Algiers.

Review #1348: Algiers.

Cast: 
Charles Boyer (Pepe le Moko), Sigrid Gurie (Ines), Hedy Lamarr (Gaby), Joseph Calleia (Inspector Slimane), Alan Hale (Grandpere), Gene Lockhart (Regis), Walter Kingsford (Chief Inspector Louvain), Paul Harvey (Commissioner Janvier), Stanley Fields (Carlos), and Johnny Downs (Pierrot) Directed by John Cromwell (#1008 - The Racket and #1341 - Of Human Bondage)

Review: 
It should only figure that some films come from doing it over again for a different audience. As much as one can bemoan the shrinking originality of doing the same source material numerous times (then and now), interest does tend to rise a bit when it comes to how a remake fares in a different country. In this sense, Algiers is a remake of Pépé le Moko (1937), a French film based on the novel of the same name by Henri La Barthe, featuring Jean Gabin as star and Julien Duvivier as director (there also was a musical remake with Casbah in 1948). Of note is the American debut of Sigrid Gurie (who was born in New York but had grown up primarily in Norway) and Hedy Lamarr, who had made appearances in five films (all but one being from either her native Austria or Germany) from 1930 to 1933, with an encounter of Louis B. Mayer scouting for European talent helping to lead her to a Hollywood career, with Walter Wanger serving as producer for this feature. Another emigrant serving as star for this film was Boyer, who had started his career in his native France in 1920 before making a move to do Hollywood films alongside his French films in 1930. He soon gained a reputation as a leading man for romantic dramas, with his work being recognized through four Best Actor nominations (including one for this film) before his last film in 1976. The remake would keep certain aspects of the original, most notably with a majority of the music alongside background sequences (at least ones that weren't shot in Algiers and later integrated later into the film by cinematographer James Wong Howe), although censor demands led to the ending being different (murder rather than suicide), along with other aspects. Boyer was not a big fan of his work on the film, since Cromwell wanted him to emulate Gabin (even running scenes from the original), which he disliked doing as an actor, although Cromwell later gave compliment to Boyer on how his performance had been different from each other in terms of nuance. He certainly does a fine job with this film, where one gets a sense of allure and curiosity from whenever he is on screen, a certain kind of confidence that resonates whenever on screen with someone like Lamarr or his on-screen cohorts. The romance that occurs within this triangle comes out with a bit of passion, although Cromwell felt that Lamarr's problem was that she could not act (stating that he could take some of the credit for making her acting passable, while sharing it with Boyer). She provides some exotic charm, a raw but expressive presence that does tend to benefit when on-screen with Boyer more than anyone (which I suppose isn't too surprising). Gurie pulls off an anguished side of this triangle neatly enough, not getting lost in the shuffle too much. Calleia makes for a decent adversary, while Hale provides a bit of wise levity alongside an effective sniveling Lockhart among the rest. The film moves at a fair pace with 99 minutes, although one does not really seem to sense too much suspense inside it. One gets a fair amount of fleeting pleasure, which should be enough for most. At least one can see why it served as one of the inspirations to be patterned for Casablanca (1942). It goes on the strengths of curiosity over its atmosphere and romance with agreeable results, and its free status in the public domain makes this a curiosity worth seeking out without any doubt.

Next Time: It won't be Love Affair, since an addition has been made to go right before that film to make for a 1939 trifecta to close out February's 30s tribute. That film will be Stagecoach.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Of Human Bondage.

Review #1341: Of Human Bondage.

Cast: 
Leslie Howard (Philip Carey), Bette Davis (Mildred Rogers), Frances Dee (Sally Athelny), Kay Johnson (Norah), Reginald Denny (Harry Griffiths), Alan Hale (Emil Miller), Reginald Sheffield (Cyril Dunsford), Reginald Owen (Thorpe Athelny), and Tempe Pigott (Agnes Hollet, Philip's landlady) Directed by John Cromwell (#1008 - The Racket)

Review: 
What is there to say about Bette Davis that hasn't already been said before? Davis is one of the most famous actresses of film to ever grace the screen, but one only needs to point to her six decade career of various sardonic roles that ranged from various dramas that garnered multiple Academy Award wins (two) and nominations (only three other people have more nominations than her ten). One nomination that is not technically recorded is for her role in this film (for which she received write-in votes for in one of only two ceremonies to allow said votes), which is generally considered her breakthrough role. She had started her career on the stage in 1929 before moving to Hollywood the following year to screen test for Universal Studios. She made her film debut with a supporting role in Bad Sister (1931), but her time with the studio was characterized by a dearth of roles before her release from her contract the following year. On the verge of leaving Hollywood, it was the decision of George Arliss to have her cast as the fiancee to his character in The Man Who Played God (1932) with Warner Bros. that gave her the foot in the door she needed, as she soon signed a contract with the studio after they liked the rushes. She would subsequently stay with the studio until 1949, although there were not always easy times. She notably attempted to breach her contract in 1936 when presented an offer to make two films in Britain, owing to be faced to perform in parts she felt were mediocre (incidentally, it was her appearance in a film named The Cabin in the Cotton (1932) that led director Cromwell to want her for this film). In any case, Davis had wanted the un-glamorous role despite the reluctance of studio head Jack L. Warner to let her star in what was to be a production by RKO Radio Pictures. A chance to trade actresses for a part led to RKO being allowed to borrow Davis for this film while Warner Bros borrowed one of their contract players for a film of their own. Davis proved to be dedicated to making this role the first of many noted performances of her career, from hiring a housekeeper with a Cockney English accent to prepare for the role to even designing her own makeup for her final scenes when downtrodden with tuberculosis.

For a film released just as a strengthened Motion Picture Production Code was coming into effect in July of that year, this is sure a daring film to inspire such shock and passion. This was an adaptation of the 1915 novel of the same name by W. Somerset Maugham, which has a mix of autobiographical and fictional elements, as admitted by the author (with both him and the main character having a physical calamity, being an orphan at an early age, and studying medicine). It was the first of three adaptations, with ones to follow in 1946 and 1964. Obviously the work is going to be changed a bit for a film adaptation, especially a 600-page book going down to an 83 minute film. A curious synopsis glance notes that the film only mentions the main character's uncle at the end when he dies, as opposed to showing his experiences growing up with his uncle. The film has a stagey if somewhat dated feel to it at times (this proves true with some of Cromwell's decisions like the perspective shots), but it is the dominant performance of Davis that keeps the film rolling with curiosity. She has a fearlessness and tenacity to making this role worth viewing to see her run the gamut in cruelty, most notably when she chews the main character out near the end. We all have had at least one experience or knew at least one person in our lives with that kind of emotional recklessness, the kind of person we think we need in our lives no matter how they might treat us. It doesn't mean that Howard's character is completely in the right either, but it is a film that uses most of its time (save for its obligatory moralistic line for the ending) to show two people who really just don't belong together who keep lining up that way. Sure, the main character still finds someone to be with after his obsession is lifted, but the film still hits on those basic points without too much trouble. Howard (a man of theatre and film who was an idol in his own right for the decade) comes off as stiffly sensitive, quiet yet fairly easy to follow along with despite some of the offbeat decisions his character can make. With lesser actors, this could've been easily turned into a vamp piece and nothing else. But these two make for a worthy duet to view, which go with a decent supporting cast to make for a decent piece to study. Interestingly enough, this is a film readily available for viewing, since the copyright for this film was not renewed in the 28th year of publication, meaning that this is in the public domain for easy viewing. I recommend this one without any doubt, a fairly entertaining film on the strength of Bette Davis in the role that made her a star worth viewing with interest.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Covered Wagon.

Review #1320: The Covered Wagon.

Cast: 
J. Warren Kerrigan (Will Banion), Lois Wilson (Molly Wingate), Alan Hale (Sam Woodhull), Ernest Torrence (William Jackson), Tully Marshall (Jim Bridger), Ethel Wales (Mrs. Wingate), Charles Ogle (Jesse Wingate), Guy Oliver (Kit Carson), and Johnny Fox (Jed Wingate) Directed by James Cruze (#1263 - The Roaring Road)

Review: 
What is it about the Western that inspires such curiosity? What inspired so many directors and studios to make their own tales (or adapt works) about cowboys, gunslingers, and other various subjects that dominated the film landscape for over half of the 20th century, doing so from the very get go with the first one shot in the United States (and second overall) in The Great Train Robbery (1903), which captivated audiences with its action in such quick time at 12 minutes. The evolution of film production in the two decades that followed meant that at some point one would strive to make a big budget Western epic to hang their cowboy hat on, at least until someone made one that looked better. The honor of being known as the first big-budget Western epic (made for roughly over $700,000 from Paramount Pictures) falls to this feature, which is adapted from the novel of the same name by Emerson Hough. Expense was not spared when it came to research to get costumes and locations scoped out, particularly when it came to finding a herd of wild bison (alongside other animals like oxen and horses) to roam the plains, complete with authentic wagons. If that sounds daunting enough, try being an actor having to spend months in the desert of Utah, dealing with various weather elements alongside being fairly distant from railroads, with one sequence involving wagons fording a torrent being a risky one to film in part because they had to actually swim for it alongside the accompanying horses and oxen. Simply put, one can trace Western epics and the level of craftsmanship one must take in executing ambition from costumes to characters to this film, which manages to hold itself fairly well without becoming too much a thing of the past.

It is an honest spectacle, welcome of curiosity for those who seek out fair pleasures. It has exactly the kind of things you would expect from a Western, with a clear hero, romantic lead and heavy to follow, and one can take a guess as to how these pioneers will do in their journey from Kansas to Oregon for 98 minutes - as long as one does not find themselves checking their watch from time to time or peeking at what comes next, you should do fine. It is the journey that counts when it comes to films, and how one enjoys the ride or trip with these actors and views that counts most, and this one does fine with that in mind - you could probably see this and at have some sort of interest in wondering about the plight of the pioneer, whether that means trouble with just getting to where they need to go or in-fights and so on. The highlight proves to be Torrence and Marshall, giving a bit of amusement as the comic relief, while Kerrigan and Wilson prove adequate if not too memorable people to look at through the lens of a routine romantic Western. Regardless, it proved an audience hit, making roughly seven million dollars, exceeding films now regarded as classics for that year such as The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Safety Last!, which now can all be found in the public domain for one to eye with curiosity. This film may not stand too highly with some of the Westerns that would come to pass over the next decade and beyond, but it still holds ground as a resilient charmer when it comes to entertainment, and that surely will prove enough for those who want to seek it most.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Robin Hood (1922).

Review #1319: Robin Hood.

Cast: 
Douglas Fairbanks (Earl of Huntingdon/Robin Hood), Wallace Beery (King Richard the Lion-Hearted), Sam De Grasse (Prince John), Enid Bennett (Lady Marian Fitzwalter), Paul Dickey (Sir Guy of Gisbourne), William Lowery (The High Sheriff of Nottingham), Willard Louis (Friar Tuck), Alan Hale (The Squire/Little John), Bud Geary (Will Scarlet), Lloyd Talman (Alan-a-Dale), and Billie Bennett (Servant to Lady Marian) Directed by Allan Dwan.

Review: 
Never let it be said that adventure films were content with being quiet affairs. When it comes to large-scale adventure films, this is a good case to highlight (copyrighted as Douglas Fairbanks in Robin Hood, I kid you not), with this one having a large castle set and village (all constructed at Pickford-Fairbanks Studio), with some designs done by architect Lloyd Wright (who went on to use its leftovers to design shells for the Hollywood Bowl). The budget has been reported to be around $900,000, which went into making such lavish sets, costumes, and even extras (with large moments reportedly having as many as a thousand present). The film is also noted for being shown as the first Hollywood premiere, doing so at Egyptian Theater in Hollywood (who you might recognize as one of the theaters developed by Sid Grauman). It wasn't the first film to feature the legend of Robin Hood on screen - there had been six productions involving the character, with the first being in 1908. Two of them were notable, with the 1912 version having big costumes and superimposition of animals to demonstrate their good/evil qualities, while Ivanhoe (1913) adapted the 1819 historical novel of the same name by Sir Walter Scott with the character present. Fairbanks was already a well paid and highly regarded star at the time of this film's release, and he helped formed United Artists alongside Mary Pickford, D. W. Griffith, and Charlie Chaplin in 1919 in order to help with artistic control and distributorships. The Mark of Zorro (1920) helped in creating a superstar image for its lead actor, and swashbuckling films owe a great deal to Fairbanks and the efforts he took in sparing no expense when it came to entertaining films, which continued with this feature that solidified the legend of Robin Hood in the eyes of the viewer alongside with solidifying the legend of Fairbanks as a whole.

It is a 127 minute grand spectacle that lands most of its merry advances, particularly when it comes to its action sequences (no photo trickery needed), which are fun to view when seeing how one can do such leaps and smile all the way through. It takes a bit of time to really get going, but it proves to be a useful reward that holds up to the edges of time fairly well after all these decades. Fairbanks (who had started acting just before the turn of the century and would turn turn 40 the following year after release) is clearly enjoying himself here, knowing where to go best, whether when needing to be coy or on the mark with someone else on screen. Beery makes for a fair supporting component to Fairbanks, while De Grasse makes for an adequate villain to encompass the film. Bennett and Dickey each do their own part to carry things respectively, as does the rest of the Merry Men. Two actors would later reprise their roles. Berry returned to his role the following year in Richard the Lion-Hearted, which was based on Scott's novel The Talisman, while Hale would reprise his supporting role twice - The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) and Rogues of Sherwood Forest (1950). It may not be the greatest Fairbanks adventure film (he personally felt The Thief of Bagdad (1924) was his best), but it certainly ranks up there when it comes to fun memorable times with interesting heroes, that much is for sure. It is an easy film to find in the public domain (remember, the new year means that works from 1923 are now available), and it is easy to recommend finding the best looking print one can find, where one can see different hues of color (as opposed to just monochrome) and have adventure play out for wonderful curiosity.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Adventures of Robin Hood.

Review #505: The Adventures of Robin Hood.

Cast
Errol Flynn (Robin Hood), Olivia de Havilland (Maid Marian), Basil Rathbone (Sir Guy of Gisbourne), Claude Rains (Prince John), Patric Knowles (Will Scarlett), Eugene Pallette (Friar Tuck), Alan Hale Sr. (Little John), Herbert Mundin (Much), Melville Cooper (High Sheriff of Nottingham), Una O'Connor (Bess), and Ian Hunter (King Richard the Lionheart) Directed by Michael Curtiz (#125 - Casablanca and #416 - Yankee Doodle Dandy) and William Keighley (#501 - The Man Who Came to Dinner)

Review
This is the first film I've reviewed that starred Errol Flynn, along with the first of Olivia de Havilland, and they both are impressive, especially when they are paired together in scenes. Flynn is quite the adventurer and he does an extremely great job in the action scenes and the swashbuckling. Basil Rathbone (who I wanted to talk about in more detail when I eventually got to reviewing The Hound of the Baskervilles) is an effective adversary, getting a good fight with Robin at the end, but also being a good foil as well. Claude Rains lurks around as a fine villain that while not having a fight scene, is still a useful villain. The rest of the cast are effective at entertaining, especially Herbert Mundin, who while not given much to do, makes an impression, at least for me anyways. The action is excellent and the Technicolor give the film a colorful, yet memorable look. This is a well made, excellent adventure film that hasn't dated much, if at all.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: It Happened One Night.

Review #456: It Happened One Night.

Cast
Clark Gable (Peter Warne), Claudette Colbert (Ellie Andrews), Walter Connolly (Alexander Andrews), Roscoe Karns (Oscar Shapeley), Jameson Thomas (Westley), Alan Hale (Danker), and Arthur Hoyt (Zeke) Directed by Frank Capra (#102 - Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and #319 - It's a Wonderful Life)

Review

It's been a while, but after a little (six day) break (also replace that word with: laziness), I got back on to watching a movie, and this was the film I landed on. Clark Gable does a fine job in this film, he doesn't overcrowd the film itself, Colbert also does a fine job, she manages to be engaging, and she also shines well in the hitchhiking scene, probably one of the more memorable scenes ever filmed. It's just so amusing to see her lift up her leg and immediately get a ride. Capra as usual does a fine job with his characters, and it has its moments of amusement. It's the basis for many, many, many romantic comedies, but this one is still the best. It's a fine film overall.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.