I Died a Thousand Times (1955)

I recently re-watched this classic on it's own. Because the 1st time I watched it was back-to-back with the original, "High Sierra". Big mistake. The original one with Bogart & Lupino is one of my all-time favorites and watching this remake right afterwards did not help me appreciate it the way it deserves to be.This remake actually is good on it's own merit. The original will always be the "better" version for me but this remake is not bad at all. Let me break it down...Palance's take on 'Mad' Dog Earle was very good. Palance is no Bogie, but he gave the role his own unique touch. And besides, who better than Palance, at the time, to take the role that Bogart made his own. With his sinister visage, Palance brought a different take on Mad Dog than Bogart's. I really got to see this second time around as I revisited this film.Winters take on 'Marie' was not bad either. Lupino I believe did it better but Winters held her own. I especially liked her Samba dance moves. And her 'I wanna die' scene. She had okay chemistry with Palance. But I feel Bogart & Lupino had more.Lori Nelson's take on 'Velma' was right on par with Joan Leslie's. And you can actually believe Palance falling for her rather than Winters 'Marie'Lee Marvin's take on 'Babe' was not bad but Alan Curtis was better. Curtis had the handsome bad boy look and Marvin just looks bad and mean. Curtis you could believe got Lupino out of a club but Marvin taking Winters, nah. Pedro Gonzalez Gonzalez plays 'Chico'. A very Mexican stereotype role. In the original, his was named 'Algernon' and it was played by Willie Best in a very black stereotypical role. I really dislike the scene where Lee Marvin's 'Babe' kicks 'Chico' and makes him fall and thinks it's funny. Gonzalez really has nothing to do but be a servant to Palance and his gang and not much else.Lon Chaney Jr. as 'Big Mac'. Great casting. He did a great take on the role made famous by Donald McBride. It was so great to see Chaney and Palance together. Earl Holliman as 'Red'. Not bad but Arthur Kennedy's was way better. Holliman played 'Red' like a good ole dumb country boy while Kennedy's was like a grown-up Dead End Kid, like a Billy Halop. But still it was nice to see Holliman and Marvin want-to-be gangsters.Perry Lopez as 'Mendoza'. It was okay but Cornel Wilde's was way much better. The scene where Palance tells a "bedtime story" of what happens to guys who talk to much was handle way much better with Bogart and Wilde.Howard St. John as 'Doc Banton' was very good. Actually just as good as Henry Hull's take on it. I especially like the way Howard looks at Palance when he talks about 'Velma'. Howard's look is priceless.Ralph Moody as 'Pa'was really good also. Almost just as good as Henry Traver's take. I really liked his scenes with Palance talking about 'Velma'James Millican as 'Jack Kranmer'. It was really good. Almost as slimy as Barton MacLane's 'Jake Kranmer'. But I prefer MacLane's. Richard Davalos as 'Lon Preisser' was not that bad. You can see Nelson's 'Velma' falling for Davalos pretty boy. In the original, played by John Eldredge, the spelling was 'Lon Preiser'In the part of 'Pard', the dog in this one was cute but Zero in the original was way, way much better.Now as for the unbilled bit parts, these are the ones that stood out for me: Nick Adams as the 'Bellboy' who is so nervous he can't stop shaking the tray with cups on it was memorable. Paul Brinegar as the bus driver who says the funny line "Just like a woman, doesn't know whether she's coming or going." Mae Clarke as Mabel Baughman, really concerned about her daughter and who and what is Palance is all about. Hugh Sanders as her husband was somewhat wasted in a very small bit role. A very young Dennis Hopper has a funny scene as Winter's dance partner. Hopper is drunk and horny and is pushed down by an angry Palance as he gets to frisky and comfortable with Winters. Hopper would have a better and bigger role that same year along with Nick Adams , in the now famous cult film, "Rebel Without a Cause." Dub Taylor as 'ED' the gas station attendant talking briefly with Palance was a nice one. and a couple of Three Stooges foils were also on board. Big Mickey Simpson and Robert Williams. Williams had a more showy and longer role than Simpson's. All in all, a great film just for the cast alone. Don't miss it. Just don't see it back-to-back with the original.

Unless you count the western version of this story that Warner Brothers did with Joel McCrea in 1948 entitled Colorado Territory, I Died A Thousand Times is the second version and updated remake of Humphrey Bogart's classic High Sierra. Whole scenes are lifted word for word and other than a bow to the updated technology of the Fifties, like the use of helicopter by law enforcement in the final shootout.If you are a fan of Bogey than you know exactly how this is all going to end. Jack Palance is a stellar substitute for Bogart and in the Ida Lupino part steps Shelley Winters as the hard luck girl brought along by Palance's two confederates Lee Marvin and Earl Holliman who attachs herself to Palance. Unfortunately Palance realizes too late that Winters is who he is meant for.Ironically Palance as the star here would in 16 years in Monte Walsh wind up in support of Lee Marvin as their box office positions had changed considerably. Warner Brothers didn't water down this remake an iota right down to the casting of bit players. And a good bonus is the color cinematography. Fans of the original will not be disappointed.

With W. R. Burnett as writer and Jack Palance and Shelley Winters as the leads, this caper film has a lot going for it. The darkly handsome, deeply chiseled Palance does well as a hardened ex-con who hasn't quite abandoned his membership in the Family of Man.He'll help an old geezer who can't seem to steer his jalopy straight, he gives an abused dog a haven, and he befriends a dime-a-dance slattern who confides, "In my whole life I never hooked up with any guys who weren't wrong -- until you." Yet he has no compunction robbing a desert resort, shooting a security guard who tries to stop him, and clobbering a man who recognizes him from the newspaper. There are interesting supporting performances here, including that of a cowardly, bullying Lee Marvin as a holdup guy; uncredited, pretty boy Nick Adams as a waiter with a bad case of the jitters, and Pedro Gonzalez-Gonzalez as a highly stereotypical Mexican ("Ay, caramba!"). The film falters by spending too much time on a silly subplot involving a girl with a club foot. I'm glad I caught this, but, if not for this review, I'm sure I'd forget it.

People love to trash movies that are re-makes of classics. They seem to think that there is some disrespect intended if the remake is anything less than a masterpiece. I'm sure that the makers of this film only intended to revive an excellent story, and had no idea that a lot of armchair cinephiles, 50 years later, would consider them audacious for doing so. After watching I Died A Thousand Times, I read all the negative reviews and decided to watch High Sierra again so I could compare them. I decided that each film has it's strengths.B&W vs Color: I love black and white. 8 out of 10 films I watch are in B&W. So, if I have a prejudice, it is against color. But when a color film is beautiful, it's very beautiful. This film definitely has its moments. Its palette ranges from subtle, (lighting in a hotel hallway) to glaring, (pumps at a gas station). All gorgeous. The shots of mountains are stunning.One thing about color film which applies to this comparison, is that it is harder to make a good drama in color than in black and white. There is less in B&W to detract from the actors' performances. Orson Welles said that there were no truly great performances in color, and that's why he shot in black and white well into the 1960's. Comparing a B&W drama to a color is a little like apples and oranges. Color films just have a lot more to deal with, and this film does a good job of it.Performances: In the 14 years that separate these films, there was a shift in popular acting styles. In crime dramas of the 30's and 40's characters were drawn in broader strokes. The characters were almost more "types" than individuals. When Bogie played Philip Marlowe he was playing an archetype of the hard boiled detective, and personality took a back seat. The fact that characters tended to be more 2 dimensional, made any glimpse into their personalities more effective when it came. It also gave the films an almost mythic or operatic feel. But color films of the 50's and 60's had to have more depth to the characters. Winters and Palance succeed in this. A good example is the scene in the car when Roy Earle is telling Marie about Velma. When Palance tells Winters that Velma is a pretty girl and that she is "decent", you plainly see the underlying shame and heartbreak in Winter's face. The same statement seems to just roll off of Lupino. I'm not trashing Ida Lupino, or Bogart. I love them both, and Lupino does a great job and looks fantastic, in that screen goddess way. But I was more engrossed by the performances of both Palance and Winters than by their earlier counterparts. Where Bogie was aloof and cool, Palance was a snarling madman with a tender underside.I think that goes to the core of why I liked the later version. It just had more impact for me. I was pulled in from the first scene by the beautiful photography, and was more engrossed throughout than I was with High Sierra. That's not to say I preferred it to High Sierra. I feel that, even though they were exactly the same story, they were very different kinds of films and each had their differing strong points.