Island of Lost Souls.

Review #2121: Island of Lost Souls.

Cast: 

Charles Laughton (Dr. Moreau), Richard Arlen (Edward Parker), Leila Hyams (Ruth Thomas), Bela Lugosi (Sayer of the Law), Kathleen Burke (Lota, The Panther Woman), Arthur Hohl (Montgomery), Stanley Fields (Captain Davies), Paul Hurst (Donahue), Hans Steinke (Ouran), and Tetsu Komai (M'Ling) Directed by Erle C. Kenton (#845 - The Ghost of Frankenstein, #847 - House of Frankenstein, #849 - House of Dracula)

Review: 

 "They give us a chance to let our imagination run wild. The art department can go to town on creep sets. Prop men have fun with cobwebs. The cameraman has fun with trick lighting and shadows. The director has fun. We have more fun making a horror picture than a comedy."

I'm sure you are familiar with the scenario: a 1930s horror film loosely based on a novel. This time around, it is a Paramount production based on the H. G. Wells novel The Island of Doctor Moreau (1896) (describing it as "an exercise in youthful blasphemy"), since the studio managed to do well enough with the release of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde the previous year. The film was written by Waldemar Young (writer on countless productions for over a decade such as London After Midnight) and Philip Wylie (more known for his stories such as When Worlds Collide as opposed to his screenplays, which started with this). Norman Taurog was apparently meant to be the director but was replaced by Erle C. Kenton, who had broken into film in the 1920s after forays into teaching, animal exhibiting, and vaudeville.  In a career of B films of comedy and horror, it is likely Kenton's best remembered film. Apparently, Wells (still living at the time) disliked the resulting movie, once calling it a "complete lack of imagination." In the years since, there have been a handful of subsequent adaptations, such as Terror Is a Man (1959) and The Twilight People (1972), each directed by Filipino filmmaker Eddie Romero (each of which did their own thing). 1977 saw an adaptation by American International Pictures with Don Taylor directing before John Frankenheimer tried his hand in 1996. The irony is that both directors maligned the original film as terrible and then they ended up making adaptations that nobody remembers now. A limited array of home video releases made the film a weird one to see for years, since the lost camera negative of Island of Lost Souls meant one had to combine a bunch of varying prints to make just one that worked until Criterion restored the film at considerable challenge in 2011.

It's funny, Wells intended for Moreau to be a well intentioned mad scientist when it came to doing vivisection on animals in an attempt to make them more human, and here he is getting mad at a movie that manages to show Moreau for what really makes sense: the man is a reasoned nut that made a nightmare when he thought he was making a creation fit for mankind. The terror is present quite effectively in its 70 minute runtime in disturbing qualities, one that has a tremendous performance to lead it off to go with a handful of nice shots from cinematographer Karl Struss that sometimes deal with the creature effects by Wally Westmore. It is that certain kind of chilling thar makes one look between the lines when it comes looking at human nature, whether that involves foolish curiosity or the unraveling of all that matters in group structures. Laughton dominates the film when it comes to understanding the mad scientist role as one that perfectly knows themselves to be doing their actions as a sane man rather than a blustering doubter. One believes right away that this is a man who senses only in his own brilliance of creating something great for man, whether that means serving as a sort of God for his creations or in trying to bring man and beast together. Arlen does fine with the material as the general normal focus in that way you would think for a reasoned man trying to survive in unreasonable times. Believe it or not, Burke was actually marketed as "The Panther Woman" because of a talent contest. Paramount held one for the film that saw the then fashion model and Chicago radio actress win from a pool of thousands of people. By 1938, she had done a handful more films but left Hollywood. She makes more of an impression than Hyams in terms of mystery and interest, but that's about that. Those who know Lugosi and his voice will see him right from the go even with makeup, but I enjoy seeing his presence in the attempt to assert order and reason even among fur. By the time the film has built its disturbing mannerisms of creation to a chaotic end, the experience has been a worthy one for consistent atmospheric creeps that shows there was more than one horror studio who could try their hand at horror, even if the forthcoming Production Code would try to neuter some of the ideas in later films. As a whole, it is a pretty good film worth it for Laughton and all that comes with it in disturbing quality.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next: Two Thousand Maniacs!, y'all.

It Happened on 5th Avenue.

Review #1613: It Happened on 5th Avenue.

Cast: 

Don DeFore (Jim Bullock), Gale Storm (Trudy O'Connor), Victor Moore (Aloyisius T. McKeever), Charles Ruggles (Michael J. "Mike" O'Connor), Ann Harding (Mary O'Connor), Grant Mitchell (Farrow), Edward Brophy (Patrolman Cecil Felton), Arthur Hohl (Patrolman Brady), Alan Hale, Jr. (Whitey Temple), and Dorothea Kent (Margie Temple) Directed by Roy Del Ruth (#395 - The Maltese Falcon (1931), #432 - The Babe Ruth Story, #807 - The Alligator People, #949 - The First Auto) 

Review: 

Once upon a time, there was a studio called Monogram Pictures. They were created to make cheap movies under the guise of two folks: Trem Carr and W. Ray Johnston in 1931. Several series came out of the scraps of former stars and fresh unknowns, whether it involved Westerns or the Bowery Boys. Fifteen years passed before an argument was made by producer Walter Mirisch to do work in costlier productions to evolve. The result was a new unit in Allied Artists Productions that would make more expensive films - in other words, they went from making films at a fraction of the usual Hollywood production to trying to make Hollywood budget-level films. Monogram Pictures continued on until 1953, while Allied Artists would make a variety of films for 31 years (which ranged from films like Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) to Love in the Afternoon (1957) to Cabaret (1972), which they co-produced). This was the 63rd of 75 films that were directed by Roy Del Ruth, who one will recognize from his plentiful output of dramas, crime films, and various others (some obviously better than others). The film fell into the hands of Ruth after the rights of the story were brought to Allied Artists after Frank Capra let the rights to the script go. The film was written by Frederick Stephani and Herbert Clyde Lewis, who later received the only Academy Award nomination regarding this film for Best Story (for 17 years, the Academy Awards honored films with Original Screenplay, Screenplay, and Best Story...confusing, but this was the case), which it lost to another classic involving Christmas in Miracle on 34th Street (1947), which like this film also received subsequent remakes in television and radio.

What we have here is the quirky story of folks that move into a mansion while the owner happens to be away for the holidays...which just happen to lead into a love story, a redemption story, and so on and so forth (how the rich man disguised as a hobo is never recognized by anybody besides his ex-wife and daughter as the actual owner of the house is up to you to interpret, because I suppose house portraits aren't present). Basically, it is the kind of film that goes for the heart string of being a better person than just the size of a wallet, where the tramp can be a king, and heartwarming goo is plentiful. Actually, it is an okay film, although its place on the totem pole of Christmas movies depends on one's preferences. I certainly was surprised at first to hear about the connection with Capra and this film (or more specifically, the "almost" connection), but then I realize that Capra had done It's a Wonderful Life (1946), which was released four months before this film - the funny thing is that this was actually delayed for some unknown reason, as research suggests that this film was delayed six months in its release to line up with Easter of all things (as much as I would like to mock this for not being released on Christmas like it should be, Miracle on 34th Street was released a month after this film) - Capra, alongside other famous folks of the time, also gave a recommendation to the film. It sure is a shame too, because one is a film that became a (public domain) classic after it wasn't an initial success with audiences (which is played every year as a tradition), while the other was a light success (making $1.8 million on a budget of $1.2 million budget) that had a shelf life with other Monogram and Allied Artists films for a few decades that has a fair amount of air-time. Besides, both have those moments of trying to sweet-talk their audience with sentiment, but it just so happens one is more efficient at handling what is needed with a film like this at 115 minutes. In other words, it can be funny for those who like what it offers in sentiment, while others will want it the same as getting a hole drilled in their head. The acting is certainly alright from what is needed in earnest from a few solid actors that while not quite well known were at least ones known to give effort. For example, Moore had been an actor on Broadway (in 1896) before being brought in to appear in films beginning in 1915, and this was his fifth-to-last role; here, he is the patron of interlopers with warm kindness, which obviously makes for worthy appeal. DeFore had a steady work in theater and film that would find footing with the advent of television in the following decade, and while he may not make a great romance angle, he at least makes for a spirited effort in the can-do attitude that the film wants. Storm was an actress that spent twelve years acting with a variety of low-budget studios, mostly with Monogram (she ended her film career for television, which worked out for two lengthy sitcoms) - however, the strangest thing to note is that fact that while she sings in the film, it is actually just her lip-synching to someone else (decided by Ruth, much to her disappointment); she does fine here, although the idea of her playing a teenager (while being six years older) is probably a bit much to swallow. Ruggles (who did work in the theater, film, radio, and television in six decades of work) plays the stuffy comic elements well, although the redemption aspects seem a bit more silly in being drawn out. Honestly, it might have worked better with one real story to it, either keeping with the interlopers or the redemption of the rich man into a rich happy man, since instead we have a muddle heap of sap that can only go so far, one that makes a few gags go fine but otherwise feels like an odd egg in the cornucopia of Christmas material to look around for. If one is curious for something that isn't just the usual classic Christmas fare done every time, this might work out just fine. As a curiosity in the eyes of seeing a low budget studio trying to re-invent themselves, it most definitely has a place for cinema, average or not.

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.

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.