Not that I’m bragging, but I’m so dedicated to this insane blog project that watched The Maltese Falcon twice. Not that I really wanted to, but my first viewing, after a long day, was late last Saturday night, tummy stuffed on grilled shish-kabobs, courtesy of my loving husband. He saw The Maltese Falcon on my pile of Netflix discs and popped it in, recognizing it as a good movie he once saw on a plane. I was nodding off repeatedly throughout the film. I woke up multiple times asking my husband, “What’s going on? Who’s that guy?” By the end, I was just angry that I was missing some crucial connections. Monday morning, I watched it again, this time after coffee and a shower. I would highly suggest brewing an extra pot to get the best quality out of this film.
Sadly, it was still a bore. All talk and very little action. And the talk was so fast it can be hard to keep up. If your mind wonders for ten seconds you can be twenty steps behind Bogart and the gang.
You see, Humphrey Bogart plays Samule Spade, a Private Investigator, who has just been asked by a concerned woman by the name Miss Wanderly (Mary Astor) to find her sister and convince her to come home and leave the man she ran off with, Floyd Thursby. That night, Spade’s partner, Miles Archer (Jerome Cowan), goes out to tail Thursby only to end up dead shortly before Thursby does. Spade is considered a prime suspect, so he finds Wanderly to try to clear his story, only to discover she used a fake name to try to allude him and a dangerous cast of characters closing in all searching for a jewel encrusted artifact, the Maltese Falcon. Spade decides he’s the only man who can protect her but gets greedy and becomes entangled in the messy transaction for the Falcon.
I have no doubts that the plot is solid and engaging, but this is the motor-mouth of classic noir films. I’ll give the great John Huston a break, this was his directorial debut. At times, it felt like an exhausting exercise in listening to keep all the clues and details in place within my mind. There are no moments of suspense because no other ideas can get in there with all the dialogue. Any silent moments feel uncomfortable after the first few minutes. Have you ever seen an episode of The Gilmore Girls? It was like that, only instead of girly dribble it was all Bogart crime noir. Non stop. Sitting here writing in silence and thinking about the constant bombardment of words I had to keep up with is still a little unsettling.
Obviously, I was pretty disappointed with The Maltese Falcon, but that doesn’t mean everyone will be. My husband refused to alter his original Netflix rating of five stars, and I admire that. If you enjoy Bogart, mysteries, crime or any classic noir, maybe this will work for you. Just keep your ears perked up at all times so you don’t get lost.
“Here’s to plain speaking and clear understanding.”
The Best Picture Project 
My review of this film was similar. I found the fast-talking a little hard to keep up with. It’s certainly not a favorite, but I do acknowledge that it has some skillful elements.
But, isn’t Peter Lorre incredibly awesome?
That’s the main importance to take away from this film. ;-D
I agree about Lorre, Millie. Otherwise, I think the review is spot on.
Oh yeah, Lorre and Bogart are always a treat.
my wife has zero tolerance for fast-talking 30s and 40s movies, so i have to watch them on my own. i was just thinking about the talking thing. back then, most folks walked down and took in one or two double features a week. most of the movies on offer emphasized dialog delivered on a set, and most in the audience also spent a lot of time listening to radio dramas. i did, for one, being a kid at the time. it occurs to me that that onscreen patter is a lot like the radio dialog. folks sat down in the theater and heard what they were used to hearing at home. had they been confronted with 60s method mumbling or modern taciturnity, they would have looked at each other in amazement.
or maybe i’m generalizing.
don’t know if you’ve seen “the big sleep,” but if not, it’s like “the maltese falcon” except that in the end, all the talking ends up making no sense whatever, due to script and producton difficulties when the movie was made.
Very good point about the radio dialogue. People try to do that quick, sharp dialogue in movies today and it never works quite as well as it did back then. I do rate The Big Sleep above Maltese Falcon, mostly because of the writing. Hawks, Faulker, Furthman and Brackett, can’t beat that. Plus, Hawks was a master by that point as a director, and Huston was just starting. Plus there’s Bogart and Bacall. Plus, the plot doesn’t completely make sense, so you don’t have to worry about it.
Well, I like the movie quite a lot (though I do need to see it again to evaluate the idea that it’s too talky — could be true). It’s not quite as satisfying as the book, but the book is pretty great. Of course, Hammett would never have ended a story with a line as sappy as “The stuff that dreams are made of,” but pretty much everything else in there is directly from the book (somewhat cleaned up, of course).
Your opinion is felt by many other people. I often see The Maltese Falcon popping up on Most Overrated movie lists. I like it, though not nearly as much as its classic status dictates that I should. But my problem with it is the lack of action, not the fast talking. I like fast talking.