Cornell Woolrich was the king of nightmare noir, his fables of fate and downright rotten luck, where everything than can go wrong does go wrong, follow his hapless characters on a perpetual downward spiral. The accompanying sense of dread and doom makes for first rate film noir and a fair number of his novels and stories have been adapted for the screen over the years. I’ve featured a few on this site:
Recently, I found myself viewing a handful of other screen versions of his work and thought I’d just post a few brief comments on them rather than full scale write-ups of the individual titles.
The Guilty (1947)
Jack Wrather was an oilman who decided to try his hand at producing films. While working on The Guilty he met and then married the leading lady Bonita Granville, a former child star who had drifted into B movies. She played identical twins in The Guilty, one of whom is a good girl while the other is most certainly not. The lead was taken by Don Castle, an old friend of Wrather’s whose career didn’t seem to be going anywhere after he’d returned from WWII service. Castle had what I’d term an effective noir persona, a slightly weary charm that felt as though it were only a step or two ahead of desperation. Granville is good enough in her dual role, and the ever reliable Regis Toomey makes for a credible cop. Director John Reinhardt makes the most of the budget and flashback heavy story, wrapping the whole thing up in little over an hour.
I Wouldn’t Be in Your Shoes (1948)
A year later both Castle and Toomey would appear together again in this adaptation, scripted by Steve Fisher and directed by William Nigh, for Monogram Pictures. The flashback technique features once more in this doom-laden tale that opens in the death house with Castle portraying another lucked out type, a dancer who can’t seem to catch a break. He spends his last few hours before that last lonely walk thinking back over how he got where he is. Meanwhile, on the outside his wife lurches between hope and despair as she tries to use what time is left to prove his innocence. Cats, shoes and obsessive love all figure strongly in a satisfying little movie.
Street of Chance (1942)
This movie opens with the main character getting clobbered by some debris falling from a building site. He’s not badly hurt but he does black out temporarily and subsequently discovers he’s not the man he thought he was. In brief, he’s suffering from amnesia and has been living a double life with two very different women, Claire Trevor and Louise Platt. In itself, this is hardly an ideal situation but it takes on that nightmare quality characteristic of Woolrich stories when he comes to realize he’s a wanted man, hiding out and on the run for a murder he has no recollection of committing. This is a strong premise (adapted from the novel The Black Curtain) and directed by Jack Hively, a man who called the shots with George Sanders as The Saint on a number of occasions. Amnesia generally makes for an intriguing basis for noir and typically offers up lots of possibilities for drama and tension. Any picture with Claire Trevor is usually worthwhile too so the ingredients are undeniably promising. Overall, this is an enjoyable film although I have to say I don’t believe Burgess Meredith was leading man material – while I enjoy his work in character parts, I find he’s too quirky and frankly strange to be the lead. This same story was adapted again for television as part of The Alfred Hitchcock Hour and directed by Sydney Pollack. That version had Richard Basehart in the lead, another figure with strong noir credentials and I think he’s actually a better fit for the role.
There was a time when it was practically impossible to see these movies, and the thought of being able to do so in good quality was almost the stuff of fantasy. However, thanks to the efforts of Flicker Alley, Warner Brothers and Kino respectively all of them can now be enjoyed with excellent transfers. None of them could be classed as major films, but they are all very enjoyable and entertaining detours into the world of Woolrich.
Noir wouldn’t be the same without Woolrich. Glad you highlighted him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He was a terrific writer and it’s easy to see why he appealed to so many filmmakers over the years. I must get back to reading some of his work as it’s been a while now since I’ve done so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I need to read more Woolrich. I have a Noir book with an excellent article on him. Tortured life.
LikeLike
A complex character for sure. His writing catches some that discontent which seems to have dogged him for a good deal of his life.
LikeLike
Yes. Excellent way to put it.
LikeLike
Another Cornell Woolrich adaptation that is worth seeing is Umberto Lenzi’s Seven Blood-Stained Orchids. Based on Woolrich’s novel Rendezvous in Black. It’s sometimes regarded as a late krimi (it’s an Italian-German co-production) but it’s really a giallo, and a very good one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Never seen that one and giallo isn’t my favorite genre to be honest, but I’ll certainly make an effort to check it out now you’ve brought it to my attention.
LikeLike
Is it a genuine adaptation or us it like CRYSTAL PLUMAGE, an uncredited version (in the latter case of Brown’s Screaming Mimi)? Not seen the Lenzi either.
LikeLike
I actually just watched this online and I’d say it’s a very loose adaptation, maybe it might be better to say it’s inspired or influenced by the novel. There’s no reference to Woolrich in the credits either.
As I mentioned before, I’m not the biggest giallo fan but it’s an entertaining enough watch.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I had a feeling ot would be like that – the graveyard sequence in Argento’s CAT O’NINE TAILS is from BLACK ALIBI by was of LEOPARD MAN. Mind you, nothing compares to the sheer volume of bogus, in-name-only Edgar Wallace films 🤣
LikeLike
Good call. I’m not any kind of expert on these things but the giallo and krimi genres certainly seemed to borrow liberally from literary sources.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And the giallo genre was very heavily influenced by the krimi genre. Style over substance, and I always go for style over substance.
LikeLike
Italian filmmakers did sometimes forget to credit source novels, sometimes because they forgot to actually buy the rights to the book in question!
I prefer the late 1960s proto-giallos which are just stylish erotic thrillers without gore rather than the blood-drenched later post-Argento giallos.
LikeLike
I have watched and/or rewatched a few in recent months and I’m okay with the early Argento titles, the bird/cat/flies films, but that is more or less my cut off point. I’ve never really been able to get on with what I’ve seen of giallo later than that.
LikeLike
I’m not an Argento fan at all. Having said that, The Bird with the Crystal Plumage is one of the two Argento movies that I do like. It’s interesting that his celebrated opening sequence is very close to the one in Brown’s novel.
IMHO Lenzi was a better and more interesting director than Argento.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shame, I really like Argento’s work from the 70s and early 80s. He has acknowledged that he basically took inspiration from Brown’s novel – the bits he didn’t use in this film turned up in FOUR FLIES ON GREY VELVET (Mainly the God character).
LikeLike
Some people had been encouraging me to take another look at Argento movies from that slightly later than I have done so far. I get the impression he goes more in a horror/gore direction and that’s always deterred me as I’m not much of a fan of horror beyond the earlier classics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of the later ones, OPERA, STENDHAL SYNDROME and SLEEPLESS (NON HO SONNO) are well worth seeing but I’m not much of a horror fan either so … Not seen his most recent film so can’t comment but the likes of DRACULA are certainly best avoided.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, I’ll make a note of those titles for future reference.
Since we seem to have drifted into giallo territory, I might just mention I also watched Luciano Ercoli’s Death Walks on High Heels not too long ago. Now aside from the score and the presence of Nieves Navarro, that did nothing for me. I found the story extremely tedious and I’ve never warmed to Frank Wolff.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have the Blu-ray of the Ercoli but not watched it yet.
LikeLike
I’m not really into gore. I love horror but the horror I love is mostly the classic supernatural horror stuff (the Universal and Hammer movies) and especially 1960s Italian and Japanese gothic horror. I do love some of the weird European horror stuff of the 70s (from directors like Jean Rollin) that flirts with surrealism.
I have zero interest in American slasher films, or 80s zombie gorefests.
LikeLike
Rollin doesn’t appeal to me in the slightest, but I’d be in broad agreement on the rest of that.
LikeLike
You do have to be heavily into surrealism to enjoy Rollin. I adore surrealist movies so I adore Rollin, along with Alain Robbe-Grillet. And some of Jess Franco’s surrealist-adjacent films like Paroxismus and Necronomicon – Geträumte Sünden.
LikeLike
Must admit, my few viewings of Franco and Rollin have put me right off. But Resnais I can watch any day of the week. I love Bava – BLOOD AND BLACK LACE and the WHIP AND THE BODY are true masterpieces. LISA AND THE DEVIL is wonderfully dreamlike and weird.
LikeLike
Franco actually did a couple of very fine films noirs in the early 60s. I particularly like Death Whistles the Blues but Rififi in the City is good as well. Being Franco noir they’re very heavily jazz-fuelled. And they are genuine film noir, with none of the stuff that turns some people off his later movies. Franco has this reputation for being technically slapdash but these films are very technically accomplished and polished.
They’re Jess Franco movies for people who don’t like Jess Franco movies.
I’ve reviewed both on my classic movies blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Will look out for those too – I do like me some Noir!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lisa and the Devil is one of my ten all-time favourite movies. I’m also inordinately fond of Bava’s Planet of the Vampires and Danger: Diabolik (the best comic-book movie ever made).
LikeLiked by 1 person
I found Planet of the Vampires great fun too. Sticking with Bava, I watched his portmanteau effort Black Sabbath for the first time a few weeks ago. As expected, the visuals are beautiful and entrancing although I thought the first two segments slight in terms of story. The last one, the vampire tale with Karloff, has a bit more to it.
LikeLike
Really looking forward to the new Radiance release of PLANET OF THE VAMPIRES.
LikeLiked by 1 person
So am I. I’d love to see it in Hi-Def.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just a couple more months to go 😁
LikeLike
Indeed. I can wait a bit, and my credit card will thank me too.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I do love Suspiria.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An amazing movie. But I love the super stylish early whodunits: BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE, CAT O’NINE TAILS, FOUR FLIES ON GREY VELIVET, DEEP RED and TENEBRAE especially.
LikeLike
Is Tenebrae more thriller than horror then?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s definitely a whodunit, with gory setpieces
LikeLike
Cheers. I spotted a very keenly priced Blu-ray on eBay so I’ll maybe take a chance on it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My own idiosyncratic position is that horror is supernatural horror. It deals with cosmic wrongness. There’s also psychological horror but that’s a separate genre and it isn’t really horror. The giallo is a separate genre. And slasher movies are just ultra-violent crime thrillers. Science fiction horror is another separate genre.
But like I say, that’s just my own idiosyncratic view.
I don’t consider Tenebrae to be horror. Suspiria is a horror movie, but not Tenebrae.
LikeLike
I think that’s mostly right. So many “horror” films are just scary whodunits (e.g. PSYCHO, the SCREAM series, even the first FRIDAY THE 13TH film, that is mostly ripped off from Bava’s BAY OF BLOOD). Until the last shot, Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN is a straightforward thriller – no hint of the supernatural until then. On the other hand, when the overall intention is to scare the audience, then the horror label seems fair enough. Supernatural is not always a requirement – for me THE WHICKER MAN and THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE are genuinely frightening because they feel real.
LikeLike
I am inconsistent on those movies which blur the genre lines somewhat. For instance, I know many regard Psycho as a horror film but I still see it as a thriller with a good mystery at its core as well as the shock/scare elements.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed! Whereas THE BIRDS is an actual horror movie
LikeLike
Yes, The Birds sees a total implosion of order and there’s nothing rational, or nothing that’s capable of being rationalized, happening, and of course the ending is so ambiguous.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’d call The Wicker Man horror because it deals with belief in the supernatural, even if that belief is clearly deluded.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s what makes it so scary! Of course, it’s an extremely common type of belief … just depends on the denomination 🤣
LikeLike
Big Woolrich fan and will second the recommendation of Seven Blood-Stained Orchids. I watched a lot of Don Castle movies last year including the two here, and agree with you, he has a “what now, why me” appeal that really suits these offbeat nightmare situations.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I liked his persona a lot and I’d like to catch up with a bit more of his work.
LikeLike
Don Castle was always a welcome presence. Like John Carroll and james Craig, the charm of road company Clark Gable, with something unique int he bargain. All were welcome in my world.
LikeLike
Yes, Castle did have a resemblance to Gable but also had enough of his own character to mark him out.
LikeLike
Phantom Lady is my favourite of the ones I have seen. That’s a gorgeous-looking noir with a fantastic leading lady.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t argue with any of that. Robert Siodmak laid down a strong marker with that movie, a firm foundation for that fabulous run of films noir he made throughout the decade. And it handed Ella Raines one of the plum roles of her career. The book is pretty good too and recommended if you’ve not yet read it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really enjoyed reading this post, though I have not seen any of these (and I’m a huge Woolrich fan). But you better believe I’m going to change that shortly!
LikeLike
PS I have seen STREET OF CHANCE actually but it was a very long time ago.
LikeLike
Have you seen the Alfred Hitchcock Hour version?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have though again, quite a while ago (meaning about 40 years ago …)
LikeLike
I’d happily lend you my DVD if it weren’t close to 3000km away from me just at the moment. 😀
LikeLike
No probs mate but thank you 😆
LikeLike
Personally, I’m pleased that so many previously hard to view movies such as these are now accessible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With my current Noir project half the fun has been seeing just how many titles are now available – it’s really amazing and gratifying to see so much out there.
LikeLike
If anything, it’s become hard both keep up with and catch up with the sheer volume that’s appeared in recent times.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is nice to be so spoiled for choice, definitely but can feel pretty intimidating in bulk!
LikeLike
Of course there are also François Truffaut’s two Woolrich adaptations, The Bride Wore Black and Mississippi Mermaid. I liked them more than I’ve liked Truffaut’s other movies which isn’t saying much. Probably the most overrated film director in history.
But at least Mississippi Mermaid has Jean-Paul Belmondo and Catherine Deneuve and they’re both always worth watching.
LikeLike
Definitely not going to agree with your Truffaut assessment – THE 400 BLOWS, JULES ET JIM, FAHRENHEIT 451, DAY FOR NIGHT, ADELE H, THE WOMAN NEXT DOOR are all superb. I like SHOOT THE PIANIST from Goodis but for me the two Woolrich adaptations really drag. FINALLY SUNDAY, from Charles Williams, is very entertaining but uses very little of the novel.
LikeLike
Truffaut just doesn’t work for me. For me his movies seem a bit flat and lifeless. I’m just not really in sympathy with the Nouvelle Vague thing. I get it that Truffaut and Godard were to some extent trying to avoid the polished major studio look and going for a spontaneous guerrilla filmmaking feel. Sometimes I can enjoy that but with Truffaut and Godard it comes across to me as a bit stilted and dull.
I can see why people at the time thought the Nouvelle Vague was exciting but I don’t think it’s worn very well. But it’s a personal thing. When I first saw their movies I was excited too but I guess my tastes have changed.
LikeLike
I’ve just read your review of Black Angel. I’m pleased to see you like this one as much as I do. It doesn’t get a huge amount of attention, which is surprising – you’d think a film noir with Dan Duryea and Peter Lorre would have lots of fan appeal.
LikeLike
I guess it’s a relatively small picture and was conceived as such. Neither Lorre nor Duryea were headline stars, although they do have a certain cult appeal. The same goes for the director; he worked on B movies, with considerable verve and style of course, and passed away at a fairly young age. It is a good movie and has been treated well as far as releases go with that early DVD and then the fine Blu-ray so it has been afforded some respect.
LikeLike
I like small pictures. Movies that aren’t trying to be major cinematic events but are content to be just well-crafted entertainment.
LikeLike
I like small pictures too, and large scale ones too for that matter. Personally, I don’t want to impose too many limitations on what I’m going to watch. As long as it’s well made, I’m fine with it.
LikeLike
A healthy film industry needs a mix of big pictures and small pictures. Big-budget, medium-budget and low-budget movies. I’m not a fan of blockbusters but they have their place.
And you need a mix of mainstream and non-mainstream movies. Straightforward entertainment movies and weird quirky offbeat movies. Popcorn movies and art movies.
We had that mix up until the 90s. I think we’ve lost it now.
LikeLike
I agree and well put. What chance do we now have to see something at theaters as something like ‘Rear Window’ (in honor of Woorich/Hitchcock). Stars, yes but limited settings and number of characters. Smashing entertainment. One of my favorites. We need all sorts of films!
LikeLiked by 1 person
There seem to be huge number of movies being made these days, but the choice when it comes to theatrical screenings appears paradoxically much smaller. I don’t have figures to hand to justify this, it’s no more than an impression on my part. However, it does look as though the decline of the independent cinemas and the dominance of the multiplex has resulted in much more limited releases for anything that is not a blockbuster or heavily pushed by a studio/distributor.
LikeLike
Exactly and well put. So much now on the streaming services. I wonder if that is why more of the new stuff doesn’t stick. There are still good things but one has to sift,sift,sift. Well every film in the past wasn’t ‘Once upon a time in the West’!
LikeLike
The entire media landscape has been growing increasingly fragmented for some time now and the streaming side of things makes it even more difficult to keep tabs on what has been produced and what is available.
LikeLike
And in this new environment a movie will not find an audience without a huge promotional budget. People just will not know that a movie exists unless tens of millions of dollars are spent promoting it.
LikeLike
From the 50s until the 80s there were alternative distribution networks. There was the drive-in circuit. There were independent cinemas. The exploitation movie business had its own distribution networks. There were grindhouses. There were arthouse cinemas. If you made a non-mainstream or low-budget movie, whether it was an exploitation movie or an art movie or just an oddball movie that the major distribution networks weren’t interested in you could find an audience for your movie.
To some extent direct-to-video and direct-to-DVD served the same purpose in the 90s and early 2000s.
These alternative methods of distribution did not require tens of millions of dollars to be spent promoting a movie.
That’s pretty much all gone now. There is only the mainstream. Mainstream theatrical distributors and streaming platforms want blockbusters. They want to offer a very small range of guaranteed money-spinners.
LikeLike
Exactly! A movie now in the mainstream is hardly allowed to have legs anymore too. Boom! Sink or swim in a week or two. ‘Bonnie and Clyde played years I think. ‘Jaws’ shattered that world I suppose (and I like ‘Jaws!). Nothing was ever the same.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The bigger the budget, the more urgent the need for a strong opening. Anything less seems to spook the makers and generate unfavorable publicity to boot, which then tends to hurt a movie’s chances even more.
LikeLike
The bigger the budget, the more urgent the need for a strong opening.
Yes, which means movies have to be very mainstream, very safe and very predictable. Made rigidly to formula. The studios will not take the slightest risks. Originality is regarded with fear and suspicion. Movies must be not just thematically predictable but aesthetically predictable. A thriller must look as much like other successful thrillers as possible.
Movies are now like fast food. Your burger has to look and taste like every other burger.
LikeLike
This is very much true of the blockbuster/franchise market. There are still quirky and unusual films being made but their window of opportunity, unless they are specifically aiming for the awards or festival circuit, is greatly reduced.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yet another Cornell Woolrich TV adaptation is Papa Benjamin, from the Boris Karloff-hosted Thriller anthology series. Ted Post directed it and was bitterly disappointed by the result. It does have its problems although it’s beautifully shot and atmospheric and I’m a sucker for anything involving voodoo.
LikeLike
Thriller was a hit and miss series, but some of its hits were excellent. I used to dip into it from time to time but haven’t done so for some time.
LikeLike
Thriller did at least three Cornell Woolrich adaptations. One of which was the excellent Guillotine, directed by Ida Lupino with a script by Charles Beaumont (who wrote some fine episodes of The Twilight Zone). If you’re going to do Woolrich you have to retain that nasty sting in the tail that was his trademark and this episode provides just that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very nice bounceback in traffic here,Colin.
More Don Castle on the recently released LIGHTHOUSE (not Woolrich) on Film Masters budget MOD/DVD imprint. Here’s Castle in SOB mode and the mysterious June Lang is excellent as well-Poverty Row for sure but the restoration is fine.
Speaking of Film Masters they have given us a super restoration of OPEN SECRET championed on these pages ages ago I believe by Vienna. Reinhardt’s film has never looked better and the jagged left hand edge is to deter Youtube downloads I guess. I hope Film Masters oblige with a physical media copy.
Wrather and Granville were a real power couple at the time what with their hugely successful TV production company and deals with Disney Resorts. I always thought has they gone into politics they would have made a swell President and First Lady. Closest to their inner circle were the Ladd’s and troubled Don Castle had his last role of any note in THE BIG LAND. I find THE BIG LAND a hard watch as Ladd & Castle were equally troubled and left us far too soon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Late career movies for some performers can be a tough watch at times when you’re aware of the fact they were going through difficulties.
I’m not familiar with Lighthouse so I’ll keep an eye out for that.
LikeLike
A new book has just been released about the making of RIDING THE HIGH COUNTRY. It’s by Robert Nott, who previously wrote an excellent book on the movies of Randolph Scott. Have read only the first few chapters of the new book, but have found them absorbing. They describe the characters and careers of Peckinpah and Scott and McCrea in a thoughtful and well researched way which augurs well for the rest of the book.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you, that sounds like one to add to the wishlist.
LikeLike
One Cornell Woolrich adaptation that does sound quite interesting is Nightmare (1956). Has anyone seen it? I believe Edward G. Robinson stars.
LikeLike
Not bad, but it’s not perfect either. Kino have just put it out on a scrubbed up Blu-ray. The same story was previously made as Fear in the Night.
LikeLike
I thought the synopsis sounded vaguely familiar!
So it’s been released in the Film Noir: The Dark Side Of Cinema XVII boxed set? I could be tempted. Are the other movies in that set – Vice Squad and Black Tuesday – worth seeing?
LikeLike
I think so. Black Tuesday was for a long time only viewable in frankly dreadful prints. Directed by Hugo Fregonese and lit by Stanley Cortez, it’s an escape/hostage drama with a strong visual aesthetic – many close-ups, low angle shots, carefully draped shadows – that needs to be seen via a good print.
LikeLike
Thanks. In that case I may grab this set.
LikeLike
If you look around the usual places online, it’s probably possible to get a taste of what it’s like.
LikeLike
I’ve just been looking on amazon – I had no idea that Kino Lprber had put out eighteen (18!) of these film noir Blu-Ray sets.
And in quite a few cases all three movies are movies I’ve never seen.
I’m having wicked thoughts about splurging on a couple of these sets. I just don’t know where to start!
LikeLike
It really is a question of being spoiled for choice. Of course it’s questionable whether some films really ought to be referred to as noir, although that’s essentially an academic matter or one of labelling/ marketing. Anyway, there’s a huge selection of material that looked as though it would never see the light of day at one time.
LikeLike
In some ways I’ve grown to like the fact that a lot of the movies included in film noir sets are not really film noir. A lot of them are movies that have fallen through the cracks, that have never been considered to be significant enough to bother releasing, and have never been thought worthy of the attention of critics and film scholars. They’re orphan movies. But they can often turn out to be pretty interesting.
It’s always worth remembering that for every genuine noir made in the 40s and 50s there were at least half a dozen (in fact probably more like a dozen) non-noir crime movies and melodramas and spy dramas that were often made with just as much care, by reasonably talented people. Good solid well-crafted movies that do not deserve to be forgotten.
LikeLike
I wholeheartedly agree. If hanging the noir label on movies that are only tangentially related to or have no more than a nodding acquaintance with film noir is the best means of getting them released and allowing them to be appreciated by a wider audience, or just those who have never had the opportunity to see them, then so be it. I just made the initial comment myself in order to prevent any hardcore noir fans feeling disappointed or short changed by the nature of some of the titles.
LikeLike
Saigon (1947), the most difficult of the Ladd/Lake vehicles to view in good condition is now due for release via Kino on May 28.
LikeLike
That is going to be a BIG boost for this already good movie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I certainly hope so. It’s a very welcome piece of news.
LikeLike
I’m rather fond of Saigon. It deserves more love.
LikeLike
On the subject of Cornell Woolrich TV adaptations I’ve just watched (and reviewed on my cult TV blog) the 1961 Thriller episode Late Date, based on a Woolrich story I haven’t read and which was apparently published under several different titles (and possibly different pseudonyms).
It’s not a bad episode. Larry Pennell is an actor I’d never taken notice of but he’s rather good in this one.
LikeLike
For anyone curious, your write up on that episode can be found here: https://cult-tv-lounge.blogspot.com/2024/03/thriller-late-date-1961-episode.html?m=1
LikeLike
Sadly, I see that Barbara Rush – It Came from Outer Space, Magnificent Obsession, Bigger Than Life, Harry Black and the Tiger, Strangers When We Meet, Hombre and many more besides – has passed away at the grand old age of 97.
RIP
LikeLike