The Ghost Ship.

Review #2587: The Ghost Ship.

Cast: 

Richard Dix (Captain Will Stone), Russell Wade (Third Officer Tom Merriam), Edith Barrett (Ellen Roberts), Ben Bard (First Officer Bounds), Skelton Knaggs (Finn, the mute / The Narrator), Edmund Glover (Jacob "Sparks" Winslow), Lawrence Tierney (Louie Parker), Paul Marion (Pete a.k.a. "the Greek"), and Sir Lancelot (Billy Radd) Directed by Mark Robson (#1797 - Home of the Brave, #1931 - Valley of the Dolls, #2431 - The Seventh Victim)

Review:  

Now you might be saying, what, a ship-bound movie to look on for horror? Well, this is another one of Val Lewton's productions for RKO and it often is lumped in with his previous stuff such as Cat People (to the point where it was released alongside the others for the "Val Lewton Horror Collection" set in 2005), so why not? RKO wanted a use from the ship set they still had from Pacific Liner [1939], so obviously giving Lewton a task to make a ship-bound movie with a "Ghost" in the title sounded up his alley. It may interest you to know that for many years, this film was not available to actually see. Sure, the screenplay was credited to Donald Henderson Clarke and the story was credited to Leo Mittler, but Lewton had his key influence in shaping the film (so, uncredited work) ...and then the aftermath of the release of the film saw a lawsuit filed by Samuel R. Golding and Norbert Faulkner. Go figure, RKO somehow lost a suit for plagiarism (specifically citing the 1942 play "A Man and His Shadow") that saw the film taken out from circulation (not to be mean to Golding or Faulkner*, but nobody speaks for them and the alleged "plagiarism" case, so either the viewer is the true winner or Lewton that got the last laugh in the long run). Robson wound up directing three more movies for Lewton with Youth Runs Wild (1944), Isle of the Dead (1944), and Bedlam (1946). At any rate, since the movie fell into the public domain, it is now readily available to view anywhere you want on the Internet.

Sure, it's hard to try and go into the movie without some sort of expectation or guess when it comes to "Ghost Ship", but you really will have quite the time just going into it cold, with its 69-minute runtime not being a deterrent to how fascinating it ends up being. The horrors of being gripped at the helm of authority and wavering in actually recognizing the difference between power and authority is one thing, try being part of a ship filled with deterrence to what "seems best with the man in charge". There could be storms on the horizon, there could be danger from an unknown enemy, but damn the torpedoes, one rolls with the captain when they have made their final decision...or so one may believe. We all know at least one situation where people would probably go down with the ship (in a figurative sense) rather than ask any questions about just who is really trying to guide past the storm. We all know that one person who micromanages things with perhaps a bit too much enthusiasm, as if everything has to be drawn up and down just because they can. You can in fact be petty when it comes to holding the crew to a "standard" and you can in fact try to bury things if it comes to a head. The responsibility of holding the command and all the responsibilities and calamities that come in both body and mind goes to Dix (in one of his last roles prior to dying in 1949), who makes for a compelling presence specifically because of his seasoned nature. It may not be a big A-movie, but his imbalanced feel for the crew and what his role is in the grand scheme of his position is compelling without striking as too cartoonish, especially when shown in the non-sea trappings with Barrett in one instance. Wade had done several years of playing an extra before getting an RKO contract to be a featured guy for stuff such as this, although he would stop acting after 1948. He makes for a suitable lead to jump in to said quibbles with solid likable qualities to sell the perspective of a newcomer into a bubbling boil. The racket with Knaggs, who has a few monologues as basically a "Greek chorus" that only works best in the last sequence, honestly, and the crew (which includes a young Tierney and calypso singer Sir Lancelot) only get to show flashes of individuality (as if they've just become cogs to change in and out). By the time of its climax, as held in murky lighting to heighten the tension, all the stops have been put out in pulpy and lean enjoyment that makes it a solid Lewton (and company) accomplishment.  Melodrama, suspense thriller, horror, hey, it all can be relative in what you can infer from your own perspectives, at least when you consider the dangers that come from what is seen and unseen in the careful lighting (hooks, fights, lockless doors, what have you). In that sense, it makes for a pretty good recommendation for any type of month or occasion.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Oh who am I kidding, those jerks did lose in the court of "time". Really, plagiarism?

The Seventh Victim.

Review #2431: The Seventh Victim.

Cast: 

Tom Conway (Doctor Louis Judd), Jean Brooks (Jacqueline Gibson), Isabel Jewell (Frances Fallon), Kim Hunter (Mary Gibson), Evelyn Brent (Natalie Cortez), Erford Gage (Jason Hoag), Ben Bard (Mr. Brun), Hugh Beaumont (Gregory Ward), Chef Milani (Mr. Jacob), and Marguerita Sylva (Mrs. Bella Romari) Directed by Mark Robson (#1797 - Home of the Brave and #1931 - Valley of the Dolls)

Review: 

"It had a rather sinister quality, of something intangible but horribly real; it had an atmosphere. I think the actors and the director had to believe very strongly in the possibilities of disaster: that something was there. We believed it ourselves. We talked ourselves into believing it. We had a kind of fidelity to that feeling. We had the characters speak throughout in a deliberately quiet, polite and subdued manner, engendering a very calculated undercurrent of possible disaster."

This was the fourth of nine movies produced by Val Lewton in what you might call his horror cycle, all for RKO. The movie was written by Charles O'Neal and DeWitt Bodeen. The movie was to be directed by Jacques Tourneur, but he had other plans that saw the promotion of Mark Robson to direct. The Montreal native had actually studied at UCLA and Pacific Coast University School of Law but found his first work in film with the prop department at 20th Century Fox. But he did not settle there, later going to RKO Pictures that saw him start training in film editing. It was here that Robson served as an assistant to Robert Wise on the editing of Citizen Kane (1941), among other things. He then became a main editor for RKO that saw him work on, well, the Lewton features you probably would guess with Cat People (it was Robson who accidentally came up with that one particular sequence involving a bus) and so on. Robson would direct a handful of movies for RKO (which included four for Lewton) before going to various studios for a career that ultimately spanned over three decades. You can probably guess that this movie had a few phases before becoming what you see today: for one, there was initially a pitch involving a murder plot in oil wells before Lewton's supervision saw it go to, well, a cult in the Village, with Bodeen claiming to have based it on a real thing he saw in New York (the movie title refers to Jacqueline, as she is the seventh person condemned for betrayal in the history of the cult-although the cult does not go around killing people, they goad them instead). This was the third of four Lewton-connected movies released in 1943 (with this being released in August), with the others being I Walked with a Zombie (April), The Leopard Man (May), and The Ghost Ship (December). The movie was a flop with audiences at the time, with one cinema worker joking that they must've been the eighth victim. Of course, time has treated it differently (according to Robson, he was asked about the movie by the Boulting brothers who used to bicycle around London a print of the film, which was thought to be "an advanced, weird form of film-making").

I really wished I liked the movie more. But if you are into movies that might tangentially remind you of the dread found in later movies involving cults in one's wake such as, well, Rosemary's Baby (1968), this may be up your alley. The movie was shot in the course of 24 days, but the editing process (as overseen by Robson and John Lockert) was probably more crucial to, well, how things play out. A handful of scenes were cut from the film that relate to certain events in the film and the ending itself was trimmed to basically just end right after one certain sound is heard. It is a slow web to untangle for 71 minutes that probably is akin to actual life in not exactly going the way you think it will unfold for some sort of eerie feeling. That or basically one is watching a noir more than a straight horror film, but I suppose your taste (or patience) may vary. People come and go in the movie, since Hunter (in her film debut) probably is in the movie more than Brooks, although each do pretty well with what the movie shades out in wayward people looking for the way back (okay one is looking to die, but at least she knows where everybody goes anyway). The movie only really seems to gel into fascination in its latter half for me, mostly because it actually stops introducing people and shows what I guess is something about cults that claim to be big on the Devil (notice how they aren't actually stopped at the end, you just see some folks recite the Lord's Prayer at them - good thing they weren't doing anything like killing goats or evading their taxes, oooh!). I guess what I want to say is that it only vaguely holds my fascination because it has that same problem that I ended up having with Rosemary's Baby: get to the damn point, although at least you could almost watch this movie (71 minutes) twice in the time it takes to finish Rosemary. I want to feel like there is more of a looming threat than just a bunch of folks playing house because heaven forbid they go to a church or a bar to find "worship". At least the ending does do one thing right: it simply just ends, because even a thud works for effect. As a whole, it follows along the line of the prior Lewton-connected movies in fine quality with eye-catching titles and interesting imagination with the eerie things that come to lurk in everyday life, whether that involves loneliness or cults or the unknown.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Leopard Man.

Review #2280: The Leopard Man.

Cast: 

Dennis O'Keefe (Jerry Manning), Margo (Gabriella "Clo-Clo"), Jean Brooks (Kiki Walker), Isabel Jewell (Maria, the Fortune Teller), Marguerite Sylva (Marta), Margaret Landry (Terésa Delgado), Abner Biberman (Charlie), James Bell (Dr. Galbraith), and Tuulikki Paananen (Consuela Contreras) Directed by Jacques Tourneur (#998 - I Walked with a Zombie and #1898 - Cat People)

Review: 

Sure, let's go with an RKO horror movie. With such an alluring title, one might be unsurprised to know this was based on the 1942 novel Black Alibi by Cornell Woolrich (in his day, Woolrich was a prolific pulp writer that would see plenty of his stories serve as the basis for films, most notably Rear Window). Ardel Wray and Edward Dein served as writers for the film, which as you might remember, was done around the idea of being given a title by the studio in advance and trying to find a good story to go with it. This was the third film produced by Lewton in his horror cycle, with Tourneur once again directing; Lewton had four productions for RKO all come out in 1943, with this being the second. Tourneur (in his last effort for Lewton before RKO promoted him to higher-fare films) was quoted as stating the film was not among his favorites, stating that it was "too exotic" with uneven effect. Mark Robson, who edited each of these films, made his debut as a feature director with Lewton's production of The Seventh Victim and The Ghost Ship. The movie has enough of a cult following that William Friedkin was a noted fan of the film.

I should note that some of these reviews end up getting written while I attempt to watch a different film, which is sort of a test of one's patience along with being because that sure helps get a review off the ground by trying to remember as much as possible before it goes. Unfortunately, this is not one of those neat winners to really write home about. I actually had to go back and watch the second half again because it really just slipped my mind when the end moment actually showed up. If one thought Cat People was a test of one's patience with getting to the point in terms of having the idea of a body-count in favor of tricks that could be thought of as being "atmosphere", you sure will have a time to behold here for 66 minutes. One might be wondering just what the body-count of terror is here. Well, the answer is "two", and I say that because "leopard man" implies, well, a guy is doing the murders that somehow gets confused for a leopard because of the opening death. Those moments spent in shadow, where one really has to pay attention to the sounds made beyond just a scream only to close it out with a puddle of blood, really does invite one for inquiry into where it could go beyond moments spent with middling folks in New Mexico. One jumps around from character to character mainly because if it spent enough time somewhere, you might notice that it really is a drifter-type of film that tries to coast on shadows and spook you into thinking something may be there in shadow. To add insult to injury, the performances are pretty ordinary for a movie that begs to have the perils of fate be handled by even one tormented performance. Not even figuring out the killer is that particularly interesting with the actual climax (complete with some sort of ceremony after "drawing out" the killer) when it comes to motives or even the result. In the long run, if one picks the film out of the blue when it comes to looking for something quick and curious, it might work just for you, particularly if you have a carefully planned set of expectations for a cheap but decent B-movie. It can't compare to Tourneur's previous horror features, but it might click for you. Or not, but you never know...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Return of the Vampire.

Review #2260: The Return of the Vampire.

Cast: 

Bela Lugosi (Armand Tesla), Nina Foch (Nicki Saunders), Roland Varno (John Ainsley), Frieda Inescort (Lady Jane Ainsley), Miles Mander (Sir Fredrick Fleet), Matt Willis (Andreas Obry), Ottola Nesmith (Elsa Walter), Gilbert Emery (Dr. Walter Saunders), Leslie Denison (Detective Lynch), and William Austin (Detective Gannett) Directed by Lew Landers.

Review: 

Believe it or not, I actually was trying to find time to do this film for quite a few years. Sure, it probably doesn't sound like much, what with the title being probably the most generic one could ever do...but it is Bela Lugosi playing a vampire again. Sure, Mark of the Vampire (as directed by Tod Browning in 1935) had you going with the idea of Lugosi as a lead vampire (until that twist), but, well, here you get the real deal. This is for a movie that is basically a discount version of Dracula (1931), complete with a subservient person that, uh, turns into a wolf. It was released by Columbia Pictures, who could be efficient in cheap B-moviemaking, which is probably evident pretty quickly here, complete with select stock footage shots (the climax involves WWII footage, take a guess what that means). The film was written by Randall Faye and Griffin Jay based on an idea by Kurt Neumann; Faye was a regular writer (and sometimes director) on plenty of cheap features from 1926 until he died in 1948. The movie was directed by Lew Landers, who actually had a handful of experience in horror as a journeyman director, as he went from actor to assistant director by the early 1920s before becoming a director of pretty much anything and anywhere, such as The Raven (1935), which also featured Lugosi as star (Landers would then shift over to TV by the 1950s prior to his death in 1962). It wasn't quite the last time Lugosi played a vampire, but further efforts were, well, comedies such as Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) and Mother Riley Meets the Vampire (1952). The movie was released in the same year as Universal's Son of Dracula and ended up being a decent hit.

You have to remember that Lugosi was basically typecasted after the success of Dracula (1931), particularly because of his Hungarian accent (of course by that time he was a naturalized US citizen). He couldn't get that many starring roles unless it involved horror or being with studios beyond Universal Studios. Chronic sciatica (and taking drugs to treat it that left him addicted) did not help matters for an actor that was relegated to doing stuff for studios such as Monogram Pictures. This was one of those rare times in the 1940s where he could actually do something as a star for a name studio, and I think he handled it confidently enough to make one want to see it as more than just a cheap Dracula imitation. Lacking the elegance befitting of the older film for something more akin to a creature of the night, he carries the film when required to do so to go with a movie that is generally paced well enough to let things go where they need to without overextending itself. Sure, it was made during the war, but there sure is something to making a vampire feature involving "bombing raids" with complete seriousness for a runtime of 69 minutes. Inescort and Mander prove suitable presences to do the investigative aspects required (the "vampire pursuit" is a bit cheekier when you consider the ending is addressing the audience!). Foch plays the object of pursuit patiently enough to make one go with the usual flow. Willis doesn't exactly have the werewolf makeup do him many favors, but the dilemma of a once-devotee is at least semi-compelling enough to view in the lens of trouble and toil to be free. I kind of like the idea of having a vampire tale told in two different war-time settings (the opening quarter of the film involves Emery and Inescort during 1918 putting a stake in the vampire only to inspire questions about putting a stake in a "living" person 25 years later!), complete with the vampire trying to impersonate a concentration camp escapee. It is the kind of brazen horror film that one can appreciate even as a clearly average movie, and the fact that Lugosi was there to lead the way rather than be trapped by a hokey foundation is a worthwhile thing to say when recommending a decent way to start the horror season.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Welcome to October. It probably won't be as busy as last year's extravagant event, but we will try to cover plenty of new ground in horror, whether that involves sequels long awaited or remakes to go along with new directors and familiar ones. For example, the next review is Macabre and the one after that...is Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III.

The Ox-Bow Incident.

Review #2214: The Ox-Bow Incident.

Cast: 

Henry Fonda (Gil Carter), Dana Andrews (Donald Martin), Harry Morgan (Art Croft), Frank Conroy (Major Tetley), Harry Davenport (Mr. Arthur Davies), Anthony Quinn (Juan Martínez / Francisco Morez, The Mexican), Francis Ford (Alva Hardwicke, The Old Man), William Eythe (Gerald Tetley), Mary Beth Hughes (Rose Mapen / Rose Swanson), and Jane Darwell ("Ma" Jenny Grier) Directed by William A. Wellman (#349 - Wings, #494 - The Public Enemy, #866 - Nothing Sacred, #973 - A Star is Born, #1387 - Track of the Cat)

Review: 

Once upon a time, you could come across a whole variety of Westerns in the same year. The Ox-Bow Incident was a special kind of case that seems apt to come from a craftsman director in William A. Wellman, because he had wanted to do an adaptation of Walter Van Tilburg Clark's novel of the same name, which had been published in 1940 (you might recognize Clark from the fact that Wellman would direct a second Clark adaptation years later with Track of the Cat). The novel was a distinct success with readers in ways different from one could read in usual dime store stuff or films that had covered the dangers of a mob in say, Fritz Lang's Fury (1936), for example. At any rate, Wellman's persistence in wanting to make a film based on the book paid off eventually, doing so with 20th Century Fox (on the condition of doing two films in return) that was shot mostly in studio backlots and sound stages. The film was written and produced by Lamar Trotti, who had added the latter category to his line of work beginning with Thunder Birds (1942), which incidentally had been directed by Wellman. The fact that the film went by the Production Code is interesting, because, well, it depicts a lynching in 1885. It should be noted that Fonda himself had seen a riot that soon turned into a lynching when growing up in Nebraska in 1919, and it probably isn't too surprising that he called this one of the few movies he liked doing at 20th Century Fox and in general. Released in the midst of wartime, the movie was not a hit with audiences on release (with Zanuck noting that even a Laurel and Hardy movie outperformed it), but its legacy has certainly grown in the eight decades since its release. 

What we have is a lean and mean drama of the most efficient kind. It is quite thorough in showing the perils of mob rule and what would happen in a society where the "very conscience of humanity" in law is ignored in a sweeping generalization. The uncompromising truth can hurt when it stares you right in the face because of how timeless that realization is: if you get enough people together to be complicit in an action (whether that involves actions of vigilantism or war), you can do plenty of damage and maybe be able to get away with it, at least if one doesn't mind possibly losing a bit of one's soul in the process. The system of values that we want to hold dear only work if we are willing to accept that for every action we think is "right" to do, we have to accept that there are just as many that we have to confront that are "wrong" that can't be ignored. Among the genre of the Western, it belongs to what we could call a "revisionist" Western (of course that label is more for stuff that happened after the end of the Production Code, but still) that looks upon the Old West and sees just as many cultivators of impulse as there are at the moment. There are no real heroes to be found here, but it doesn't mean the performances are lacking anyway, as evidenced by seeing Fonda play observer in the web of paranoia and impulse that is handled with simple grace that Fonda knows how to do so naturally. Seeing a town lose their soul in the shambling display of mostly unified display of "might makes right" is fit for Fonda and Morgan to waltz into. Andrews leads the group (Quinn and Ford) suffering from the eyes of impulsive fools with a worthy display of anguish worthy of a martyr for one that really was just trying to be a man in a frontier that varies in its view of them. Conroy and Eythe handle the dynamic that arises in defining "what a man looks like" and finding that action really does speak louder than words in the worst possible ways that makes for such a harrowing lesson in the nature of shame and not allowing older authority to take all heed over oneself (regardless of if it is say, a former Confederate). The film builds that gut-churning tension of what may and may not happen when it comes to a town looking for what it thinks is justice to hold to worthwhile realization in sheer audacity. Nothing is easy to find in answers or in letters, but the shame of living with what one sees is probably apt for a lesson to stew on, unless one has a reason to get out of town and start anew. As a whole, it is a pretty good Western that is a cut above a good chunk of the Westerns in its era fitting for a craftsman like Wellman in handling a tale that can still be played for eras of the present about mob rule, for better or worse.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Angels of Sin.

Review #2174: Angels of Sin.

Cast: 

Renée Faure (Anne-Marie Lamaury), Jany Holt (Thérèse), Sylvie (La prieure), Mila Parély (Madeleine), Marie-Hélène Dasté (Mère Saint-Jean), Yolande Laffon (Madame Lamaury), Paula Dehelly (Mère Dominique), Silvia Monfort (Agnès), and Gilberte Terbois (Soeur Marie-Josèphe) Directed by Robert Bresson.

Review: 

"There is the feeling that God is everywhere, and the more I live, the more I see that in nature, in the country. When I see a tree, I see that God exists. I try to catch and to convey the idea that we have a soul and that the soul is in contact with God. That's the first thing I want to get in my films."

Sure, we need a few French voices here and there. Famed director Jean-Luc Godard once wrote of Robert Bresson as "the French cinema, as Dostoevsky is the Russian novel and Mozart is German music." He had done painting in his young years. Bresson was most interested in film when it came to "everything that moved in films", whether that was the leaves on trees, for example. As such, he became a director with the short Les affaires publiques in 1934 (when he was 33), which was not particularly successful (to the point where it was thought lost for years). He served in World War II, only to find himself a prisoner of war for several months. In 1942, Pathe commissioned a film that found itself with Bresson as director (Synops later distributed it themselves). Bresson wrote the film with Raymond Léopold Bruckberger (a priest/writer) and Jean Giraudoux (a dramatist recruited because producers wanted someone well known). This was a film done during the German occupation of France in which he went with the idea of making a film about the Dominican Sisters of Bethany (which deals with visiting prisons). Bresson would go on to direct thirteen films as a feature director, from his debut here to films such as A Man Escaped (1956) to Pickpocket (1959) to Au Hasard Balthazar (1966) all the way to his final film in L'Argent (1983); viewers of him have called the film perhaps his most "conventional". Bresson died in 1999 at the age of 98. This was actually one of just two films (the other being his second effort in Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne [1945]) Bresson made with "professional actors". It basically is melodrama mixed with noir to make for a striking film to talk about religious piety without turning into a longwinded diatribe. In short: one really only finds freedom (spiritual or not) at a price. 

It is a graceful film (known in France as Les anges du péché) one that is gripping in its solid minimal trappings. The differences between Faure and Holt don't end up being that different when it comes to that final sea of hands in clarity. This conflict of wills starts with Faure in that initial battle of belonging to a certain type of order that is not as easy to pin down as it seems. This powder keg of trying to live up to the form of virtuousness is not nearly as easy to pin as it looks. The 86-minute runtime is efficient in lending satisfactory judgement to look upon oneself for what spiritual pursuit can see itself unfold as they are meant to go. Holt is the sharp instrument of where things really lie in the clash of spiritual chase and biting hardness. Even nuns have their own collection of faults for others to potentially use against them, and it happens that, well, Faure's character is merely someone trying to find that calling as opposed to just being another well-off young lady. It takes plenty to answer a call of service and contemplation in the eyes of a higher power to be in a convent with other nuns, and the film gazes upon just what lies beneath the labels one can put on either of them (take a gaze upon how much time is spent away from the convent, particularly with Holt). You've got a nun early on talking about how they haven't seen themselves in a mirror in years right after they try cribbing a mirror from someone fresh to the convent, and it goes on from there for a film where people stand to the world ready to hear their flaws addressed. The film is haunting in its stark and sparse nature that shows a director ready to communicate with us involving the soul right from his very first feature film with no hesitation.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

I hope you folks enjoyed the second edition of New Directors Month in January. I wanted to balance the American and world cinema selections as closely as possible. There were a handful of finalists in films & new directors in the 10-review month that missed the cut, some of which were the following: The Spine of Night [Philip Gelatt and Morgan Galen King], New Women [Cai Chusheng], The Green Knight [David Lowery].

There may yet be a place to spotlight these films this year or whenever it seems appropriate. As always, suggestions are welcome. To put it bluntly, I believe Movie Night needs a reset to not suffer from burnout. As such, there won't be any reviews for the first week of February. 

Sanshiro Sugata (1943).

Review #1870: Sanshiro Sugata.

Cast: 

Susumu Fujita (Sanshiro Sugata), Denjirō Ōkōchi (Shōgorō Yano), Yukiko Todoroki (Sayo Murai), Ryūnosuke Tsukigata (Gennosuke Higaki), Takashi Shimura (Hansuke Murai), Ranko Hanai (Osumi Kodana), Sugisaku Aoyama (Tsunetami Iimura), Ichiro Sugai (Police Chief Michitsune Mishima), and Yoshio Kosugi (Master Saburō Kodama) Directed by Akira Kurosawa (#968 - Throne of Blood and #1385 - Seven Samurai)

Review: 

"I just had a gut feeling that "This is it". There was no logical explanation for my reaction, but I believed wholeheartedly in my instinct and did not doubt for an instant." - Akira Kurosawa

Sure, a martial arts drama seems a bit odd to consider within the bounds of action, but I think the quality involved behind and in front of the camera merits a worthy case. It is an adaptation of the novel of the same name that was written by Tsuneo Tomita. He was the son of Tomita Tsunejiro, a famed disciple of judo, a system of unarmed combat that is part of the modern Japanese martial art since its creation by Kanō Jigorō in 1882 as a clear mark away from jujutsu in its form of free sparring without weapon training, and it became especially important when the Tokyo Metropolitan Police hosted tournaments to see which martial art was superior, with the result being that the police academy would adapt judo as their official training style. This form of full contact designed with the intent to either throw an opponent, pin them or force submission without outright striking has proven an influence on other martial arts that includes mixed martial arts (MMA). Tomita (described as "Four Guardians of the Kōdōkan" for him being an early competitor in judo when it began its split from jujutsu), alongside Maeda Mitsuyo, would do numerous exhibitions in the United States in the early 20th century; the younger Tomita based his character of Sanshiro Sugata on his father's colleague Shiro Saigo. Amidst all of that information, it also is the feature film debut for Akira Kurosawa. He had grown up with watching films due to his upbringing, but it was his time spent with his brother Heigo in his teenage years that proved important in seeing films alongside theater and circus performances. In 1935, he was hired by Photo Chemical Laboratories (a company that would merge with the Tokyo-Takarazuka Theater Company, Toho Eiga, and Jenkins Osawa Studio to form what we know as Toho in 1937), where he would serve as an assistant director for a number of years, primarily under director Kajirō Yamamoto. Uma (1941) had him basically serve as a director in terms of control of the production when Yamamoto was busy with shooting a different film (Kurosawa, as a 4-F, was able to build on his career in the midst of World War II). It was he who told Kurosawa to take up screenwriting in order to be a good director, which he would do for all of his feature films along with a handful of other productions. The basis for Kurosawa making this film came from his gut instinct in seeing an advertisement of Tsuneo Tomita's forthcoming novel in the newspaper, but his lobbying for Toho to buy the rights to make it as a movie did not occur until it was published (indeed, when he got down to read the book, he found it commercially appealing and adaptable to his own interests); despite his enthusiasm, Toho actually approached Masahiro Makino to direct before he declined, which opened the door for Kurosawa to step in, and the film was shot in the winter of 1942.

The movie originally ran at 97 minutes on release, but it was trimmed by Japanese censors to 79 minutes (it should be noted that one defending member of the board was Yasujiro Ozu, who called it an important artistic achievement despite some charges of being too "British-American"). Some of the scenes cut did not survive, and the aforementioned cut version begins with text (since it was re-released by Toho in 1952) that also comes into play when describing a cut sequence. The movie has been remade five times, although the first two took inspiration from Kurosawa's screenplay rather than the novel. Two years later, Kurosawa would do a sequel called Sanshiro Sugata Part II, doing so at the behest of requests to do a propaganda film for the war effort that was released in May 1945, mere months before the surrender of the war (The Most Beautiful, his second feature, was also a propaganda work released in April); the film sees Okochi, Fujita, Tsukigata, and Todoroki return, but it is generally considered a lesser sequel. Let us get the obvious part out of the way: it is the journey of the hero that matters more than outright action with the hero, but it sure does pack an important punch with its execution by Kurosawa in the art of nuance. Beyond his use of wipes and shots of the weather to depict the mood of characters is a movie that seems quite prescient in making an action movie built on emotional growth, which Fujita does pretty well as the main focus. Beyond just being a judo hero, he has the brimming confidence required in making the journey believable in all the facets required in sincerity (Fujita became a star during the war for playing the hero in war flicks, much to his subsequent regret, and he shifted to supporting roles by the mid 1940s). Seeing him jump in a lotus pond and cling to a stake in an attempt to show his worth to his master is probably the noted sequence, since it shows him rising the occasion of just what matters most when lying in a pond in the spur of the moment: self-realization. Ōkōchi doesn't say much as the mentor figure, but he does exactly what is needed in the art of stoic balance, one best represented by the sequence of him handling jujutsu toughs in a river with calm patience. Todoroki makes a decent pairing with Fujita in graceful quietness, but it is Tsukigata who sticks out more in the adversarial role, slithering patiently for the inevitable climax, which is handled expertly in a windy hillside (incidentally, Kurosawa likened the character played by Tsukigata to Mephistopheles). There are four general fights shown in the film, which is handled with quiet ease that manages to not muddle the overall arc, showing that Kurosawa was all primed to become a force worth viewing in his first effort as director in a victory of style. He would get better over the course of time as a director, but one cannot go wrong with starting their curiosity here with a movie that packs the ideal punches: A Kurosawa effort and an action triumph. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Outlaw.

Review #1363: The Outlaw.

Cast: 
Jack Buetel (Billy the Kid), Jane Russell (Rio McDonald), Thomas Mitchell (Pat Garrett), Walter Huston (Doc Holliday), Mimi Aguglia (Guadalupe), and Joe Sawyer (Charley) Directed by Howard Hughes (#1332 - Hell's Angels)

Review: 
We live in an age of relentless promotion, don't we? Whether it is self promotion or social influencing, it can be a bit easy to become cynical about how a film can permeate our attention. Earlier decades aren't free of such statements, particularly when it comes to Howard Hughes, noted business magnate, investor, and engineer who also dabbled in films (he of course was known for purchasing RKO Pictures later in the decade). On the one hand, Hughes had plenty of highlights in thirty years of productions, with Hell's Angels (1930), The Front Page (1931), and Scarface (1932). On the other hand, his career also had films like His Kind of Woman (1951, which had two directors), The Conquerer (1956, known for inferior quality and being filmed 137 miles from nuclear testing), and Jet Pilot (1957, which Hughes tinkered with for four years). It was him who had brought Buetel and Russell for their debut performances, but their contracts to Hughes affected their careers, with the former not appearing in another film until 1951 and the latter was off the screen until 1946. Of course the film itself had plenty of trouble on and off filming. Hughes (who took over for Howard Hawks after he had griped about interference) had designed a special underwire bra for Russell to wear to emphasize her bosom. Interestingly enough, Russell didn't actually wear the bra for the film, discarding it secretly. You might notice the copyright of 1941 for the film, since production had finished in February. Hughes had plenty of trouble in releasing the film because of the Hollywood Production Code Administration. Simply put, they objected to Hughes' emphasis of Russell's features, wanting cuts made. The film was initially released for one week in February 1943 before objections were raised that led to shelving until 1946.

Of course with all that in mind, how's the actual film? It doesn't take a cynical eye to note that despite all of its daring attempts to stoke curiosity, it still comes in a film that is a tremendous bore, a deliberate insult to history that can't even stoke interest in the senses besides occasional glances to see how much is left in the tank (116 minutes, no less). While the film attempts to have back up with established stars in Mitchell and Huston (past and future winners of an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor), one does not really seem to feel too particularly interested in what is actually going on, beyond its attempts at humor and stoking excitement of passion. Sure, Russell does seem like she could be a star of some sort with raw presence, but Hughes does not seem quite the one to do so (this of course could have been said for Jean Harlow when she made her appearance in Hughes' other directorial effort). These are flat lines, ones that only barely register in entertainment no matter who says them. Buetel looks especially lost, looking like he wants to be in some other Western than this. Everybody looks like they are acting in completely different films, and Mitchell and Huston seem no different. In a better film, one could forgive some of the flailing attempts of re-telling legends of the Old West. But with this one, it seems almost intentional to irritate the fact-checkers. Did Doc Holliday ever meet Billy the Kid? Did he get killed in an accident with Pat Garrett? Did Billy the Kid escape death? Who cares?! You might as well have made a fictional composite while you are at it, or find another way to use your time, like social isolation or snarky Internet posting. On the whole, The Outlaw is a film more known for its attempts at promotion that were objectionable for the time rather than the true finished product, and it definitely shows in an aged ridiculous spectacle that flails as a Western in the worst ways.

Next Review - Onward, unless something stops it.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Spider Woman.

Review #1021: The Spider Woman.

Cast: 
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. John Watson), Gale Sondergaard (Adrea Spedding), Vernon Downing (Norman Locke), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Alec Craig (Radlik), Arthur Hohl (Adam Gilflower), Mary Gordon (Mrs. Hudson), and Teddy Infuhr (Larry) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, #925 - Sherlock Holmes in Washington, and #936 - Sherlock Holmes Faces Death)

Review: 
This was the seventh film in the Sherlock Holmes series with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Holmes and Watson, respectively, and it happens to be the first one since The Hound of the Baskervilles (#583) to not include Holmes' name on the title, and that would occur for the rest of the film series. This time around, Holmes is investigating a series of suicides that are termed as "pjyama suicides" (as spelled in the film), with the villain being dubbed a "female Moriarty"; this isn't so surprising, seeing how Moriarty was already featured as a villain twice in a three year span. Admittedly, the biggest surprise in the film happens in the first ten minutes: Holmes fakes his death in order to investigate the murders...of course this doesn't really fool the villain all too much by the time they meet (with Holmes in disguise), which makes this seem a bit ridiculous.

Fans of the stories will note the film's incorporation of elements from The Sign of the Four (1890), along with the short stories "The Final Problem", "The Adventure of the Empty House", "The Adventure of the Devil's Foot" and "The Adventure of the Speckled Band", so that is certainly interesting. This is an okay movie, but I find it to be not as good as the previous film in the series, mostly because the film feels likes its going through the motions, although it has a standard level of satisfaction. It has a mildly compelling performance from Sondergaard, although her character isn't exactly too menacing. Rathbone and Bruce are both fairly consistent as one would expect; the sequence with Bruce where he tries to out what he believes in Holmes in a disguise (portrayed by Hohl) is a bit ridiculous, especially because it seems obvious that it wasn't him, and it feels less surprising when compared to when he exchanged words with a person that turned out to be Holmes in disguise. The climax of the film, which takes place in a carnival atmosphere with a shooting gallery is pretty unusual, but I do find it to work with the odd nature of the movie, which is at the very least somewhat entertaining. At 62 minutes, it is worth at least some of your time, depending on whether you are in the mood for another story with Sherlock Holmes.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

I Walked with a Zombie.

Review #998: I Walked with a Zombie.

Cast: 
Frances Dee (Betsy Connell), Tom Conway (Paul Holland), James Ellison (Wesley Rand), Edith Barrett (Mrs. Rand), James Bell (Dr. Maxwell), Christine Gordon (Jessica Holland), Theresa Harris (Alma), Sir Lancelot (Calypso Singer), and Darby Jones (Carrefour) Directed by Jacques Tourneur.

Review: 
This was based off an article of the same name written by Inez Wallace for American Weekly Magazine; this was the third film produced by Val Lewton, known for doing numerous low-budget horror films for RKO Pictures in the 1940s, and he had three rules given to him: The film would have to be made for under $150,000, it would have to run under 75 minutes and his supervisors gave him the film titles to utilize for the film. With a movie title like this, you certainly get what you came for, along with a fairly cohesive film. Just make sure you read the disclaimer on the credits "The characters and events depicted in this photoplay are fictional. Any similarity to actual persons, living, dead, or possessed, is purely coincidental." It differs from other horror films of the time in how it relies on mood and ambiguity than some sort of monster. It was Lewton's idea to fit the structure of the film like the novel Jane Eyre, and it certainly seems to make sense, seeing how compelling the characters seem to be. Dee and Conway manage to have a fairly interesting chemistry together, mostly because they don't really go for anything too melodramatic, instead having a natural feel that goes with the rest of the film. Barrett is also fairly decent as well, particularly due to her role being more useful than it might seem, and she takes good advantage of that. Gordon does a decent job in the title role as well. It has an exceptional atmosphere and a competent kind of plotting that makes for a breezily interesting experience. The story has numerous turns, and it certainly helps in keeping the film feel fresh while not letting itself become predictable - with a capably odd end scene. The parts with the people of the island aren't as riveting, but they aren't too harmful for the film. It's not a film that goes for scares, but it certainly reaches for chills and succeeds without much doubt in that regard. At 69 minutes, I find it to a fairly easy movie to recommend, sticking out quite nicely from other horror films of its time.

Well. Only one batch to go. The last review with only three digits for the number will be next week, while the big milestone review will follow a day later, as per tradition. No spoilers yet, folks.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Sherlock Holmes Faces Death.

Review #936: Sherlock Holmes Faces Death.

Cast:
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. John Watson), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Arthur Margetson (Dr. Bob Sexton), Hillary Brooke (Sally Musgrave), Halliwell Hobbes (Alfred Brunton), Minna Phillips (Mrs. Howells), Milburn Stone (Captain Vickary), Gavin Muir (Phillip Musgrave), and Gerald Hamer (Major Langford) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, and #925 - Sherlock Holmes in Washington)

Review:
I hope that I am not boring you folks with the reviews of these certain films; I do indeed have some interest in these detective films, which clearly have some sort of appeal for me. This is the sixth of the Rathbone series (#583 - The Hound of the Baskervilles, #721 - The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, #798 - Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, and #925), but this one is a mystery revolving around murder in a house (instead of something involving the war, though there are military characters present). After three films of wartime infused spy plots, this certainly comes off as refreshing (honestly, the title is a bit strange - doesn't he always face people dying?). One of my favorite scenes is when Holmes realizes one of the clues in a "ritual" involves a checkerboard floor on one of the rooms, and naturally Holmes decides to use the people in the house in order to act the ritual out. The film runs smoothly enough at 68 minutes, mixing capable characters alongside Rathbone and Bruce (with his character having a bit more competence than before) as expected. One of the more quirky scenes with Rathbone is him talking to a squawking raven. It isn't the best Holmes film with Rathbone (for me, nothing tops the first film), but it certainly is an improvement over the previous three movies, in part because of the way it operates itself. The villain (Margetson), while not strong or particular clever, is somewhat satisfying in that he is not merely one dimensional. Brooke is a somewhat fair supporting actress (the most quirky scene involving her is one where she is reciting a ritual and a bolt of lightning strikes through a window and hits a suit of armor near her). It ends with a dialogue between the two main actors about a "new spirit abroad the land" that isn't about greed (inspired by an act of selflessness by Brooke's character), which is interesting if not somewhat broad. The mystery is entertaining enough, and this is a fairly good way to spend an afternoon with a serviceable type of movie like this.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Sherlock Holmes in Washington.

Review #925: Sherlock Holmes in Washington.

Cast:
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. Watson), Marjorie Lord (Nancy Partridge), Henry Daniell (William Easter), George Zucco (Heinrich Hinkel), John Archer (Lt. Pete Merriam), Gavin Muir (Mr. Lang, government agent), and Edmund MacDonald (Detective Lt. Grogan) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man and #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon)

Review:
This is the fifth film to star Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes (#583 - The Hound of the Baskervilles, #721: The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, #798: Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror, #873: Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon). This was released in April of 1943, barely a few months after the previous film was released (having gone into general release in February after premiering in December). At 71 minutes, this runs a bit longer than the previous two films, with a fine climax involving Rathbone and Zucco, who exchange a good amount of dialogue with each other that is nifty while helping the movie get some sort of momentum. Much like the last film, it goes through the motions of a spy flick made during the war with some sort of coherence and logic. The parts in the beginning (on a train) do have some cleverness to them in watching how it is executed, though the middle edges (with occasional use of stock footage) don't compare as well. Rathbone and Bruce are up to their usual level of class, with the latter having brief moments of amusement, such as drinking milkshakes (after all, they are in America). Lord is decent as the innocent, with some degree of entertaining nature. Here's a brief summary of the film: Secret info gets turned into microfilm that is hidden into a certain type of object that falls in innocent hands. Obviously this isn't something too new (nor something that wasn't done after this film), but it works in some part to see how far the thrills try to go. There is at least some sort of effort by the others to make it seem tolerable. Notably, the movie ends with the main two characters having an exchange about America and a quote by Winston Churchill about justice and peace. It's a feel good kind of movie that will work for anyone looking for some more Sherlock things. Is it good? Not particularly (for me, anyway), but I'm sure that it'll work for others looking for some form of entertainment.

Footnote: At least this film isn't The Boy Next Door.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man.

Review #846: Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man.

Cast
Lon Chaney, Jr. (Larry Talbot/The Wolf Man), Ilona Massey (Baroness Elsa Frankenstein), Patric Knowles (Dr. Frank Mannering), Lionel Atwill (Mayor), Béla Lugosi (Frankenstein's Monster), Maria Ouspenskaya (Maleva), and Dennis Hoey (Inspector Owen) Directed by Roy William Neill.

Review
This was the first in the Universal franchise to utilize two monsters for a crossover film, although one could see this as a sequel to The Wolf Man (#260). Chaney is excellent once again as the Wolf Man, expressing the tragic nature of this character with ease, along with wonderful effects and transformation once again. Lugosi's performance is well known for having been butchered by the studio, to the point where you do not get to hear him speak, not get much context into his walking nature. It's not a movie where the monsters just fight each other (that happens briefly near the end), but it is a fairly engaging yarn to watch. The music number (yes, you read that) is somewhat amusing, in that you wouldn't really expect it to actually occur. Massey does a fine job as well. Knowles is okay, but nothing too special. Atwill returns once again, getting to play a mayor, which is a bit amusing in that this time he doesn't end up dying. The continuity is a bit strange (the Monster is found in ice. What exact time period is this set in? And why does the Wolf Man need to die like this instead of just getting shot by silver and buried deeper?), but there is at least a plausible set up to most of the events of the film. The climax is satisfying in that we get to see these two monsters meet and fight (briefly), which seals the fun aspect of a concept that could have been played out terribly but thankfully isn't.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Stormy Weather (1943).

Review #841: Stormy Weather.

Cast
Lena Horne (Selina Rogers), Bill Robinson (Bill Williamson), Cab Calloway and His Band, Katherine Dunham and Her Troupe, Fats Waller, The Nicholas Brothers (Fayand & Harold Nicholas), Dooley Wilson (Gabe Tucker), and Ada Brown (Singer) Directed by Andrew L. Stone.

Review
Stormy Weather is a showcase of numerous African American performers of the time, while also having some sort of story based on Bill "Bojangles" Robinson's life, with this being his last film before his death in 1949. There are twenty musical numbers (such as "Ain't Misbehaving", "Jumpin' Jive", and "Stormy Weather") throughout the movie, and they certainly are wonderful, with a good deal of rhythm and plenty of entertainment in only 78 minutes. Seeing all of the dancing and the performing is certainly one to behold. Waller, Calloway and The Nicholas Brothers are key highlights, alongside Horne. story isn't much to heap too much praise on, but it is serviceable enough. Obviously if you like movies that showcase music that makes you want to tap your feet (or hands), this one is perfect for you. It's a movie full of charm, with a taste suitable for all ages.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Shadow of a Doubt.

Review #800: Shadow of a Doubt.

Cast
Teresa Wright (Charlotte "Charlie" Newton), Joseph Cotten (Charles "Charlie" Oakley), Macdonald Carey (Detective Jack Graham), Patricia Collinge (Emma Newton), Henry Travers (Joseph Newton), Wallace Ford (Detective Fred Saunders), Hume Cronyn (Herbie Hawkins), and Edna May Wonacott (Ann Newton) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock (#219 - Rope, #223 - North by Northwest, #446 - Spellbound, #447 - Psycho, #450 - Vertigo, #455 - Rear Window, and #553 - Strangers on a Train)

Review
Shadow of a Doubt benefits a great deal from being so tightly wound with suspense and thrills that never let up from beginning to end, the hallmark of a great film noir. Cotten is the first one introduced on screen, and whenever he appears he certainly has an alluring, likable charm, making for such a brilliant villain; when he lets out his other side (such as when he compares rich widows to fat wheezing animals) sneak onto the surface, it certainly makes for making this character very definable and very effective. Wright does a fine job as well, making for a great lead in that she has depth to her, not just being someone who happens to play onto all of these events; she has her struggles and her doubts about someone near to her, and it is all easy to relate and thus makes her character well defined. When she finally discovers the truth, it's a great scene because it finally culminates the clues sprinkled in beforehand (the inscription of the ring, ripping out a page of the paper, etc.), and the movie soon shifts into a game between the two Charlies. Wright and Carey share a good (if not extremely quick) rapport as well. The supporting cast is well done, doing their purpose and roles nicely, because they fit the movie well, being neither too distracting nor unhelpful to the plot. The final scene between the two of them is excellent, being a quick and effective climax that seals the movie neatly. Hitchcock described it as his favorite film, and it's evident that this really is one of his best films.

With that, 800 reviews have been written by yours truly in 1,979 days from December 20, 2010 to the present day. I am proud to have done this for over 5 years, and I am glad to have broadcast these reviews to all of you, wherever you are. I hope you enjoy this review, along with the previous and future installments of this show.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Son of Dracula.

Review #468: Son of Dracula.

Cast
Lon Chaney, Jr. (Count Alucard), Robert Paige (Frank Stanley), Louise Allbritton (Katherine Caldwell), Evelyn Ankers (Claire Caldwell), Frank Craven (Dr. Harry Brewster), J. Edward Bromberg (Professor Lazlo), and Adeline De Walt Reynolds (Madame Queen Zimba) Directed by Robert Siodmak.

Review
Despite the misleading title (Dracula seriously needs to be more creative than just reversing his name, by the way.), Son of Dracula is a mostly satisfying film that keep the Dracula mythos going. In the third film of this "trilogy" of Dracula films (#071 - Dracula, #297 - Dracula's Daughter), this is definitely better than the last film, but the 1931 film is still the most impressive of the three. But all comparisons aside, Lon Chaney, Jr isn't that bad of a Dracula, and while he doesn't have the creepiness of Lugosi, he certainly isn't a bad replacement. The rest of the actors like Robert Paige and Louise Allbritton aren't that bad, mostly engaging in their performances. While the scare factor isn't that high, it at least doesn't stray from its approach, to continue one of their longest running monsters, and in a satisfying way, which the previous film didn't strive to do. This film has one notable moment, the transformation scene to a bat, the first time ever shown in the franchise. The locations are fairly decent, and while the film isn't as good as it could have been, this is a welcome addition nonetheless.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Dead Men Walk.

Review #436: Dead Men Walk.

Cast
George Zucco (Dr. Lloyd Clayton / Dr. Elwyn Clayton), Mary Carlisle (Gale Clayton), Nedrick Young (Dr. David Bentley), Dwight Frye (Zolarr), and Fern Emmett (Kate) Directed by Sam Newfield.

Review
What? Oh sorry, I was busy trying to remember what I was watching earlier. All I remember is watching this 64 minute 1940s film, took a nap after watching it, and then watching some show to block this film out of my memory. The Powerpuff Girls don't do a very good job at that, unfortunately. I'd say something like "But at least this has some entertainment value right?", but this isn't really much in terms of entertainment. It ends quicker then it begins and it feels like a low budget Dracula at best. In fact, Dwight Frye is even in this, previously featured in Frankenstein, Dracula and The Maltese Falcon, and he's okay in this. The budget is low, as noticed when I keep hearing sound issues, such as their being a faint tap, which sounds like what happens on a record player. The film starts with some sort of book about "The History of the Vampires" being burned, which puzzles me because I'm wondering who would make such a book about that? The next book presumably would be The History of Zardar, the Clown Terror from Beyond Outer Space, or The History of the World, Part II. The actors are okay, and the film sometimes does have a creepy vibe, but it's mostly forgettable, yet very easy to find on the Internet.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.