Much better than Casablanca

I personally like To Have and Have Not more and think it a more interesting love story, but judging them as just general movies I would consider Casablanca to be equal or maybe even better. It just has a more intense and important-feeling story, if that makes any sense.

Though Ingrid Bergman and Bogey were lovely together, I just think a match like him with someone more sassy and with some attitude like Bacall's character just works better. When you take one of Bogart's typical cynical, tough-guy characters like Harry and pair him with a woman you have to see that he's met his match, and he definitely has with Slim, who he can't fool for a minute. Howard Hawks legendarily said to him, "You are about the most insolent man on the screen and I'm going to make a little girl more insolent than you are." Even though he tries to pretend there are "no strings attached to him" and tell her to give up and get lost, you can see she has him in the palm of her hand. As nice as it is to watch in Casablanca when Rick is being sweet to Ilsa, it's a lot more satisfying to me to watch a romance between one of his characters and a woman who can actually handle his tough side.

"Without you, today's emotions would be the scurf of yesterday's."

Never really could get into Casablanca due to the coldness of characters and a story I couldn't believe (But that's me). Just loved the warm interplay between Bogart, Brennan and Bacall that Hawks handled well in To Have and Have Not. The script has a few ironic humor laughs, and the closing scene is really great to watch as Bacall shimmies out the door (a daring touch

Despite the similarities, it's difficult for me to compare the two. I love both films even though I feel Casablanca is better. To Have and Have Not is lighter in tone and in dialogue, but the film is still wonderful. Hawks could re-use even his own dialogue and scenes from previous films and they still feel original.

Isn't it true that Hawks was first offered to direct Casablanca? I believe it was suppose to be a muscial and he turned it down. I can't remember where I read this.

Edit:

I found this from the Casablanca trivia section:

"Howard Hawks had said in interviews that he was supposed to direct Casablanca (1942) and Michael Curtiz was supposed to direct Sergeant York (1941). The directors had lunch together, where Hawks said he didn't know how to make this "musical comedy", while Curtiz didn't know anything about "those hill people." They switched projects. Hawks struggled on how to direct the scenes that involved singing, namely the "La Marseillaise" scene. It is ironic to note that most of his other films involved at least one singing scene."

"Dry your eyes baby, it's out of character."

[deleted]

I really liked To Have and Have Not, but Casablanca is a superior film almost on every aspect.
Actually THAHN feels like a less serious remake of Casablanca.
Albeit the Bogart-Bacall chemistry on screen is hard to match, even for Ingrid Bergman and Bogart himself.

Yes, I think it's better too.

The Bride: Where's Bill?

Juno MacGuff: I'm pregnant

To Have and Have Not doesn't hold a candle to Casablanca, just like El Dorado doesn't to Rio Bravo.

Sorry, Hawks remakes have their merits, but they don't have a spot on the originals (even if he was the original creator).

You can't capture lightning in the same place twice.

"...if that was off, I'd be whoopin' your ass up and down this street." ~ an irate Tarantino

I was partial to Casablanca but after reading Bacall's autobiography it's a tos-up.Didnt Bergman play in Hemingway's "For whom the bell's toll"? I just read To have and have not and it was like reading a different story.Harry is married with kids and is a much cruder and a more desperate man...the story is much darker.I was waiting too read "did you ever get stung by a dead bee" but the books Eddy was a little more one dimensional and destined for a brutal demise.I'm surprised Hemingway allowed that many changes.