'B' Movies

Goodness! 'B' movies.

Are those different from the first film in a two-film presentation?

The one I usually remember is The Day of the Animals before The Car. A great duo!

I remember a friend saying he remembers seeing Easy Rider. And the 'B'movie? Dirty Harry!!

I can't contribute then. Too young!

We still have B movies, though. Stephen Sommers is an example of a director who nurtures that particular sentiment. Tarantino too, in a way. Although in a more self-conscious way.

Both "Easy Rider" and "Dirty Harry" we're 'A' pictures. The fact that they were offered as a double feature is something unique to Europe.

The 'B' movies I'm referring to are the second feature when most theaters in the US offered two movies. However, it didn't include just science fiction and westerns but all genres of films including comedy, drama, film noir/mystery. In fact there weren't a lot of low budget science fiction until the 50's and then these films became the second feature at a drive-in movie. Television had a lot to do with the demise of the 'B' picture. As TV became more popular Hollywood countered with things like Cinemascope, something that TV couldn't offer. And the higher budget films became more popular. We would begin to see things like "The Robe" (first cinemascope film).

What I'm trying to accomplish is which of these 'B' pictures had any merit at all and are at least worth a watch. Each studio had a division that would produce these lower budget films. An example would be Pine-Thomas which was owned by Paramount.
Tom

Do you have any familiarity with the 50's Hammer noir films. They were directed by Terence Fisher who later did the horror movies and is probably best known by the general public for "Elephant Man," definitely not a 'B' movie.
Tom

The 'B' movie was usually the second film of a double feature thus the alphabet designation.
Tom

I'm not sure about that statement Thor. There seems to be a lot of confusion at least in my mind. For example was "Crash" a 'B' movie when it first came out because the multiplex theaters didn't show it and it was only when the awards started pouring in it became an 'A' film? In the very beginning it was only the art houses that showed it at least in San Diego.
Tom

I can agree with the above statement. What I'm working on has to do with the 40's when the exception was a single feature. By the way I watched a pretty funny spoof called "King of the Zombies"(1941) with Mantan Moreland (Charlie Chan character). This film had the distinct honor of being nominated for Best Score something that never happened again.
Tom

The problem with the term "B-Movie" is that it originally just meant "created with a low budget".
And while often that is the equivalent of a cheap genre/exploitation movie, there are several noted B-movies that have passed over in the realm of cult (most of Roger Corman's work, most notably his excellent Edgar Allan Poe adaptations) or even classics! (Probably the most celebrated B-movie ever may be Hitchcock's Pyscho!).

So B-movies, while cheap, may in many ways still be outstanding!




I'm inclined to agree.
While technically certainly B-movies, ANY standard on those quick cheapies is abysmal.
I'm honestly not sure what the idea behind a return to that kind of quickie is.
Used to be that in the fifties and sixties those would show in the US in drive-ins as an excuse to make out (who would actually want to watch trash like that?), but now?

The only thing I can think of is exactly like you say: watch them ina comedic state of mind.
I would imagine it would be a riot after a bottle of port!
Hmmm...never tried that... Something to consider....