much like his power to give the infamous "letters of transport" to Ingrid Bergman and Paul Henreid. Similarities aside, there is an original piece of work to see in this well-paced semi-thriller, with Bogie, Bacall, and Hawks to send them sailing into cinematic history.

"Just put your lips together and blow," will live in filmgoer's minds forever, as will the fact that Bogart and Bacall practically fall in love right in front of our eyes. A problem I had with the film was the annoying interference of the copycat (CASABLANCA) French police. Sorry, no Claude Rains to add some spice to it. I understand the movie contrasts starkly with the novel, depicting the characters at an earlier age. It is predictable and you know which girl is Bogart's. It is entertaining to see Walter Brennan squirm and tick as a hopeless alcoholic who can't seem to remember a conversation that took place 5 minutes prior. True, Hawks has no official writing credit, but the film has that Hawks touch because of the humor and genuine quality the main characters present. TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT is a picture to sit back and watch as brash, Hollywood filmmaking of the 1940's and a nice piece of classic Hawks who moved onto THE BIG SLEEP with Bogart and Bacall soon after. Its good but not the best of Hawks or Bogart.

RATING: 7 OF 10

To Have and Have Not fmovies. Well, was you? That's Eddie's (Walter Brennan) inexorable question all throughout "To Have and Have Not" to anyone within earshot. And it's only the 3rd or 4th best line in the movie. Seems there's this one line where one person tries to teach another person how to whistle. And another one after a passionate kiss when a gal tells a guy that it's even better when he helps. Duh! But I like what happens after yet another passionate smooch between Bogie and Bacall. She pulls away and says to him, "You need a shave," after which she immediately love-slaps his unshaven face. It's her way of telling him without words that she's attracted to him and she really doesn't give a good hoot whether he shaves or not.

By now, just about everyone knows that this movie is all about "Steve" (Humphrey Bogart) and "Slim" (Lauren Bacall). In their first movie together, the two exhibit an explosive chemistry rarely seen from any other actor-actress combo. As one watches the movie, with the great Howard Hawks putting the two thru their various paces, one simultaneously imagines the two of them falling in love offscreen -- which they did! -- just as they do in this movie. For more on this, I highly recommend Lauren's autobiography -- "By Myself." In that book, she talks about the two of them sneaking around to see each other like a couple of teenagers -- which she was! As I recall, Bogie was still married at the time -- though estranged from Mayo Methot.

As for "T H a H N," there are many other fine elements that make it well worth one's time. A pretty good storyline revolving around the Free French contesting the Vichy French (Nazi collaborators) in Martinique during the early days of World War II. A strong supporting cast much reminiscent of the one in "Casablanca." Great dialogue by novelist William Faulkner and Jules Furthman. Also, a strong musical score ("Am I Blue?" -- "How Little We Know" -- "Hong Kong Blues") by Hoagy Carmichael with a strong assist from Johnny Mercer.

In a very good Humphrey Bogart movie, which this certainly is, one would never suspect that a young ingenue actress, with little training or experience, could scene-steal from a polished veteran like Bogie. And I won't say that she does such in this movie. I do know that she did not want to and was not trying to (her autobiography). The fact is, however, that it took a star actor of Bogie's magnitude to keep Betty from dominating the screen with her earthy sex appeal and pure luminescence. Her sashay out of the bar in the last scene here is enough to make any man weak in the knees. No wonder Bogie tumbled! Both onscreen and off!

So ..... tell me, now ..... WAS you ever bit by a dead bee?

... Bogart is held in high esteem for his career of acting. He was just that damn good.

Forget all of the top ten lists, awards, honorable mentions, etc. It's really hard to put a finger on it exactly, but his ability to transform what in a script is a mediocre character with average, even sometimes corny lines, into someone who you always seem to be rooting for - someone who's delivery is always convincing - has to be proof of natural skill.

The interplay between he and Bacall is some of the most unforced, natural acting ever to grace the big screen. And what could be sexier than Bacall's flirting before they kissed? One not to be missed.

To Have and Have Not (1944)

Is this the first post-modern film? Or the first total rip-off? Even the writer William Faulkner is in on recasting (and making almost invisible) Ernest Hemingway's novel.

But this says "Casablanca" all over it, from the opening shot of a map on. Then throw in Humphrey Bogart and a Sidney Greenstreet wannabe, have an engaging piano player at the center of the popular nightclub, and set it in an exotic part of the French Empire where the war is raging but you can hardly tell. Director Howard Hawks seems to be winking all the way to the box office and no one else seems to know it.

Not that people aren't trying hard. Certainly the romance has gone from some archetypal, dreamy impossibility (with Ingrid Bergman in "Casablanca") to a very earthy and valid (and real) romance with Lauren Bacall. That's actually a big reason this movie has such fame, because the Bogart/Bacall chemistry is right there for us to watch, and I mean the people, not the characters. Another reason is Walter Brennan, who is so odd and so convincing at the same time you have to wonder. I think Hoagy Carmichael has to be appreciated, too, more than he usually is. He has a major secondary role, and is in the movie more than almost anyone, playing the piano in all kinds of moods...and really playing it, and singing, too (along with Bacall, a little).

But all this stuff never actually gels the way it should. It's almost like it knows it's imitative and so it doesn't try for actual high stakes drama or romance. If you think otherwise, give "Casablanca" another look, and besides much better screen writing, and much better photography, you'll see some basic emotional wires attached that are only superficial here--the War itself, for one thing, and patriotism, and love lost (rather than just love found), and sacrifice of all kinds. And some character actors to beat the band--there is no one here to match Peter Lorre, or Sidney Greenstreet.

These are fair comparisons because Hawks invites them. But since it is all knowing, does that make this a commercial one-off, the director and his buddy Bogart winking, at least, at each other? Maybe. Or maybe it's the first dip into an irony about movies, and about the reality and artificiality that goes with that, that is deliberate and yet can't show its hand too clearly because the audience is frankly not as jaded and cold as the people making the movies. It's a really fun movie, but it'll keep you on the surfaces, and if you want depth, don't be disappointed.