Supernatural (1933).

Review #2292: Supernatural.

Cast: 

Carole Lombard (Roma Courtney), Alan Dinehart (Paul Bavian), Vivienne Osborne (Ruth Rogen), Randolph Scott (Grant Wilson), H. B. Warner (Dr. Carl Houston), Beryl Mercer (Madam Gourjan), William Farnum (Nick "Nicky" Hammond), and Willard Robertson (Prison Warden) Directed by Victor Halperin (#274 - White Zombie)

Review: 

"I don't believe in fear, violence, and horror, so why traffic in them?"

Be honest: how many of you can name a horror film in the 1930s that wasn't made by Universal? Sure, there are a handful, such as Victor Halperin's attempts at horror filmmaking in the 1930s, starting with 1932's White Zombie, the cheapie movie that actually used Universal sets. It was Victor Halperin's ninth film as a feature director, having started in 1924 with a variety of dramas and some crime movies, with most of them being collaboration with his brother Edward. The result of the low-budget venture with Bela Lugosi scored him a deal with Paramount Pictures. The result was his second horror film here, as written by Brian Marlow and Harvey Thew as based on a story by Zombie writer Garnett Weston. Halperin directed just two further horror films with Revolt of the Zombies (1936) and Torture Ship (1939) before retiring in 1942; he died in 1983 and judging from the quote, wasn't exactly big on making horror movies (the irony is that they probably are the only reason anyone remembers Halperin).

Most films don't start with title cards of prominent names of Mohammed, Confucius, and Matthew 10:1, but here we are with a clunky suspense movie. It should be noted that Lombard absolutely did not want to do the film, apparently having a low view of horror. This is a movie involving theories about people's strong will even in death and body possession (with thicker makeup!) at the near end of a movie that isn't even 70 minutes long. The movie tries to present a female killer (strangles three men), body possession, fake mediums, spirits around the people, and oh my goodness, pick one idea! This is bottom-of-the-barrel mediocrity, one that only seems to fit the bill of being watched when you wonder just what else there can be for really old movies and "horror" when the word seemed to mean "oh, that one shot sure looked scary" more than anything. Lombard may have been a "swell" actress for timing, but she can only go so far for a movie that has her play puppet for a chunk of its time. Scott actually was a leading man in a variety of genres (including Murders in the Zoo that same year for horror), but one would be forgiven for just associating him as a Western guy, which is basically a way of saying his performance here inspires no notes of positivity. Osbourne is meant to inspire a bit of curiosity (playing the soon-to-be-dead killer) and the third word of that sentence is making a great deal of lifting. Dinehart at least as some huckster spirit in him, when compared to the astonishingly vacant Warner for a movie that begs to have something actually happen. This isn't a plea for a body-count (1 depicted is a count, I suppose?), this is just me stating that having a re-incarnated killer only really works when you have a whole film to make me care. Here, you have a film that only start to try and get interesting in the last 20 minutes, which manages to letdown the last remaining vestiges of hope for something less hammy. As a whole, the one-trick-pony status of Halperin and company in middle-of-the-road curiosity may not have been the biggest success at the time, but you can interpret for yourself what the fuss was about when it comes to the occasional scare (spiritual or not) that could occur for 1930s audiences.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Christopher Strong.

Review #2187: Christopher Strong.

Cast: 

Katharine Hepburn (Lady Cynthia Darrington), Colin Clive (Sir Christopher Strong), Billie Burke (Lady Elaine Strong), Helen Chandler (Monica Strong), Ralph Forbes (Harry Rawlinson), Irene Browne (Carrie Valentine), Jack La Rue (Carlo), and Desmond Roberts (Bryce Mercer) Directed by Dorothy Arzner (#1648 - Sarah and Son, #1810 - Working Girls, #1992 - The Wild Party)

Review: 

Technically, the focus should be on Arzner, because she was the one key regular female director in the sound era (there were others too such as Dorothy Davenport, but I think you know what I mean). But 1933 was also the year of Katharine Hepburn, so why not a few words here. She had early ideas of being an actress, but it was not until she graduated Bryn Mawr College in 1928 that had her on the road to professional acting, which started in the theater. She appeared in a handful of roles that ranged from understudy to being let go, but her performance in 1932's The Warrior's Husband got her notice in Hollywood from a scout. George Cukor vouched for her in casting for what became A Bill of Divorcement, released in the fall of 1932. 1933 saw her star in three films: Christopher Strong, Morning Glory, and Little Women (it was for the middle film that saw her win her first Academy Award). Hepburn came into the picture after Ann Harding had contractual problems, with this being a production under David O. Selznick at RKO. Strong was based off the 1932 novel of the same name, as written by Gilbert Frankau (it only seems apt that he wrote a novel about a Member of Parliament, Frankau apparently had a desire to serve in politics but a conservative man with his history in divorces did not test well for the times). The screenplay was written by Zoe Akins (who had written for Arzner's Sarah and Son), a future Pulitzer Prize winner as a playwright; the profession was changed from the book, which was about a woman racecar driver. Tommy Atkins apparently served as an assistant director. Hepburn reflected on the film in her autobiography and said that she enjoyed her time making the film (along with noting that each wore pants). It was Arzner who apparently modeled Hepburn's character off Amy Johnson, the first woman pilot (well, the word is "aviatrix") to fly solo from England to Australia (there was a mix of newsreel footage for parades and flights included as well). 

It wasn't a huge success at the time, but it certainly stands as a curious film that happened to be made just a year before the enforcement of the Production Code. Of course, the film isn't really about the one in the title as it is about, well, the woman experiencing her first love affair and how it affects her when it comes to the clashes of caution and danger-seekers. Courage, death, love, well, it all comes together in a crash of emotion that really could only come in that Pre-Code era. Hepburn just has that straight-to-the-point personality that exudes confidence with a knowing aura that moves leaps and bounds over anyone she interacts with, which is curious when wrapped with the idea of being in love for the first time - to a stuffy one, no less. Clive is put in the interesting position of being the stodgiest person in a film where he is playing the title character that at one point gets to look upon a woman wearing an outfit that reminds one of a moth. It is a clammy tightrope to walk in terms of "dignity" (he's playing a character that did enough to be called "Sir", remember) when it comes to trying to maintain the idea of normalcy when facing someone with similar features in single-minded goals. All the while, one sees Burke and Chandler from time to time in that engagement of trying to cope with the predicament that comes in love for one with an "occupied" status. Apparently, Arzner paid significant attention to getting something out of Burke when it came to performance along with stating that her interest really fell to Clive's character, which she described as "a man on the cross". Interpret that any way you wish, but each of them do fairly well anyway. As a whole, the film rests on how much one will go with that ending, which, well, rather than face the prospect of an illegitimate child (as one reads between the lines) and wreak havoc on the lives of people she cares about, a decision is made to fly high into the sky with a plan to never see them again. At 78 minutes, it is a decent experience for the curiosity alone.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Emperor Jones.

Review #2177: The Emperor Jones.

Cast: 

Paul Robeson (Brutus Jones), Dudley Digges (Smithers), Frank H. Wilson (Jeff), Fredi Washington (Undine), Ruby Elzy (Dolly), George Haymid Stamper (Lem), Jackie "Moms" Mabley (Marcella), Blueboy O'Connor (Treasurer), Brandon Evans (Carrington), and Rex Ingram (Court Crier) Directed by Dudley Murphy.

Review: 

Paul Robeson was a talent among himself, but this film was a curious one to look through. In 1920, Eugene O'Neill's play of tragedy in The Emperor Jones premiered on the New York stage. The play was inspired by the occupation of Haiti by the United States (which happened from 1915 to 1934), which had resulted in bloodshed and discourse about its level of imperialism. It was the first successful play for O'Neill, who would win his first Pulitzer Prize for Drama (adding three more in the next number of years); the character of Jones when it came to certain aspect of personality was inspired by Adam Scott, a close friend of O'Neill. Charles Sidney Gilpin was the original actor to play the role of Jones on the stage, which he did for the original performances before disagreements with O'Neill (specifically with the use of a racial slur) led to changes. Robeson (who had studied law after a noted college career in football at Rutgers) was brought in for the revival a few years later, and he also did the play for a radio adaptation. This is the only film adaptation of the play, but there have been several other adaptations in various media, such as a 1933 opera (as done by Louis Gruenberg) along with several TV productions (with one starring Ossie Davis). Only in a certain era would people see rushes for a film and think that an actor (Washington) needs makeup in reshoots to make them darker so that they did not look light-skinned next to Robeson. It was the only film screenplay for author DuBose Heyward, best known for his work on the 1925 novel Porgy and his adaptation alongside his wife to a play in 1927 (years later it was adapted against into an opera in Porgy and Bess); he was recruited by director Dudley Murphy to do a screenplay with background applied to an adaptation after convincing O'Neill about getting a film project off the ground. Contentiously, it is stated that Murphy had a hand in the film Ballet Mécanique, a collaboration he worked with Fernand Léger as a "Dadaist post-Cubist art film" (in 1924) to go with two 1929 short films featuring music in St. Louis Blues (featuring Bessie Smith) and Black and Tan (featuring Duke Ellington and His Orchestra). William C. deMille apparently did un-credited work on the film in supervising direction. The film had John Krimsky and Gifford A. Cochran as producers, who had previously helped Madchen in Uniform (1932) reach American audiences.

The movie probably doesn't have the power that a long soliloquy has on the stage, but it is still pretty easy to see just how good Robeson can make a film work when it is his show to cut loose. He wouldn't have that many chances to do this in America, which led to him taking on roles abroad (such as King Solomon's Mines [1937]) prior to his final feature role in 1942, but he was quite busy in activism in a variety of fields. Studio sets doubling for the jungle work out pretty well in a tale of hubris and the ever-growing drumbeat of doom. This was a film shot by Ernest Haller, who you might recognize as the future cinematographer of Gone with the Wind (1939), which worked with the sets designed by art designer Herman Rosse. The film is in the public domain, although finding a good print would be ideal, since a restored print by Criterion was only done in 2006. It is a tale of exploitation in that rise to power that is shaped by a man's failure to run away fully from their past. Granted, it is a fairly dated film when it comes to overall execution, because the two halves of the film (rise and fall) don't exactly mesh as well as one might hope they would (of course there was a bit of censorship done depending on the audience, such as not including a certain slur when playing to black audiences to go with trimming a pivotal moment of rebellion). Robeson stands out the best, with Digges and his observations as a fellow exploiter being second among a general row of bluster impressing among ordinary observers (well, aside from the first segment that involves hucksters, buy you get the idea). As a whole, Robeson maneuvers the act of a man gripped with craving an image all for himself in better things that means greed and brutality before eventually moving to a conclusion of fear and, well, being swallowed whole. It isn't particularly great, but it generally works out in entertainment on the basis of one gripping performance and a bit of ingenuity in stretching a cheap production into something with enough curiosity to make it a worthwhile show. It may not have been a tremendous success at the time, but the decades have been more kind to it for pretty easy reasons.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Blind Adventure.

Review #2057: Blind Adventure.

Cast: 

Robert Armstrong (Richard Bruce), Helen Mack (Rose Thorne), Roland Young (Holmes the Burglar), Ralph Bellamy (Jim Steele), John Miljan (Regan, Gang Leader), Beryl Mercer (Elsie, the Maid), Tyrell Davis (Gerald Fairfax), Henry Stephenson (Major Archer Thorne), and Laura Hope Crews (Lady Rockingham) Directed by Ernest B. Schoedsack (#283 - King Kong, #604 - Mighty Joe Young, #709 - The Most Dangerous Game, and #914 - Son of Kong)

Review: 

Okay, so remember Son of Kong (1933)? That was the rushed sequel to King Kong that retained the uses of Ernest B. Schoedsack as director/producer while featuring Robert Armstrong and Helen Mack (replacing Fay Wray from the original film) as the stars to basically be second-nature to the big effect (the film itself, well, was pretty disappointing, but that was a long time ago). Of course, there was one other aspect retained from the original Kong in Ruth Rose (familiar to Schoedsack, because she was his wife) as screenwriter. You may wonder just what does this have to do with Blind Adventure? Well, that was the other 1933 movie released by RKO Radio Pictures that had Armstrong and Mack as stars with Schoedsack as director, and Rose as a writer (Robert Benchley delivered uncredited work for the film); oddly enough, Cooper didn't produce the Kong sequel but did produce Blind Adventure. Schoedsack was a most curious filmmaker, as one would expect from somebody that honed their skills in the Signal Corps in World War I. He directed various films with a good chunk in collaboration with Merian C. Cooper (they met in Europe in 1918 and coincidentally were both pilots during the war), whether that involved producing films spent in the wilderness such as Chang: A Drama of the Wilderness (1927) or dramas such as The Last Days of Pompeii (1935) or effects-driven features such as Dr. Cyclops (1940) and his last key effort in Mighty Joe Young (yet another movie with Armstrong, Rose, and Cooper). Schoedsack died in 1979 at the age of 86.

The movie is perhaps too fitting for B-movie status within its 65-minute runtime and a premise involving "An American in foggy England all by himself". The enjoyment of the film depends on just how much you can take the film at face value with such little time to allow it to coat in interest. But B-movies were a dime a dozen, so those familiar with hazy surroundings will probably just be fine with what the film is selling, and I did eventually go with it, perhaps because sometimes one really does just go with the flow. So here we are with a plot about wrong houses wrapped in pea soup fog, incriminating cigarette cases, and friendly burglars. Armstrong I think is confident enough to hold the ship together with being thrust into such a strange time, which mostly means competent timing that is played for a bit of contrast with everyone that isn't about bluster with the previous Schoedsack ventures. Mack makes a casual lead to get thrust into the proceedings that mainly involves a bit of going along with whatever is happening and a bit of relief when it comes to "trifles". Of course, Young makes for a pleasant bundle of chuckles as the sly fox in the middle of pursuers and bumblers. This includes a minor adversary in Bellamy, who at least seems game within the mild diversion that comes when packed with other minor heavies that see one of them get bonked on the head at one point. As a whole, the enjoyment of the film depends on just how much a diversion one finds within such a short and measurable time, and I think it works out just alright, so take that for what it is worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Private Life of Henry VIII.

Review #1678: The Private Life of Henry VIII.

Cast: 

Charles Laughton (Henry VIII), Merle Oberon (Anne Boleyn), Wendy Barrie (Jane Seymour), Elsa Lanchester (Anne of Cleves), Binnie Barnes (Catherine Howard), Everley Gregg (Catherine Parr), Robert Donat (Thomas Culpeper), Franklin Dyall (Thomas Cromwell), Miles Mander (Wriothesley), Laurence Hanray (Archbishop Thomas Cranmer), William Austin (The Duke of Cleves), John Loder (Thomas Peynell), Lady Tree (The King's Nurse), John Turnbull (Hans Holbein), Frederick Culley (Duke of Norfolk), William Heughan (Kingston), and Judy Kelly (Lady Rochford) Produced and Directed by Alexander Korda.

Review: 

Alexander Korda was involved in the realm of film for over forty years of his life. In fact, he would get his brothers involved with the industry to work alongside him as well, with Zoltan becoming a director and Vincent serving as an art director (for which he would win an Academy Award, which fittingly came with The Thief of Bagdad in 1940). Born in Austria-Hungary, he had changed his name from Kellner and started work in the film industry during the start of the first World War; his first writing project with Watchhouse in the Carpathians (1914) also became his first time directing a film. Over the next five years, he would eventually turn to producing his films as well as directing, with the presence of Corvin Film behind him that resulted in highlights such as White Nights (1916) and Harrison and Barrison (1917, which Korda called his favorite of the period). Trouble in his native country caused him to leave and never return, and he would spend the next two years in Austria and the next four in Germany, with The Prince and the Pauper (1920) helping to spur Korda on to the idea of making films for an international audience (incidentally, that film also happened to have a portrayal of Henry VIII). In 1926, he moved to Hollywood and would spend the next five years there. Although he had a few highlights such as The Private Life of Helen of Troy (1927, a comic biopic) while doing well with silent and sound, he grew tired of the studio system; a move to Europe meant brief time spent in France before settling in England, where he created his own company with London Films in 1932. In total, Korda would film/produce in six different countries while directing until 1947 and producing until his death in 1956. With this film, Korda made his gamble in trying to make an elegant film that honed British but could still attract attention through international waters while featuring a man of the stage with Laughton, who had made his way into acting on the stage in 1926 before dabbling into acting two years later, and while this was only the second time he would appear in a historical role (he had played Emperor Nero the previous year), this was the movie that turned him into a star in a career that spanned numerous portrayals of historical figures that went from Rembrandt to William Kidd (incidentally, he would play Henry VIII two decades later with Young Bess).

It could be easy to say that there isn't exactly a great central structure to this film. Keep in mind, we have a movie that runs at 97 minutes that can only depict five of the six wives married by the King (the first one is called a "respectable lady" in the opening title-card). After all, the king had married six wives but married five them in a span of ten years (after his marriage to Catherine of Aragon lasted 24 years before being the first of three annulled marriages) that has been characterized as both the most important monarch in English history and also one wracked with ego that could be tender to women but prone to withdrawal once out of love. In other words, if one doesn't really consider all of the historical quibbles, one probably won't also think about it goes with a resourcefully cheap but ultimately curious little gem. If Laughton is the biggest gem of the movie, he certainly deserves the credit for making what could have been a mild affair and turns it into a useful venture full of bombast that never seems like a complete caricature or a rosy portrait. Instead, it is a poignant movie that aims well to international audiences (it was the first non-Hollywood nominee for Best Picture), and eight decades has not quite withered the high-spirited efforts from Korda and his crew, right down to Korda regulars Lajos Bíró and Arthur Wimperis delivering a serviceable script that keeps the tempo relatively sane, at least to what one needs from Vincent Korda and his set design that keeps things fairly level. Laughton has the confidence required of such a big role to go alongside gravitas to make it more than just an offbeat king with a habit for women and eating food whole. If he ended up forming the perception of what folks had of the king in the eyes of an audience member, then so be it, because it does have a flattering edge in playing to the audience that can end with a roar or a curious glance (as one supposes it isn't all fun and games in the life of a king that just wants love to last). Oberon (in one of her first key roles) doesn't have as much time to start the first of numerous stories with the wives of Henry, but she has a striking energy to her that makes what seems like a routine dead person walking roll fairly different. Barrie does fine with garnering the next story with what is needed without being coy. Lanchester would appear in a total of twelve movies with Laughton (the two after all were married until the latter's death in 1962), and she proves quite interesting here, garnering some curious moments that make a fanciful third story, complete with a card game scene with Laughton that is one of the highlight scenes. Donat had just entered film in the year before the release of this film within Korda productions (after entering stage in 1921), and he makes a useful supporting presence for what is needed in the key story between him and Barnes, who garners some worthy ambition into a decent spirited chemistry with Laughton, complete with her watching him wrestle in front of all. Gregg is the last key lady of the movie, and while the portrayal probably won't hone well to the spirit of the person portrayed (namely the idea of a henpecked king), she comes out with at least some sort of dignity (the last line that breaks the fourth wall after she leaves the screen is up to you). In general, it is Laughton that helps to shape a movie that would have likely gone near the deep end without a centralizing performance from a growing star, which means one gets a usefully diverting time that hits the mark in relative entertainment without sacrificing showmanship or dedication, which can be credited to Korda and Laughton, who each can credit this film as a time to shine for the right reasons.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

42nd Street.

Review #1340: 42nd Street.

Cast: 
Warner Baxter (Julian Marsh), Bebe Daniels (Dorothy Brock), George Brent (Pat Denning), Ruby Keeler (Peggy Sawyer), Guy Kibbee (Abner Dillon), Una Merkel (Lorraine Fleming), Ginger Rogers (Ann Lowell), Ned Sparks (Barry), Dick Powell (Billy Lawler), Allen Jenkins (Mac Elroy, the stage manager), and Edward J. Nugent (Terry) Directed by Lloyd Bacon (#562 - It Happens Every Spring and #898 - Larceny, Inc)

Review: 
"Sawyer, you're going out a youngster, but you've got to come back a star!"

For the 1930s, the musical had numerous phases of development. Film had gone a long way from musical short films in the earlier half of the 1920s to The Jazz Singer (1927) to The Broadway Melody (1929) and so on, with ones even done in color. However, the craze of doing musicals had stalled quickly in 1931, owing to over-saturation in the market. Of course this small lull would not last long, it just needed some evolution. One key figure in contributing the remedy was Busby Berkeley. By the time of the 1920s, he had already been a field artillery lieutenant in World War I before becoming a dance director and choreographer on Broadway musicals such as A Connecticut Yankee, which were known for their complex choreography. His film choreography career started with Whoopee! (1930), and he would soon be known for his distinct arrangements, which were usually large and/or geometric, complete with a "parade of faces" (kind close-ups of chorus girls distinctly). Berkeley spent 1933 on several films (including his directorial debut with She Had to Say Yes), with Footlight Parade (also directed by Bacon), Gold Diggers of 1933, and this film all turning out to be major successes for Warner Bros, each of which ranking in the top ten in the box office for 1933. His career would continue for the rest of the decade, serving as both choreographer and director on several films, with his last credit being Billy Rose's Jumbo (1962). Who better to do a film like this than Lloyd Bacon, who had previous experience in musical films such as The Singing Fool (1928). The film, as you might expect, is adapted from a novel of the same name by Bradford Ropes, with the screenplay from Rian James, James Seymour, and Whitney Bolton, while Harry Warren and Al Dubin contributed the music and lyrics, respectively. This material would later turn into a hit musical for Broadway in 1980, which ran for nine years.

All of this background material goes to show what you can say about an interesting film when your curiosity is stimulated. This is an entertaining backstage musical, full of rough ambitious energy with a game ensemble cast (a mix of established actors and newcomers) and a reasonable pace at 89 minutes that finds time for some fairly charming songs and a bit of plot to go with it. Simply put, it is a prime musical for its era, lively without seeming too stagey that had plagued other musicals before. Baxter carries the ship with careful control, a man filled with desperate energy that is burning to the last flicker of a waning flame, a familiar type if you've ever seen someone trying to manage people to some form of success. Daniels does reasonably well with her role, doing a fair bit of dancing and having fair chemistry with Brent, who pulls the thin romance off just fine for what is needed. Keeler shows enough spunk for a film debut (her first film appearance had been a cameo in Show Girl in Hollywood three years prior) to make you interested in her path and see her sing her way through. Kibbee certainly works fine with bluster for the brief time one sees him speak. Merkel and Rogers deliver a chuckle or two before doing their part on the stage with singing. In any case, the real spectacle of the show is Berkeley's choreography, most notably with a tracking shot done between the legs of the dancers until it reveals Powell and an un-credited Toby Wing. Other highlights include the "Shuffle Off to Buffalo" sequence, a catchy tune that soon shows a train compartment opening up to reveal plenty more cast mates behind it while showing a shot of the orchestra and audience viewing it (or at least that's what the camera wants you to see). The black backgrounds help when showing the geometric part of the dance numbers, which are quite a treat when seeing this sleek execution work out magnificently. The film certainly tries to capture the grind of its decade when relating to hard struggle of exhausting work and commitment to a craft that one hopes comes to fruition with adulation and not crushing failure, which is made clear with its carefully crafted last scene, with a drained director quietly listening some of the patrons opinions by himself. Sure, he overcame tough odds, but all the opinions are about how he "supposedly" will take credit for the show and discovering the new star, since "some guys get all the breaks". In the end, the film is one that resonates just as well back then as it does now in its basic tenants: that one can make it with enough talent, luck and flat out hard work for the chance at some success to be proud of. It works with Depression-era crowds and it can still work with those curious at heart now.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Cavalcade.

Review #1339: Cavalcade.

Cast: 
Diana Wynyard (Jane Marryot), Clive Brook (Robert Marryot), Una O'Connor (Ellen Bridges), Herbert Mundin (Alfred Bridges), Beryl Mercer (Cook), Irene Browne (Margaret Harris), Tempe Pigott (Mrs. Snapper), Merle Tottenham (Annie), and Frank Lawton (Joe Marryot) Directed by Frank Lloyd (#099 - Mutiny on the Bounty and #1321 - The Sea Hawk)

Review: 
It is easy to say in retrospect what films are memorable or striking for a particular year (particularly when talking about awards for said films of a year). When one thinks of 1933, one would likely think of certain films like King Kong, The Invisible Man, or perhaps even Morning Glory before Cavalcade. This is a strange one, since this was the highest grossing film of the year, and it eventually went on to win the Academy Award for Best Picture in its year, the first and only win for studio Fox Film Corporation before its merger in 1935 along with an award for Lloyd, the second director to win two Academy Awards. Lloyd had a forty-year career directing films for a variety of studios, and this was one of his noted films (the war sequences, however, were directed by William Cameron Menzies). Maybe this is perhaps of its home video history, since its first VHS release came only in 1993, while the first stand-alone release on DVD and Blu-Ray came out in 2013, after being included in one of those prestige movie packs in 2010. This 2013 release came after winning an online write-in poll, which made it the last Best Picture winner to do so (of course it also is available on streaming services, but those don't count for anything). One must note the source material it comes from, a play by famed playwright Noël Coward, which had premiered in 1931 in London, which used hydraulics and moving components on a big stage for great effect. One can give credit for the ambition in making a British production (in terms of stars and writers while Lloyd was born in Scotland), but this generosity does not quite help the film when it comes to actually watching it.

For an epic that spans 30 years, one would be surprised to note that the pace of the 112-minute film makes one feel like they are spending 30 years watching it. Events come and go, but these characters remain flat for most of its run-time, as if the "stiff upper lip" is the only thing worth mentioning of these people. This is a march of platitudes (a fancy word for cliche) that is in search of an idea. Oh sure, one gets to see glimpses of history such as the Boer War, the Titanic, and World War I. But all of it feels tremendously empty, a by-the-numbers kind of romantic drama that seems dated now but certainly must've reeled others more familiar with the dawn of the 20th century than I. With such stagy qualities, one can't quite fault the actors for not quite living up to film standards, where one is left with a sense of detachment. Wynyard was an actress of the stage (before and after being borrowed for this film, a nominated performance), while Brook had fair success abroad from Hollywood before moving back to Britain in a few years later, reportedly in part because of kidnapping threats on his children. In any case, they seem unflappable as one could expect, but it seems hollow nowadays. At least Wynyard proves effective when it comes to the war sequences, checking on to see if her husband (and in another sequence, son) are still alive. The cliches have collapsed into other cliches, honestly. The best instance of that is a sequence involving a newly wed couple, speaking about romantic cliches while aboard a ship on April 1912. Gee, I wonder what ship these folks are on. Of all the events portrayed in the film, this is the only one that seems brushed aside, with the famous wreck of the Titanic and the fate of said characters being talked about just once in dialogue. One can depict flashes of war, the death of Queen Victoria, someone getting run over by horses, but I guess the Titanic is a bit too much. Seriously though, the way in people come and go in this film is astounding, where one would find more emotion present in someone's death in a children's book. At least the film looks like it spans a couple of decades, as opposed to being done on the cheap (not that there's anything wrong with that). On the whole, this is a film that has little enduring power, doing so on the basis of awards from decades ago and milder-than-mild spectacle that make it an antique above usual antiques. If you're into this kind of film, you might find something worth looking into, but for me I found mild disappointment above all, a piece that fits the 1930s in ambition but not one in terms of ultimate enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Son of Kong.

Review #914: Son of Kong.

Cast:
Robert Armstrong (Carl Denham), Helen Mack (Hilda Petersen), Frank Reicher (Captain Englehorn), John Marston (Nils Helstrom), Victor Wong (Charlie), and Ed Brady (Red) Directed by Ernest B. Schoedsack (#283 - King Kong, #604 - Mighty Joe Young, and #709 - The Most Dangerous Game)

Review:
I will watch Kong: Skull Island next week, and as such it makes sense to do a review of a Kong movie. Enjoy, and I would encourage checking out the other Kong reviews done over the years: #283, #604 (made with the same creative team), and #726 - King Kong (1976).

Released just nine months after the first film had been released into theaters, Son of Kong is a sequel that isn't as well known (nor well-liked) as the original film. The movie begins with a brief recap of the first film (in dialogue), with the premise being set up by the time 10 minutes pass by. At least they didn't just take footage from the end of the movie. Some of the cast from the first film (Armstrong, Reicher, and Wong) appear in this one, and this is certainly one that gives Armstrong a bit more in terms of characterization. The tight budget and shooting schedule (screenwriter Ruby Rose described doing the movie as this: "If you can't make it bigger, make it funnier") meant that several models from the first film were reused, though Willis O'Brien does contribute stop-motion animation once again. It isn't until around 43 minutes that the Son of Kong appears in the movie, looking noticeably lighter skinned than his larger father, with facial expressions that seem to go with any sort of comedic moments the movie tries to do. The best thing I can say about the movie is that it isn't just a simple repeat of the first film, with semblances of romance and adventure taking the mantle this time. Unfortunately, it doesn't really have much of the tension nor importance the first film. Simply put, it's obviously not as good as the first one. It doesn't have too much spectacle and is quite rushed, giving a product that could have had potential had there been more time and length (this is only 69 minutes long) given to the movie. By releasing the movie quickly in order to ride off the memories people had of the original film, Son of Kong manages to be a middling sequel that could have been so much better.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Sagebrush Trail.

Review #724: Sagebrush Trail.

Cast
John Wayne (John Brant), Nancy Shubert (Sally Blake), Lane Chandler (Joseph Conlon), Yakima Canutt (Outlaw Gang Leader), Henry Hall (Bad Blake), and Wally Wales (Deputy Sheriff) Directed by Armand Schaefer.

Review
Yes, it's almost time...for Independence Day to be over. But much like firework demonstrations, the celebrations will still be around for most of the night anyway, so here is my own little contribution to it, a film with John Wayne starring in it, before he became more popular to audiences. I'm surprised it took this long to get to a John Wayne movie, and it only figures that it's one made by Monogram Pictures, a studio that made b-movies, with a good majority being Westerns. Wayne and his voice always seems to resonate well with people, and I can see why. It's a smooth touch that is consistent and is refreshing to see here. Ah Westerns, home to dirt, trails, and gunfights. And in this case, you get all of them, so if you want stuff like that (Oh, and John Wayne), you win there. Otherwise, it's a standard movie that could've been longer (barely over 50 minutes), but if you want an American patriotic type of movie and short on time, watch this. Or (legally, of course) pop some fireworks. Happy July 4th.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Mystery of the Wax Museum.

Review #719: Mystery of the Wax Museum.

Cast
Lionel Atwill (Ivan Igor), Fay Wray (Charlotte Duncan), Glenda Farrell (Florence Dempsey), Frank McHugh (Jim), Allen Vincent (Ralph Burton), Gavin Gordon (George Winton), Edwin Maxwell (Joe Worth), and Holmes Herbert (Dr. Rasmussen) Directed by Michael Curtiz (#125 - Casablanca and #416 - Yankee Doodle Dandy, #505 - The Adventures of Robin Hood, and #529 - Mildred Pierce)

Review
Remember House of Wax (#271) with Vincent Price? Mystery of the Wax Museum is the original version, made by the same studio (Warner Brothers) that would make the remake 20 years later, with this movie based off an unpublished story, The Wax Works. This movie utilizes two-color Technicolor, a unique system utilized in some films (like the 1925 version of Phantom of the Opera), although the reception to the system was lukewarm due to the perceived artificial qualities it projected. This was one of only three films that Warner Brothers had under this system, and the last. Anyway, the movie's color actually helps set the mood very nicely because its artificial quality here makes the movie seem creepy, which for a movie like this, works. It works for a mystery like this, which moves quickly and never seems padded, setting its characters up and their motivations just fine. Atwill and Wray are the highlights, both having good scenes, sometimes together. The movie is quickly resolved, and I'm impressed at how it managed to be just effective, without having to resort to much final thoughts. It's a movie that looks good in its own way while being a fine little mystery that can be good for anyone looking for a quick 30's film to watch.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Vampire Bat.

Review #708: The Vampire Bat.

Cast
Lionel Atwill (Dr. Otto von Niemann), Fay Wray (Ruth Bertin), Melvyn Douglas (Karl Breettschneider), Maude Eburne (Gussie Schnappmann), George E. Stone (Kringen), Dwight Frye (Herman Gleib), Robert Frazer (Emil Borst), and Rita Carlisle (Martha Mueller) Directed by Frank R. Strayer.

Review
Well, it's certainly a quick movie. At 63 minutes, this is a movie that was released just a month before another Atwill-Wray movie would be released (Mystery of the Wax Museum), but this one was released by Majestic Pictures, a studio known for cheap flicks made quickly. And since this is in public domain, you can find this movie anywhere on the Internet. But the question is would you want to? That depends. The sets look nice and scenic, fitting well with what the movie is trying to do so quickly. The characters are fine, save for Eburne's comic relief character, an anxious panicky character who almost ruins the balance that Wray and Douglas have with each other. Atwill is a good lead character (who pops up in numerous 1930's films). The ending is at least something different from most vampire films, though your reaction may vary on your level of disbelief. Extra points for having Dwight Frye as a supporting character, which is always welcome. If you're up for some quick cheap horror thrills, I'd say this movie is for you. Is it an old flick? As the old saying goes, 82 is the new 40. Or 30.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: King Kong (1933).

Review #283: King Kong.

Cast
Bruce Cabot (Jack Driscoll), Fay Wray (Ann Darrow), Robert Armstrong (Carl Denham), Frank Reicher (Captain Englehorn), and James Flavin (Briggs. Directed by Merian C. Cooper and Ernest B. Schoedsack.

Review
King Kong is one of those effects-worthy films that live on and on. But is the film good for that? Yep. To begin with, the film's stop-motion animation by Willis O'Brien still lives up after nearly 80 years. It might be primitive to some, but give it credit as technology for films back then probably didn't extend to just "give some effects, it doesn't matter what" I love the way Kong looks, especially that toothy grin along with the dinosaurs. Yes, dinosaurs. (Have I ever said a sentence with dinosaurs? Probably not.) There is one thing that bothers me and that is the main lead, Fay Wray. My problem is that she simply screams for about half the film, which to be honest, is a bit annoying. Armstrong on the other hand is actually delightful, probably due to his portrayal. The film has a reasonable length (Though their were scenes that were taken out of the original film, one involving crabs.) that balances well and makes for a good film.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Duck Soup.

Review #085: Duck Soup.

Cast
Groucho Marx (Rufus T. Firefly), Harpo Marx (Pinky), Chico Marx (Chicolini), Zeppo Marx (Lt. Bob Roland), Margaret Dumont (Mrs. Gloria Teasdale), Louis Calhern (Ambassador Trentino of Sylvania), Raquel Torres (Vera Marcal), Edgar Kennedy (Lemonade vendor), Edmund Breese (Former President Zander), and Edwin Maxwell (Former Secretary of War) Directed by Leo McCarey.

Review
This is a classic comedy film, pure and simple. It was underrated in the 30's, but it has developed a rating of highness as time goes by. Things get better as they grow old, and new people like myself will like the first time they see it. It's funny to the last. My favorite scene is the mirror scene as it just makes me giggle as the scene progresses. I recommend it for comedy buffs as it is a comedy all around. Happy New Years.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Invisible Man.

Review #069: The Invisible Man.

Cast
Claude Rains (Dr. Jack Griffin / The Invisible Man), Gloria Stuart (Flora Cranley), William Harrigan (Dr. Arthur Kemp), Henry Travers (Dr. Cranley), Una O'Connor (Jenny Hall), Forrester Harvey (Herbert Hall), Dudley Digges (Chief Detective), and E. E. Clive (Constable Jaffers) Directed by James Whale.

Review
This is the first film I've covered from the 1930s, and it is a good one to cover. This film is a good adaptation (by H.G Wells) of the book and it entertains the viewer in a 71 minute span. The acting is good (save for Una O'Conner, who screams just a bit too much for my taste) for 1933. Rains is a fine main character. The special effects are great for its time. Actually, they still look great, even for today. The film is dramatic, smart, and a bit cunning. On the whole, this is a fairly capable horror film.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.