Daughter of Dr. Jekyll.

Review #2603: Daughter of Dr. Jekyll.

Cast:

Gloria Talbott (Janet Smith), John Agar (George Hastings), Arthur Shields (Dr. Lomas), John Dierkes (Jacob), Molly McCard (Maggie), Martha Wentworth (Mrs. Merchant), Marjorie Stapp (Woman Getting Dressed), Rita Green (Lucy), and Marel Page (Young Man in Woods)

Directed by Edgar G. Ulmer (#797 - People on Sunday, #803 - Detour, #943 - The Man from Planet X, #1364 - Bluebeard, #2058 - Strange Illusion, #2111 - The Black Cat)

Review: 

Oh, you're going to love their type of twist on the spawn of Dr. Jekyll, just sit tight. The 1950s was an odd time for Edgar G. Ulmer in the road to trying to stick around in making cheapie movies with plenty of variety that ranged from The Man from Planet X (1951). comedies such as St. Benny the Dip (1951) to Italian productions such as Hannibal (1959), with Ulmer's 1960s output seeing a double-header filmed in Dallas with The Amazing Transparent Man and Beyond the Time Barrier (1960). You might remember that Jack Pollexfen, who had worked with Ulmer with the aforementioned Planet X, previously worked with Mortimer Braus on cobbling up a story idea for what eventually became The Son of Dr. Jekyll (1951). So obviously a few years later he decided to make another loose "continuation" from Robert Louis Stevenson's original novella. Pollexfen both wrote and produced this film (as one does). The movie was shot in an old mansion in Los Angeles; true to cheapie form, an establishing shot of the house and car coming up was done in miniature (as for the girl-monster scene, it apparently was shot in some burned over woods with ultraviolet film). It was released by Allied Artists in 1957 as part of a double-bill with The Cyclops. For Talbott's part, she apparently was quoted as being "amazingly surprised" by the final result, while Agar stated his role was strictly for the money that he just didn't believe it.

For whatever reason, the movie's prologue and epilogue basically go the same way, where it tells us about the death of Dr. Henry Jekyll and then asking, "Are you sure?" It's pretty corny, sure, but there are for more odd forces at foot. There are attempts at atmosphere with a bit of fog and a bit of attempted trickery within its 71-minute runtime about what lies beneath basement of lab stuff...and, well, a werewolf. Yes, really. In the same year where you could see hypnosis connected to someone possibly turning into a werewolf with I Was a Teenage Werewolf, you could try a different type of hokum here, complete with having to see if our hero will meet the same fate for werewolves (one where father Jekyll drank a potion to be who he was) in...getting staked through the chest. It basically is a goof-fest that you maybe check out when you have absolutely nothing better to do that may provide a few chuckles in its execution within such a limited space of time and money for a director that probably deserved better. Talbott is tasked with such a strange role of tension for who she is meant to be as a twentysomething that barely has their own name and a dubious sense of agency (trying to marry that cardboard cutout is one thing, being wrapped in fears about nightmares is another). Shields plays the cloying authority figure to basically the bare minimum for when the movie does its little twist that wouldn't do anybody that many favors when having to be depicted as a goofy wolf in yet another Pollexfen production with an evil guardian wanting to get the estate (for which it barely looks like it would be much to inherit at all). Hell, if you go by what the twist says, who's to say that Dr. Jekyll was even a nut at all, since I don't seem to remember "Mr. Hyde" being mentioned once. As a whole, it's a cheap curiosity that is basically held by Ulmer and company for the bare minimum of horror entertainment with the odds and ends of trying to be creative in such a limited format. It's a middle of the road movie that is marginally more interesting as a "continuation" movie than The Son of Dr. Jekyll but not nearly as worthwhile beyond calling it mediocre and moving on to the next oldie to wonder about.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

The Verdict (1946).

Review #2037: The Verdict (1946).

Cast: 

Sydney Greenstreet (Superintendent George Grodman), Peter Lorre (Victor Emmric), Joan Lorring (Lottie Rawson), George Coulouris (Superintendent John R. Buckley), Rosalind Ivan (Mrs. Vicky Benson), Paul Cavanagh (Clive Russell), Arthur Shields (Reverend Holbrook), Morton Lowry (Arthur Kendall), and Holmes Herbert (Sir William Dawson) Directed by Don Siegel (#893 - Dirty Harry, #920 - Invasion of the Body Snatchers, #1453 - The Shootist)

Review: 

There is good reason to view as many directors as possible when it comes to distinct presences of filmmaking, and Don Siegel is a clear one. The Chicago native started in the film industry within the library of Warner Bros. before he eventually rose to the head of their montage department, which would see him come up with montages for films such as Casablanca (1942). Siegel's career as a director started on pretty good footing, as his first short films with Star in the Night (1945) and Hitler Lives (1945) each won an Academy Award (the former for what is now referred to as Best Live Action Short Film and the latter for Best Documentary Short Film). The Verdict (1946) would be the first of countless films he would direct, which could involve noirs such as Riot in Cell Block 11 (1954), science fiction with Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) or five films spent with Clint Eastwood such as Coogan's Bluff (1968) that would prove influential for the star-turned-director. The movie is loosely based off the 1892 novel The Big Bow Mystery by Israel Zangwill, which had previously served as the basis for two films with The Perfect Crime (1928) and The Crime Doctor (1934). Peter Milne wrote the screenplay. Believe it or not, Greenstreet and Lorre appeared in eight films together. Greenstreet had been born in Eastry, Kent, England in 1879 and had actually tried to make his calling as a tea planter before his financial failures eventually led to acting. By the turn of the 20th century, he was doing his work on the stage, which he did on a regular basis in both Britian and America until he decided, at the age, of 61, to act in films. What better way to start a film career than with a first-time director in John Huston and various others in The Maltese Falcon (1941)? In the next eight years, he would appear in over a dozen feature films, and a number of them happened to feature Lorre, who worked for Warner Bros. in the time from 1941 to 1946. This happened to be the eighth and last film with both in key roles together (technically it is nine, since they were in Hollywood Canteen (1944) together, but that was a cameo bit).

What we have here is a locked room mystery that shuffles the layers around of what you think is a mystery winding down to the climax that finds itself wrapped in paranoia. The 86-minute runtime is the right amount to make a useful first crack for Siegel to hone his talent in something that makes an involving puzzle with seasoned pros (at least for those who are familiar with early 20th century character actor presences). Within its late 19th century atmosphere is a handy feature that wraps things up in the way you might hope to see from a puzzle that isn't so much a puzzle but an inevitability. Greenstreet is effective in the lead role as a man who is seemingly possessed to prove his worth as a man no matter where those decisions may take him in brimming and deductive work. Lorre is the ideal presence to pair him with, observant in the way only he could do in macabre interest in contrast to the looming somber nature of the lead. Coulouris makes a quality contrast to Greenstreet in slimy overconfidence that lingers every step of the way with the right sense of brimming timing. So, here comes the question that arises from the start: how is a man murdered when the door was locked and the windows were closed? Well, the surprise comes from the fact that the seemingly perfect crime is more than just jealousy and blackmail but is instead all about appearances and timing that is told in succinct and convenient fashion that seems about right for a B-level production. As a whole, The Verdict (1946) is a worthy first start for Don Siegel as director with a useful pairing in Greenstreet and Lorre to back up a mostly involving effort fit for curiosity in the now.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The River (1951).

Review #1234: The River (1951).

Cast: 
Nora Swinburne (The Mother), Esmond Knight (The Father), Arthur Shields (Mr. John), Suprova Mukerjee (Nan), Thomas E. Breen (Capt. John), Patricia Walters (Harriet), Radha Burnier (Melanie), Adrienne Corri (Valerie), and June Hillman (Narrator) Directed by Jean Renoir.

Review: 
Admittedly, some films can stick out for their cast and crew, while others can stand out for their style and tone. This one does both in spades, the first color film shot in India along with the first color feature of its director. Jean Renoir (son of painter Pierre-Auguste Renoir) had been a director for decades prior to this film, directing films such as La Grande Illusion (1937) and The Rules of the Game (1939). By this point his career, he had spent a decade in Hollywood after fleeing invaded France in 1940. His last film had been The Woman on the Beach (1947), which had been re-edited prior to release. Renoir spent two years in India to shoot this film, for which he collaborated with Rumer Godden on converting her semi-autobiographical novel of the same name to film. Godden grew up in colonial India with three sisters for a time in her childhood; she wrote numerous fiction and nonfiction books, such as Black Narcissus and The Diddakoi, with numerous works being adapted into media (such as the 1947 film of the former). He directed the film along with serving as writer and co-producer. At hand as co-producer was a man named Kenneth McEldowney, a florist and real estate agent. He had complained about the quality an MGM film to his studio publicist wife, and she had dared him to make a better one. From 1947 to 1951, he spent his time trying to bring this film to fruition, having sold off their home and his floral shops. The resulting film opened in New York with a 34-week run at reserved-seat prices, a record for the time. McEldowney's first and only produced film proved to be a hit, and it is easy to see why that proved the case then as is now over six decades later.

It is a clear slowburn of a film, wrapped in a sense of spirituality and focus on telling a coming-of-age tale with sincerity and lack of Hollywood pretense. It flows like a river from one end to the other with a tone that spins like a globe, where life and death interweave with each other and so on. It has a mix of professional and amateur actors, such as Walters, a girl that Renoir described in his memoir as a "daughter of a man on the staff of one of the local industrial concerns" - this was her only film appearance. Hillman hadn't had a credited role on film in over a decade prior to serving as narrator for this feature. Breen was the son of film censor Joseph Breen (head of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America) and he had lost his right leg due to a combat injury in World War II, and this was his last movie appearance. Knight (who was half blind after a war injury) and Swinburne had been married for several years before this feature. In any case, it certainly makes for an interesting experience to see a variety of acting take place, which goes without much of a hitch. Seeing each of the perspectives of the three growing young ladies in Walters, Burnier, and Corri in their moments with the arrival of Breen makes for some interesting moments, and Burnier comes off best in that regard, where moments don't need to spelled out in detail for a viewer to absorb it fruitfully. Through its 99 minute run-time is something that has some nice photography (with cinematography done by Claude Renoir, Jean's nephew) and diverting lighting choices with color. The others do fine with their moments on screen, with Breen's vulnerability shining through well; it isn't the kind of film that would win many acting accolades, but it is certainly one that merits a look for its vision about growth through a prism of passion and tragedy that doesn't have an easy finish for anyone. It strives for something special with a natural concept idea and lands in the middle with a fairly compelling entertaining piece that shines for the curious viewer interested enough to seek it out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.