The Invisible Man's Revenge.

Review #2450: The Invisible Man's Revenge.

Cast: 

Jon Hall (Robert Griffin / The Invisible Man), Leon Errol (Herbert Higgins), John Carradine (Dr. Peter Drury), Alan Curtis (Mark Foster), Evelyn Ankers (Julie Herrick), Gale Sondergaard (Lady Irene Herrick), Lester Matthews (Sir Jasper Herrick), Halliwell Hobbes (Cleghorn), Leyland Hodgson (Sir Frederick Travers), and Doris Lloyd (Maud) Produced and Directed by Ford Beebe. 

Review:

You may or may not remember that The Invisible Man wasn't exactly the Universal favorite. It took seven years from the release of The Invisible Man (1933) to merit a follow-up and, well, they never appeared in one of the Universal crossover movies, so you got The Invisible Man Returns (1940). Instead, you got stuff like The Invisible Woman (1940), a comedy feature (starring Virginia Bruce) and Invisible Agent (1942), a spy movie that happened to have Jon Hall play the title character. With this movie, Hall became the only actor to play an Invisible Man in multiple movies. The movie was directed and produced by Ford Beebe, a grab-bag man of directing various genres for cheap, whether as the Western with Overland Bound (1929), the serial such as Flash Gordon's Trip to Mars (1938) or the adventure with Bomba, the Jungle Boy (1949-1955). The movie was written by Bertram Millhauser, who had written for several mysteries such as four Sherlock Holmes movies. Previously, Beebe had directed a horror movie for Universal with Night Monster (1942).  Universal did one other Invisible Man, albeit as a spoof, with Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man (1951). There were movies abroad that cribbed from the H. G. Wells novel such as The Invisible Man Appears (1949) and The Invisible Avenger (1954), which each had effects work by Eiji Tsuburaya and there was also the Japanese feature The Invisible Man vs. The Human Fly (1957). And then of course there was some overrated Universal movie in 2020.

Now we are in the realm of pushing mad scientists to the sidelines for tired plots about revenge. To put it out of the way, this is the weakest of the three Invisible Man movies. You would think a movie that relies on draining blood from people to maybe become visible again would have an effect on you, but nope, the whole thing is just played for mild-mannered scare. The story (77 minutes long) isn't even that involving either, since the lead character is presented as just a weird guy trying to get revenge, so even if his motives were interesting beyond "maybe" being screwed over in safari, he does his stuff in the most complicated of ways, because it isn't enough to target two people, no, he wants to get their daughter married to him as well. He gets rescued by someone and decides, yes, I'm going to give them a bit of a boost and try to help them win a game of darts too. The ending is sheer audacity in ridiculous: the loyal dog of the guy the Invisible Man kills ends up being responsible for his demise, because he just happened to wander all the way through. Hall in general is too bland to really make this path of "revenge" that interesting. Carradine at least looks enthused to not be in a Universal movie with makeup (he played Count Dracula a few times) but he isn't even allowed to really go off for curiosity. Sure, his plan to help a guy gain visibility (dog gets drained of blood) sounds mad but he is quickly disposed of anyway. To say nothing of the bland triangle between Hall, Curtis, and Hendrick is the easiest thing, because really, getting money sounds more compelling than having to get visible just so you can "get" a girl. Everything is stacked in just doing things in the corniest of ways that don't even make for a great showcase of invisible effects this time, save for a scene or two. As a whole, for a studio that pumped out stuff such as House of Frankenstein the same year as this, you get basically the same amount of rushed ham-handedness for a pretty tired movie. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Mummy's Curse.

Review #2266: The Mummy's Curse.

Cast: 

Lon Chaney Jr (Kharis), Dennis Moore (Dr. James Halsey), Kay Harding (Betty Walsh), Virginia Christine (Princess Ananka), Addison Richards (Pat Walsh), Peter Coe (Dr. Ilzor Zandaab), Martin Kosleck (Ragheb), Kurt Katch (Cajun Joe), Ann Codee (Tante Berthe), Holmes Herbert (Dr. Cooper), and Napoleon Simpson (Goobie) Directed by Leslie Goodwins.

Review: 

Oh hell, let us get this over with. This was released six months after the last film and now takes place in the swamps...which seem more southern than what had been seen in the last one, which if one remembers correctly, was a sequel to a movie that was set 30 years after The Mummy's Tomb. That film basically was set in New England, so clearly the swamp from there must've morphed down under. And apparently, it is now 25 years after the supposed sinking of a mummy and his girl into the bayou, which means that really the film is set 55 years after The Mummy's Tomb, which means you could play pretend that this is the 1940s interpretation of the late 1990s (of course, there was no DVD to re-watch Mummy films before release so they probably just assumed people would assume "25 years later" meant like, the film was set in 1969 or something). Anyway, the only returning actor is Chaney, as this time one is spared having to go through exposition from someone like Zucco (I suppose being depicted not dying means he really did die). The director of the film was Leslie Goodwins, who actually had gotten his start with gagwriting and directing for silent films, which included Academy Award-nominated shorts. He directed from 1936 to 1959, with this apparently being his only horror film. The screenplay was done by Bernard Schubert and the story was done by Leon Abrams and Dwight V. Babcock. For once, the Egyptian-related woman is not the love interest of the totally relevant male lead. Eleven years later, Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy (1955) came out involving a mummy named "Klaris" played by Eddie Parker, who actually had done stunts for one of the previous Mummy films.

You already know the other three Mummy films of the 1940s kinda stunk, so you probably know this one is not much better. It actually has more mush than the last couple of features, where you basically can check out for 30 minutes and miss almost nothing. Things just happen and that is about it. Time and space might as well exist as just a concept. Part of the thing about writing two paragraphs for a review is that one tries to find the proper balance for buttering up the details how a film came to be or setting the table for the real review. You might notice that this second paragraph might suck, and that is because there just isn't that much to say about this film! It is bland in a way that will make one appreciate the lesser Frankenstein fare Universal had come up with (as evidenced here and here) because even those films felt like someone had commitment. At least Chaney had his round of drinking when in that chicken suit (at least the mask was preserved, because otherwise nothing else exists from Jack Pierce's line of work). The only memorable lines probably come from Simpson when it comes to "the devil's alive and he's dancing with the mummy" (he also says it in reverse). Where was I? Oh, right, the film ends with a cell-like room having its walls being brought down by the mummy that sees them perish while the once-princess is back to mummy form. Underwhelming is the easiest word to call this film, pure and simple. It is made on the cheap with the only value being that an hour could have been spent doing worse such as say, stubbing your foot or having to hear five stories from customers in a row. Flush the film and go to anything you can think about for horror.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Mummy's Ghost.

Review #2265: The Mummy's Ghost.

Cast: 

Lon Chaney Jr (Kharis), John Carradine (Yousef Bey), Robert Lowery (Tom Hervey), Ramsay Ames (Amina Mansori), Barton MacLane (Police Inspector Walgreen), George Zucco (High Priest Andoheb), Frank Reicher (Professor Matthew Norman), Harry Shannon (Sheriff Elwood), Emmett Vogan (Coroner), and Lester Sharp (Dr. Ayad) Directed by Reginald Le Borg (#1179 - The Black Sleep)

Review: 

Okay, so here we are with another Mummy film (in the timeline of 30 years after The Mummy's Hand as established by The Mummy's Tomb). It's hard to believe that this is the third of the four Kharis films released from 1940 to 1944, and yet here we are. It is funny that Zucco returns for this film, having apparently survived being shot and going down the stairs from the last two films just so he can go assign the task of getting the mummy to the character played by John Carradine (creatively called Yousef Bey, after the last film had used named the follower character Mehemet Bey and the 1932 film had used "Ardath Bey"), who was busy enough to be on four Universal horror films (the others being The Invisible Man's Revenge, House of Frankenstein, House of Dracula). The film was written by Griffin Jay, Henry Sucher, Brenda Weisberg, as based on a story by Jay and Sucher. The movie was shot quickly in August/September of 1943 but wasn't released until June of 1944. This is also yet another movie where a priest tries to get involved with a woman while trying to deal with Kharis. Oh, and reincarnations involving people thought to be the long-dead woman lover, which you might recognize as being from the 1932 Mummy film. The movie was done by Reginald Le Borg, an Austrian who had moved to the States in 1934 that rose from staging in film to bit part actor to directing by the late 1930s. He had made films for the Office of War Information during World War II but got to be part of Universal in 1943 for a handful of their films, most notably the first three "Inner Sanctum Mystery" films; he didn't care for his horror films, but he was a craftsman of several films in the B-level for many years.

You are not getting anything different that you saw in Tomb or Hand, but are you really that surprised? Sure, those movies weren't actually that good, but you could at least say they tried. Here, there just isn't anything to really grouse about, and this is a movie with Carradine in it. He just doesn't get that much to really do when compared to the stuff you saw before when it comes to goofy priests. Lowery might as well be an actual broomstick. Ames has one defining characteristic: a streak of white in her hair, which clearly means danger and sleepwalking. Since one knows that Chaney had a painful time with the makeup (couldn't even scratch an itch), it does amuse to see him try to go around with one good arm (such as with a fence). The people in the film sure have a fun time trying to avoid him, and it is pretty funny to see in a giant case of steps for the climax. Probably the most amusing thing about the movie is the use of a dog to help guide the people around to find the mummy, because then one can make a lazy Lassie joke. Nah, actually, my favorite joke is that a few times the movie has someone ask "Amon-Ra" to aid his quest and I could simply say "but Amon-Ra (St. Brown) plays in Detroit." The only thing that saves the movie is the ending, because for once, you don't get to have a happy ending wrapped up in the last five minutes. I do wonder just what the headline writers or folks did when it came to the time after the swamp episode ("Men Swamped By Swamp", anyone?). In conclusion, nothing has been improved from before in a series of serviceable but wholly "not particularly good" 1940s Mummy films. Making one have to debate between Hand and Tomb for the "best follow-up to The Mummy until being blown out by the 1999 rendition" is a sad task indeed.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Murder, My Sweet.

Review #2233: Murder, My Sweet.

Cast: 

Dick Powell (Philip Marlowe), Claire Trevor (Helen Grayle/Velma Valento), Anne Shirley (Ann Grayle), Otto Kruger (Jules Amthor), Mike Mazurki (Moose Malloy), Miles Mander (Mr. Grayle) Douglas Walton (Lindsay Marriott), Don Douglas (Police Lt. Randall), Ralf Harolde (Dr. Sonderborg), and Esther Howard (Mrs. Jessie Florian) Directed by Edward Dmytryk (#715 - Crossfire)

Review: 

The 1940s were a tremendous time for mysteries and film noirs, with a handful involving Raymond Chandler in some form. Chandler had done a handful of writing in his early life, but he had worked in civil service and a variety of other things, which ended with being fired as vice president of the Dabney Oil Syndicate in the midst of the Great Depression. It was then that Chandler decided to write pulp fiction for a living (as inspired by reading stuff such as the pulp magazine Black Mask), which included his first novel (involving the character of Philip Marlowe) with The Big Sleep in 1939; Chandler finished seven novels with Marlowe prior to his death in 1959 at age 70. The first film based on Chandler's books was Time to Kill (1942), which was based on Chandler's third novel The High Window (1942) but with the lead character's name being "Michael Shayne" (which actually was a detective character created by Brett Halliday featured in a handful of films). There was then The Falcon Takes Over (1942), which borrowed elements from Chandlers' second novel in Farewell, My Lovely (1940) that was actually the third film in a series with a gentleman detective named "The Falcon". Now here we are in 1944 with the first Chandler adaptation with the Marlowe character while the author was busy with scripts himself (he co-wrote Double Indemnity along with And Now Tomorrow). RKO, who had been behind the aforementioned Falcon film, was behind this film, which was scripted by John Paxton. At the hand to direct is Dmytryk, who had risen from editor to directing by 1935, which was mostly in the B-category. RKO changed the title before release on the grounds that people thought it was a musical. The next adaptation of the Farewell novel would be in 1975, featuring Robert Mitchum as Marlowe. 

Powell was actually more known for his singing and romantic image. Incidentally, he had applied for the lead role in Double Indemnity, but he lost out to Fred MacMurray. The resulting success of this film altered his image, and he would feature again in a Dmytryk film with Cornered (1945). Considered by some to be among the first of the film noirs, it is pretty evident one has a wonderfully boiled movie on their hands that maneuvers through 95 minutes with worthwhile pacing and dialogue (as sometimes told in voiceover) in cutting efficiency. There is a casual edge to Powell that carries the film in ways that could only be done in an era of blistering need for entertainment. He drifts in and out with curiosity that really could fit the description made once in the film as not so much a detective but a slot machine. His nightmare in this atmosphere is one that we can get behind within all of the dirty work that arises in mystery that is especially familiar to those who love their cut-rate stories. Shirley (in her final role prior to retiring) and Trevor are the dueling objects of curiosity that each do pretty well in the usual expectations, particularly for the femme fatale in the latter. Mazurki makes a worthwhile heavy (with a little bit of help in angling, since the former wrestler was only slightly taller than Powell). The climax in finishing the setup of its intro (a man with a blindfold) is a pretty good one in closing such a lingering story of crosses with worthwhile reward (Chandler was once quoted as saying an ideal mystery was "one you would read if the end was missing", incidentally). As a whole, when it comes to seedy noirs relayed to audiences with worthwhile conviction and foundation, you can't go wrong with films such as this one to check out. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Curse of the Cat People.

Review #2094: The Curse of the Cat People.

Cast: 

Simone Simon (the ghost of Irena Dubrovna Reed), Kent Smith (Oliver Reed), Jane Randolph (Alice Reed), Ann Carter (Amy Reed), Eve March (Miss Callahan), Julia Dean (Julia Farren), Elizabeth Russell (Barbara Farren), Erford Gage (Police Captain), and Sir Lancelot (Edward) Directed by Robert Wise (#515 - Star Trek: The Motion Picture, #725 - The Day the Earth Stood Still, #921 - The Haunting, #1407 - West Side Story) and Gunther von Fritsch.

Review: 

I'm sure you remember Cat People (1942). That was the film directed by Jacques Tourneur with a script provided by DeWitt Bodeen, with Val Lewton having brought them both in to serve in their roles on the film as producer for RKO. The title may have been a bit more grabbing than the actual surroundings of the plot when it comes to "cat people", but it was worth a watch for those who favor patience in their horror films. Now here we are with a film that is strangely termed as "psychological supernatural thriller film" but let us just erase the doubt and say hey, it's a light horror film. Lewton imported certain aspects of his childhood into suggestion for the story of the film, as evidenced by his upbringing that saw him raised in Port Chester, New York after his family had moved from Russia. Gunther von Fritsch, an Austrian-born director (who had served in the US Army Signal Corps and did training films), was tasked to direct this one, his first (and perhaps only notable) feature film. However, he did not go to a satisfactory pace (i.e. only getting halfway through the script in filming) for what was meant to be a shoot of under three weeks. As such, Robert Wise, previously known as a sound and music editor at the studio after starting work there in the 1930s (which included Citizen Kane (1941), most famously), was brought in to direct the rest of the venture, which also serves as his feature film debut. Wise would direct for RKO until 1949, with two of his productions being under Lewton with Mademoiselle Fifi (1944) and The Body Snatcher (1945). Lewton wanted to call the film "Amy and Her Friend", but RKO (after screening the film) insisted on the cat title to cash in for suck-I mean, customers (a sequence of teenagers chasing a black cat up a tree was edited into the film on their request). 

Even more so than the previous film is one that is a film that is not great in any one field, but this is one that lacks any real particular great moment to really hold their hat for. It is a bait-and-switch in most senses of the world, because it doesn't have much to do with cats or curses, seemingly more interested in the world of seeing the horrors of a kid that may or may not be on the verge of going under the sanity train because of her lack of connection to others around her. Smith, Randolph, and Simon return from the previous film but don't exactly have as much to connect with, as the film really is Carter's to focus on, which goes fine. She handles the material presented to her with curiosity and dignity that you can see from someone meant to endear as a fellow explorer of strangers. Dean and Russell in theory would make for an interesting pair in family drama (a senile woman who may or may not be right about her daughter being who she says), but you only get glimpses. It barely even feels worth it to have Simon there, because she has very little to really do besides saying they are from "great darkness and deep peace". Bottom line, family drama, child with ghost, pick one to spend time further on. You might say the film has its own degree of ambiguity like the earlier film, but you are not seriously going to tell me that I actually am supposed to care to guess if the "ghost" is really present to our lead or not. The original tried the whole "maybe it's in her head, maybe it isn't", but I played along with it being real because the idea of watching a build of things you "see" or "hear" only to have a fake out sounds like the lamest idea imaginable when you are here for the idea of horror. With this film, I'm not playing the game of guessing and I'm not playing the game of trying to see if the film will do something more involving that the middle-ground stuff. It is merely fine, nothing more, one that will either seem moody or average, or...well, pallid. This is the kind of film where you have folks telling a brief rendition of "The Headless Horseman" to go with a climax that involves a kid being confronted with a grumpy woman...and a ghost appears right onto the woman, so the kid gives 'em a hug. I think the ending of the previous film, involving the revelation of one never lying to them, just works better in closing the whole thing rather than the mild warmth here. It is a film all about the fantasies that come with children with wandering imagination more present than what you fear, where a child that you are raising needs positive interaction and lessons from those around them rather than playing into fantasy. 70 minutes is mildly acceptable for those who have the curiosity for a mildly enjoyable film that may or may not stoke even further look into the world of Val Lewton and company.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Body Snatchers, hell yeah.

A Canterbury Tale.

Review #2062: A Canterbury Tale.

Cast: 

Eric Portman (Thomas Colpeper), John Sweet (Acting Sgt. Bob Johnson), Dennis Price (Sgt Peter Gibbs), Sheila Sim (Alison Smith), Charles Hawtrey (Thomas Duckett), Esmond Knight (Narrator/Seven-Sisters Soldier/Village Idiot), George Merritt (Ned Horton), Edward Rigby (Jim Horton), Hay Petrie (Woodcock), Freda Jackson (Mrs Prudence Honeywood), Eliot Makeham (Church Organist), and Betty Jardine (Fee Baker) Directed, Written, and Produced by Michael Powell (#400 - The Thief of Bagdad and #1367 - A Matter of Life and Death) and Emeric Pressburger (#1367)

Review: 

A Canterbury Tale was the seventh feature film made under the company of The Archers, who I'm sure you remember is the combination of two worthy talents in Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger that had started collaborating with each other that took place mostly in the 1940s, with both of them first being credited as director with One of Our Aircraft Is Missing (1942), after Pressburger had first written for a number of previous Powell productions. They had followed that up with The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943), which is often called one of the best British films made. Among the first couple of films by the two, this one was known as being just modestly successful with audiences (the next three years after 1944 were as follows: I Know Where I'm Going!, A Matter of Life and Death, Black Narcissus). Title or not, the film did accomplish one thing more than anything else in reminding me of the varied experience I had in having to talk about the Canterbury Tales in college. If you remember, those were a collection of tales written by Geoffrey Chaucer in the late 14th century that were presented as being told by a group of pilgrims travelling from London to Canterbury on their way to a shrine. The prologue of the tales even is read for the opening of the film right before one cuts from a falcon right to a spitfire. The American release apparently had 20 minutes (of a two-hour feature) cut while including narration by Raymond Massey alongside sequences with Kim Hunter. Of course, some of the tales I remember were at least amusing such as the Miller's Tale (which involves the backside), but I'm sure you know that when it comes to films of the countryside, sometimes the past really does haunt the present.

It is a three-pronged story within people of the countryside that involves folks trying to figure out just who is spraying glue on the hair of women that isn't really a mystery or really any sort of genre film. One does, however, think more of the English landscape rather than any sort of mystery about glue or where the story really will go, which is likely a testament to Erwin Hillier and his cinematography (supposedly the only thing that bugged Powell about his cinematographer was an obsession for clouds to break up a clear sky in order to start shooting). The black-and-white photography (done because of war shortages) is quite engaging to look at when it comes to this pilgrimage of ordinary folks that involve two sergeants and a member of the Women's Land Army. In their trip of circumstance and curiosity is figuring out what really matters most when looking upon the countryside in a time of need: clarity. Portman is the uniting force between the three pilgrims in mysterious graciousness that (culprit or not) reminds one of what really matters when it comes to knowledge of history and people in the countryside. Each of the key three travelers in Sweet, Sim, and Price represent the weariness that comes with travelers that perhaps need reminding of life in the countryside rather than just passing through life. Sweet was actually not an actor but instead a sergeant in the U.S. Army during the ongoing war, for which he was selected over the original idea of Burgess Meredith (who instead served as script editor). While he did try his hand at acting with the theater after the war, Sweet eventually went back to his real passion in teaching (while donating his $2,000 salary for the film to the NAACP). As such, what comes out is what you would expect for a one-time actor in terms of stiff curiosity that is about on par for what the film is asking for anyway. This proves about right for Sim and Price (each making their film debuts) when it comes to building these people up for their eventual fate in warmth, mostly for the latter, since the sequence at the Canterbury Cathedral involving the organ is probably the highlight to listen and view to. From the battle of kids playing pretend, I'm sure you can tell that this is a local passion project. Powell was from Kent, England (specifically the village of Bekesbourne), and it is evident that he made a passion project that loves the region, even if he couldn't quite shoot in the famous Canterbury Cathedral (due to bombings and preparations made in reaction to it that saw the stained-glass windows be removed), which therefore required a mix of set-work and miniature replicas. As a whole, its attempt at morale boosting may have rung a bit hollow when it first came out, but the film has endured nonetheless because of its spirit for the countryside that makes for an intimate accomplishment.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Suspect (1944).

Review #1826: The Suspect. 

Cast: 

Charles Laughton (Philip Marshall), Ella Raines (Mary Gray), Dean Harens (John Marshall), Stanley Ridges (Inspector Huxley), Henry Daniell (Gilbert Simmons), Rosalind Ivan (Cora Marshall), Molly Lamont (Mrs. Edith Simmons), and Raymond Severn (Merridew) Directed by Robert Siodmak (#468 - Son of Dracula and #797 - People on Sunday)

Review: 

Sure, perhaps there is something captivating about how obscure a movie is, because there certainly are a handful of thriller adaptations to come across when studying the 1940s, but surely there is a good reason why this one fell through the cracks. Maybe it was the title, because there are at least six other movies out there with that title. The film is an adaptation of the book This Way Out, which was written by James Ronald. As such, the screenplay was done by Bertram Millhauser and Arthur T. Horman. The film was directed by Robert Siodmak, probably best noted for his future effort in The Killers (1946) in a 39-year career, and he was given the task of handling an actor that apparently suffered from bouts of uncertainty. Of course, Laughton was an Academy Award winning actor that could play classical or modern parts, so who wouldn't take the risk if you are Universal Pictures? Besides, he had the name value that compared well when faced with a mix of American and British character actors with either some experience behind them (like Ridges or Daniell) or less (Raines).

It turns out one has a very mediocre thriller on their hands, one that is about as hypnotic as an old frog. The aspects that are interesting prove to be flourishes rather than anything particularly interesting, whether that involves a somewhat interesting chemistry between Laughton and Raines or the idea of some sort of actual suspense in the crime angle. The 85 minutes are brisk, but it probably isn't surprising that the film did not exactly become a known name since its premiere in 1944. The streets of 1902 seem nearly comatose when it comes to characters with complexity or challenge, if only because the main character's weakness is being too decent. So yes, it is probably the politest portrait of a murderer one could watch, which means that it is more of a Laughton showcase. To be fair, he does deliver an interesting performance here, since this is a middle-aged role that requires a bit of earthy presence (i.e., not just a smart-mouthed youth), one that needs patience and dignity, and you get the idea. There isn't a hammy performance with him on this one, since he calmly walks through the film with no trouble in displaying the quandaries presented here, maneuvering through the slowly building gears of turmoil while trying to stay as himself, which only seem to make him burrow down rather than up even after one is done seeing the chemistry-building scenes with Raines, since that is generally the most curious part of the movie in seeing the mismatch (well, whatever you want to call it). Besides, Ivan and Daniell are only mildly interesting as the heels to Laughton, ones who aren't exactly the kind of folks you frown to see go away - one knows crime doesn't pay (to the standards of the film board of the time) anyway. Ridges is stuck in the middle with no real distinguishing qualities that seems a problem when one is trying to see an investigation and trap take place. You would think the poison sequence would generate something other than mild bemusement, but not quite. There is an attempt of distinguished air here that doesn't seem fitting for a movie that begs for something more, as if you know what you are getting into before you really see it. One sort of struggles to say things about the movie beyond just Laughton, because if had included a lesser actor, one could have lapsed into a snooze. But, since here we are with this, I guess you won't be irritated too much. Honestly, this is a toss-up kind of movie, where one will either find it to be splendid enough despite its failings or just too unremarkable to be worth one's time. For me, I just can't see myself recommending it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Double Indemnity.

Review #1825: Double Indemnity.

Cast: 
Fred MacMurray (Walter Neff), Barbara Stanwyck (Phyllis Dietrichson), Edward G. Robinson (Barton Keyes), Porter Hall (Mr. Jackson), Jean Heather (Lola Dietrichson), Tom Powers (Mr. Dietrichson), Byron Barr (Nino Zachetti), and Richard Gaines (Mr. Norton) Directed by Billy Wilder (#106 - Some Like It Hot, #194 - Ace in the Hole, #422 - The Fortune Cookie, #641 - The Apartment, #809 - Sunset Boulevard), #1384 - Stalag 17, and #1390 - The Seven Year Itch)

Review: 
"I never heard that expression film noir when I made Double Indemnity  ... I just made pictures I would have liked to see. When I was lucky, it coincided with the taste of the audience. With Double Indemnity, I was lucky."

If you can believe it, this was only the fourth directorial effort from Billy Wilder (along with his third since moving to America), who had more experience with scriptwriting (such as Ninotchka (1939), for example). It would also be his first notable effort, one that received considerable attention from audiences and critics (nominated for seven Academy Awards, including Best Picture) that he later called one of his best films. It was an adaptation of the crime novel of the same name by James M. Cain, which was first published in serial form for Liberty magazine in 1936 before being published in 1943 alongside two other stories (Career in C Major and The Embezzler were those stories); he based his novella on a 1927 murder by Ruth Synder, who had her boyfriend kill her husband after having him sign an insurance policy (with a certain clause), with the novel having an insurance agent as the inside man, inspired by conversations had with insurance men. Cain was a journalist before he was a writer, which he started with his first novel in The Postman Always Rings Twice in 1934 (which has had numerous film adaptations). His other most notable work was with Mildred Pierce (1941), which was adapted into a film as well. The plot changed slightly from translation onto the film screen, most notably with the final fate of its main characters, since it wasn't exactly something the Production Code would approve of (of course in the novella, the leads almost escape on an ocean liner together). In fact, the story was mired in development hell for years because of it being deemed "thoroughly unacceptable for screen presentation"; one of the biggest objections made by the Hays Office was to the omission of a gas-chamber execution scene (Wilder did film the scene, but he felt that the closing scene between the two male leads served as a more fitting one). The writers tasked to adapt the film was none other than Wilder and Raymond Chandler, a noted crime fiction writer who dabbled as a screenwriter; Wilder guided the structure and some of the dialogue while Chandler (in Wilder's words) comprehended the dialogue and start his own construction (i.e., not simply just incorporate Cain's words into dialogue). Cain was quite proud of the final result, one that he loved for the changes made because he wished he had thought of those himself.

It may be a cliche to say this by now, but this is one of the prime film noirs of its time (amusingly, not even a moral panic complaint by Kate Smith could stop audiences). It has all the aspects of a great film that would become a habit for its director in later years, one with tight execution and a solid acting trio. It is the kind of movie where 107 minutes runs so smoothly, doing so with great arrangement from Wilder and cinematography by John F. Seitz that capture the shadows one requires from a movie filled with such compelling people and dark corners. One can see the pulpy dialogue from Chandler and Wilder come across with such vivid effectiveness, one that glides across the screen with how it moves the process along in terms of pulp brilliance. MacMurray was generally known for his work in "nice guy" roles (at one point, the filmmakers actually considered George Raft, and yet it is this role that proved one of his most memorable in a lengthy career, one that sees him work so well in cultivating malleable curiosity, driving the story along with dutiful energy (not exactly just a "weak-willed guy", for example); one will find something interesting about the final scene before the climax in the little scene that happens afterwards, where MacMurray tells another character about going to the person they love. Stanwyck (as with her co-star) had a bit of reluctance in doing the role, but she makes it count for such alluring double-sidedness, one who glides across topics like murder without batting an eye, smoldering the screen in a way that makes the interactions between the two of them all the more interesting, right down to their fateful last scene; truly, she exemplifies the femme fatale role to a T. Robinson proves the contrast in a character role that has plenty of time to share with MacMurray in a mentor role that is graceful along with making a bond just as interesting as the MacMurray-Stanwyck sequences. The others (such as Powers as the limp mark) do fine in sharing the stage with the key three. As a whole, the movie is balanced in its aspects that work for any viewer (with or without experience in the noir sense), maneuvering through its quick setup (a man confessing his story on phone) with no cheap tricks that result in a kinetic success. There are a handful of interesting noirs but only so many that are really considered great, and this one belongs firmly in the latter category with no question, serving as one of Wilder's finest achievements in effective casting, music, and all-around atmosphere. 

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Henry V (1944).

Review #1788: Henry V.

Cast: 

Laurence Olivier (King Henry V of England), Renée Asherson (Princess Katherine), Robert Newton (Ancient Pistol), Leslie Banks (the Chorus), Felix Aylmer (the Archbishop of Canterbury), Robert Helpmann (the Bishop of Ely), Vernon Greeves (The English Herald), Gerald Case (the Earl of Westmoreland), Griffith Jones (the Earl of Salisbury), Morland Graham (Sir Thomas Erpingham), Nicholas Hannen (the Duke of Exeter), Michael Warre (the Duke of Gloucester), Ralph Truman (Mountjoy, The French Herald), Ernest Thesiger (Duke of Berri, French Ambassador), Frederick Cooper (Corporal Nym), Roy Emerton (Lieutenant Bardolph), Freda Jackson (Mistress Quickly), George Cole (the Boy), George Robey (Sir John Falstaff), Harcourt Williams (King Charles VI of France), Russell Thorndike (the Duke of Bourbon), Leo Genn (The Constable of France), Francis Lister (the Duke of Orleans), Max Adrian (The Dauphin), Jonathan Field (The French Messenger), Esmond Knight (Fluellen, Welsh Captain in the English Army), Michael Shepley (Gower, Captain in the English Army), John Laurie (Jamy, Scottish Captain in the English Army), and Niall MacGinnis (MacMorris, Irish Captain in the English Army) Directed by Laurence Olivier.

Review: 

Admittedly, covering a war-time effort is an interesting story in talking about a film. Of course, we are talking about the directorial debut of one Laurence Olivier, who did five overall theatrical productions to go along with his more famous vocation as an actor. As one might expect, he started in the stage, specifically debuting as an actor for the All Saints Choir School at the age of nine. He dabbled in acting on numerous occasions as a growing child, and it was the encouragement of his father that led him to do the profession. He studied at the Central School of Dramatic Art before starting his professional line of work in theater in 1926 (doing so before he was even twenty). He added films to his line of work in 1930, but it wasn't until Wuthering Heights (1939) that he truly received international notice. He showed dedication to any craft he desired to do, whether as an actor or in the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm when World War II approached. He took on theater operating afterwards, which included directing/starring in Shakespearian roles. We are also talking about the first adaptation of a William Shakespeare work that received wide-spread acclaim. Olivier was asked by BBC TV director Dalas Bower (a member of the Ministry of Information) if he could do a rendition of Henry V (written by William Shakespeare roughly around 1599) for film as part of boosting the morale of the public. Olivier had starred in As You Like It (1936), but he felt that it was a considerable challenge to make a film of a Shakespeare work (specifically with the Hollywood angle with directing actors for certain scenes with Shakespeare dialogue - that film along with A Midsummer Night's Dream (1935) and Romeo and Juliet (1936) were each considered flops). At any rate, Olivier stated that it was William Wyler who inspired him to direct the film himself, which would utilize England's lone Technicolor camera at the time (along with filming in Ireland for the battle and England studios...for the rest). Olivier received two of the four Academy Awards (the film was released in America in 1946), and he was rewarded with an Honorary Academy Award for his efforts in bringing the film to the screen. His next effort in Hamlet (1948) would be the first non-American film to win Best Picture and earn Olivier an Academy Award victory for acting (and producing). The next big effort to do the play into a film would not be done until 1989 by Kenneth Branagh, which received notice in its own right (as it contrasts this film with its own presentation of the material that was described as more realistic).

Certain aspects of the play were omitted, mostly in its presentation of the title character (who in one sequence in the play hanged a friend for crimes committed against the French); Olivier, alongside Dallas Bower and Alan Dent, did un-credited work in the writing in bringing Shakespeare's words to the screen. With its lavish sense of color and framing, it likely isn't a surprise that the film (eventually) was a noted international hit with audiences (one that would see the presentation of French royalty in this film as akin to certain current threats of the time), one that was set in both 1415-1420 and 1600, as it is presented as "THE Chronicle History of KING HENRY THE FIFTH with his battle fought at Agincourt in France BY Will Shakespeare" by a Chorus that tells its audience to let imaginary forces work to picture the production. It is all the things one might expect from 137 minutes of classic British cinema, warts and all. It is efficient in the ways intended with stirring passion for its subject matter that makes for a mostly grabbing effort from folks clearly interested in having Shakespeare resonate on the screen. Regardless of where it ranks in British cinema, it has a key place in entertainment value for its country. It is spectacle (with sweeping William Walton music) that grows on you, pure and simple. Olivier obviously was ready to direct a major motion picture along with act as its star, and he does so with confidence that builds through the film with brimming interest. He acts to the screen with the right timing that works for theatrical sensibility (i.e. it doesn't seem molded for only a stage), one with relentless drive that makes the whole experience (such as the St. Crispin Day speech) worth it. The rest of the cast have their own varying levels of presence, most notably with Leslie Banks as the Chorus or with the comic relief. As a whole, it is medieval pageantry that does what it is intended to in stoking the war effort that is both spectacle and curiosity without becoming dated or a Shakespearian misstep, acting dignified without becoming obstinate. It serves as a worthy debut for its actor/director/producer in all the ways, for what it is worth.

Next Time: Rome, Open City.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Bluebeard (1944).

Review #1364: Bluebeard.

Cast: 

John Carradine (Gaston Morrell), Jean Parker (Lucille Lutien), Nils Asther (Inspector Jacques Lefevre), Ludwig Stössel (Jean Lamarte), George Pembroke (Inspector Renard), Teala Loring (Francine Lutien), Sonia Sorel (Renee Claremont), Henry Kolker (Deschamps Lutien), Emmett Lynn (Le Soldat), and Iris Adrian (Mimi Roberts) Directed by Edgar G. Ulmer (#797 - People on Sunday, #803 - Detour, and #943 - The Man from Planet X)

Review: 
Surprise, surprise, Onward will be delayed, since I could not view it in time before movie theaters began their temporary closure in light of the coronavirus. In any case, time to move on to continuing the tribute for the month.

Who better to deliver low budget noirs than Edgar G. Ulmer and Producers Releasing Corporation? The two almost seem made for each other. The film was inspired by famous French folktale Barbe bleue (written by Charles Perrault), first published in 1697 that told of a wealthy man who had a habit of murdering his wives. The story has been adapted to numerous media over the years, from a 1901 film by George Melies (among at least six other adaptations) to opera to ballet. Ulmer had first come to Hollywood in 1926, having worked as a stage actor and set designer in Austria (living in Vienna after being born in Olomouc, Austria-Hungary, now considered part of the Czech Republic). He would go on to a distinguished career with films in four different decades. His first directorial efforts were People on Sunday (1930), a production written by Billy Wilder that Ulmer co-directed with Robert Siodmak before moving on Damaged Lives (1933), an American/Canadian exploitation film about diseases. His one main studio film in The Black Cat (1934) was a huge box office hit. However, he was relegated to doing films for Poverty Row studios because he had an affair with Shirley Kassler, who was married to a relative of a studio head before divorcing him for Ulmer. She would later serve as script supervisor on most of the films that followed from Ulmer, spent primarily with ethnic dramas and low budget studios like PRC, which had been founded in 1939 to do low-budget fare that could be used for double bills while never spending more than $100,000 for productions, which worked for 179 films in seven years total before being acquired by Eagle-Lion Films (which later disbanded in 1950).

With a shooting schedule of six days, it is a triumph of Ulmer that this film noir (written by Arnold Lipp, Werner H. Furst and Pierre Gendron) turned out so well for what it does, a decent little gem. One must be impressed by how he made a spellbinding experience with a standout performance from Carradine, a prolific presence given a chance to deliver chills. He has quite an alluring power to him, trapped with obsession that makes it worthwhile to spend time with. Parker keeps up with him just fine, an innocent yet manageable counterpart. Asther does fine with making some authority seem to mean something without being completely washed away by Carradine and Stossel makes for a sniveling secondary aspect of the film count. One has an inkling of where the film is going to go (crime doesn't pay, or at least that's the lesson one is meant to get from films of the era), but it doesn't mean the methods are going to be cut and dry, where Ulmer makes something out of what would've likely been just another B-movie. It is an interesting experience at 72 minutes, a movie that is stagy but watchable when it needs to be that overcomes cash-strapped foundations with a can-do cast headlined by Carradine in generating interest in something that makes for a solid public domain pick. It's the journey that counts, and this one is helped by Ulmer in getting its foot in the door.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Pearl of Death.

Review #1056: The Pearl of Death.

Cast: 
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson), Evelyn Ankers (Naomi Drake), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Miles Mander (Giles Conover), Ian Wolfe (Amos Hodder), Charles Francis (Digby), Holmes Herbert (James Goodram), Richard Nugent (Bates), Mary Gordon (Mrs. Hudson), and Rondo Hatton (The Creeper) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, #925 - Sherlock Holmes in Washington, #936 - Sherlock Holmes Faces Death, #1021 - The Spider Woman, and #1040 - The Scarlet Claw)

Review: 
The Pearl of Death (released less than three months after The Scarlet Claw) is the ninth film in the Sherlock Holmes series with Rathbone and Bruce, with this film involving the search of a valuable pearl that is linked to a series of murders. Given that previous plots have involved supernatural terrors, pyjama murders, house murders and wartime spy plots, I can't say that this plot is any stranger or weirder than the other films. As such, this film meets the standards for fans of the series, with no real detraction or distractions. Once again, Rathbone and Bruce do their jobs with the right kind of class and mannerisms that you would expect, although it is weird that the film has Holmes inadvertently starting the main plot by exposing the security system that protects the pearl. The supporting cast is acceptable, with Ankers and Mander playing capable adversaries without any bombast. Hoey does a fine job as expected, with a bit of entertaining banter between him and Rathbone. In any case, the rest of the movie is fairly suspenseful, moving along with all the right patterns and pace (69 minutes) that will satisfy people in the mindset for it that doesn't come off as an listless retread of any tricks utilized in the other films in the slightest.

The story took inspiration from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's short story "The Adventure of the Six Napoleons", with the additions of an accomplice to the villain and The Creeper, played by Hatton. He became an icon of sorts due to his unusual facial features that were caused by acromegaly, which distorted his head shape along with his face that happened to him gradually after he had been a soldier in World War I and a journalist. He had appeared in small roles in four other movies prior to this one. The reception of Hatton (who delivers a decent if not briefly sinister job in his time on screen) and his portrayal of the Creeper led to Universal Pictures casting him into two other films with his as "The Creeper" (albeit unrelated to this film): House of Horror and The Brute Man, both released in 1946, the same year of Hatton's death. In any case, this is a capable film that works just as well as most of the other Holmes films.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Scarlet Claw.

Review #1040: The Scarlet Claw.

Cast: 
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson), Gerald Hamer (Alistair Ramson), Paul Cavanagh (Lord William Penrose), Arthur Hohl (Emile Journet), Kay Harding (Marie Journet), Miles Mander (Judge Brisson), David Clyde (Sgt. Thompson), Ian Wolfe (Drake), and Victoria Horne (Nora) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, #925 - Sherlock Holmes in Washington, #936 - Sherlock Holmes Faces Death, #1021 - The Spider Woman, and #1040 - The Scarlet Claw)

Review: 
The Scarlet Claw was the eighth film in the Sherlock Holmes series (and sixth released by Universal) that featured Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. Although the film is not an adaptation of any of the stories by Arthur Conan Doyle, the film has some similarities with The Hound of the Baskervilles, which had already been adapted into a film (#583) with Rathbone and Bruce five years prior. Qualities that the two share involve a terror that is painted with phosphorescent but also a terror of the supernatural that inspires fear, an escaped convict on the loose, and drawing the killer out through making the villain believe that Holmes has left. In any case, the earlier film (and novel) are both better than this film, although this movie is actually fairly entertaining in its own right. It is usually cited by some critics as the best of the twelve Sherlock Holmes films released by Universal, and I can't really doubt that assessment. John P. Fulton provides the "special photography" for the movie, and the effect used to show the glowing figure that menaces in the mist for the first half of the film is fairly clever. The sets (meant to evoke a Canadian village) for the film do a fine job in making for a somewhat moody feel that feels a bit different from other prior films to the film's advantage. It's hard not to like Rathbone and Bruce in their roles as they just blend in fairly seamlessly. Hamer proves to be a decent villain for the film, and Cavanagh and Hohl also provide fair performances. The plot seems to be constructed well, managing to not have anything too out of the bend. At 74 minutes, this is an easy one to recommend for people, particularly for people wanting more adventures with Sherlock Holmes. It isn't anything too groundbreaking or great, but it will prove satisfactory for viewers on the whole.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Meet Me in St. Louis.

Review #1031: Meet Me in St. Louis.

Cast: 
Judy Garland (Esther Smith), Margaret O'Brien ('Tootie' Smith), Mary Astor (Mrs. Anna Smith), Leon Ames (Mr. Alonzo Smith), Lucille Bremer (Rose Smith), Tom Drake (John Truett), Marjorie Main (Katie the maid), Harry Davenport (Grandpa), Henry H. Daniels Jr. (Alonzo "Lon" Smith Jr.), Joan Carroll (Agnes Smith), and June Lockhart (Lucille Ballard) Directed by Vincente Minnelli (#405 - The Reluctant Debutante, #510 - Father of the Bride, #620 - Lust for Life, #878 - The Long, Long Trailer, and #986 - An American in Paris)

Review: 
Admittedly, musical films can tend to feel a bit familiar, particularly if the setting or the characters aren't too interesting to go with the songs. Meet Me in St. Louis manages to be an interesting musical in part due to its charm along with its performances that make for a relatively engaging movie. The movie basks itself in nostalgia with its setting, but it definitely doesn't feel too off-putting, coming off as fairly welcome. Each member in the family of Smiths have their own moment to shine or make an impact, and no one does it better than Garland, who radiates charm and a wholesomeness that also extends to her songs, with "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" being a particular standout, having a tone that is moving along with effective due to her way of singing it. She manages to have fine chemistry with the others, such as O'Brien and Drake as well. O'Brien also does a fine job as well, being a fine child actress; in fact, she won an Academy Juvenile Award for her work for her films of 1944 (this award was given eleven other times from 1935 to 1961, with Garland herself winning one for her work in 1939). Astor and Ames prove to be fairly useful parents for the household, with Main and Davenport also proving themselves well. It should be mentioned that the songs in the film are charming, from the opening song of "Meet Me in St. Louis, Louis" to "The Trolley Song", with the movie keeping itself with enough steam and energy to make for a riveting experience. The film runs finely enough at 113 minutes, with numerous story-lines that surround the movie revolving around the family that work alright, with the end featuring the St. Louis World's Fair (also known as the Louisiana Purchase Exposition) that is a brief but fitting treat, with nothing in the film that comes off as condescending nor too ridiculous for the movie. Musicals may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I'm sure that this one will work wonders for people looking for a fun time.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

House of Frankenstein.

Review #847: House of Frankenstein.

Cast
Boris Karloff (Dr. Gustav Niemann), Lon Chaney Jr. (Lawrence "Larry" Talbot/The Wolf Man), John Carradine (Count Dracula), J. Carrol Naish (Daniel), Elena Verdugo (Ilonka), Anne Gwynne (Rita Hussman), Peter Coe (Karl Hussman), Lionel Atwill (Inspector Arnz), George Zucco (Bruno Lampini), Sig Ruman (Bürgermeister Hussman), William Edmunds (Fejos), Charles F. Miller (Tobermann), Philip Van Zandt (Müller), Julius Tannen (Hertz), Hans Herbert (Meier), and Glenn Strange (The Monster) Directed by Erle C. Kenton (#845 - The Ghost of Frankenstein)

Review
Released one year after Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, House of Frankenstein not only brings in Dracula and a hunchback to the monster mix, but it also has Boris Karloff, now starring in a main role who gets more time on screen than the monster he had originally played less than a decade before. This time around, Glenn Strange (the fourth actor to play him) plays the Monster for a very brief amount of time, which I guess makes sense considering how much we've seen of the character in the past few films, only being in the climax. Karloff and Naish do go well together, having some fine banter along with seeming right for the roles. Chaney is good as ever, just like the effects. If you're looking for a Dracula meet up with Frankenstein's monster, you will be sorely dissappointed, as Dracula is killed off less than an hour into the film. It is funny that he was brought back to life only because Karloff's character removed the stake from his heart. Carradine is fairly decent, but he doesn't really seem to evoke any creepy charisma that Lugosi had in the role. Verdugo is not as interesting to watch, although her calling Naish's character "mean and ugly" (the whole exchange is pretty strange itself) is somewhat enjoyable cheesy. The characters aren't really anything too special, but it is fun at least to see the ways that everything tries to be set in place, even if it comes off as cheesy, though that can work for most. At least it isn't the Wolf Man fighting Frankenstein's monster again, though there really isn't a full on monster mash. At 71 minutes, it works okay enough to pass for at least somebody. I find it to not be as good as the previous film, but it is marginally entertaining.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Laura.

Review #657: Laura.

Cast
Gene Tierney (Laura Hunt), Dana Andrews (Mark McPherson), Clifton Webb (Waldo Lydecker), Vincent Price (Shelby Carpenter), Judith Anderson (Ann Treadwell), and Dorothy Adams (Bessie Clary) Directed by Otto Preminger.

Review
I had bought this movie for $2.99 at a Blockbuster only three weeks ago, and I knew I would review this eventually, preferably before the year ended. And given the movie's 70th anniversary just passed last month, it makes good sense to review it now to start off another month. Clifton Webb is brilliant. I like how his facade of insults and strange charm actually serves the movie well. I like how Gene Tierney and Dana Andrews interact with each other, they seem to just have an instant connection and it makes an already pretty decent movie a little better. This is the earliest Vincent Price film I've seen him in, and for once it's not a horror film, it's refreshing to watch him play a supporting character who seems much more at home. The movie flows efficiently enough, lasting less than 90 minutes yet revealing details not all at once and letting you get slowly interested as the tale is weaved along. Film noirs are usually enjoyable, and this is no exception. It manages to leave you guessing while also being riveting.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.