Supernatural (1933).

Review #2292: Supernatural.

Cast: 

Carole Lombard (Roma Courtney), Alan Dinehart (Paul Bavian), Vivienne Osborne (Ruth Rogen), Randolph Scott (Grant Wilson), H. B. Warner (Dr. Carl Houston), Beryl Mercer (Madam Gourjan), William Farnum (Nick "Nicky" Hammond), and Willard Robertson (Prison Warden) Directed by Victor Halperin (#274 - White Zombie)

Review: 

"I don't believe in fear, violence, and horror, so why traffic in them?"

Be honest: how many of you can name a horror film in the 1930s that wasn't made by Universal? Sure, there are a handful, such as Victor Halperin's attempts at horror filmmaking in the 1930s, starting with 1932's White Zombie, the cheapie movie that actually used Universal sets. It was Victor Halperin's ninth film as a feature director, having started in 1924 with a variety of dramas and some crime movies, with most of them being collaboration with his brother Edward. The result of the low-budget venture with Bela Lugosi scored him a deal with Paramount Pictures. The result was his second horror film here, as written by Brian Marlow and Harvey Thew as based on a story by Zombie writer Garnett Weston. Halperin directed just two further horror films with Revolt of the Zombies (1936) and Torture Ship (1939) before retiring in 1942; he died in 1983 and judging from the quote, wasn't exactly big on making horror movies (the irony is that they probably are the only reason anyone remembers Halperin).

Most films don't start with title cards of prominent names of Mohammed, Confucius, and Matthew 10:1, but here we are with a clunky suspense movie. It should be noted that Lombard absolutely did not want to do the film, apparently having a low view of horror. This is a movie involving theories about people's strong will even in death and body possession (with thicker makeup!) at the near end of a movie that isn't even 70 minutes long. The movie tries to present a female killer (strangles three men), body possession, fake mediums, spirits around the people, and oh my goodness, pick one idea! This is bottom-of-the-barrel mediocrity, one that only seems to fit the bill of being watched when you wonder just what else there can be for really old movies and "horror" when the word seemed to mean "oh, that one shot sure looked scary" more than anything. Lombard may have been a "swell" actress for timing, but she can only go so far for a movie that has her play puppet for a chunk of its time. Scott actually was a leading man in a variety of genres (including Murders in the Zoo that same year for horror), but one would be forgiven for just associating him as a Western guy, which is basically a way of saying his performance here inspires no notes of positivity. Osbourne is meant to inspire a bit of curiosity (playing the soon-to-be-dead killer) and the third word of that sentence is making a great deal of lifting. Dinehart at least as some huckster spirit in him, when compared to the astonishingly vacant Warner for a movie that begs to have something actually happen. This isn't a plea for a body-count (1 depicted is a count, I suppose?), this is just me stating that having a re-incarnated killer only really works when you have a whole film to make me care. Here, you have a film that only start to try and get interesting in the last 20 minutes, which manages to letdown the last remaining vestiges of hope for something less hammy. As a whole, the one-trick-pony status of Halperin and company in middle-of-the-road curiosity may not have been the biggest success at the time, but you can interpret for yourself what the fuss was about when it comes to the occasional scare (spiritual or not) that could occur for 1930s audiences.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Blind Adventure.

Review #2057: Blind Adventure.

Cast: 

Robert Armstrong (Richard Bruce), Helen Mack (Rose Thorne), Roland Young (Holmes the Burglar), Ralph Bellamy (Jim Steele), John Miljan (Regan, Gang Leader), Beryl Mercer (Elsie, the Maid), Tyrell Davis (Gerald Fairfax), Henry Stephenson (Major Archer Thorne), and Laura Hope Crews (Lady Rockingham) Directed by Ernest B. Schoedsack (#283 - King Kong, #604 - Mighty Joe Young, #709 - The Most Dangerous Game, and #914 - Son of Kong)

Review: 

Okay, so remember Son of Kong (1933)? That was the rushed sequel to King Kong that retained the uses of Ernest B. Schoedsack as director/producer while featuring Robert Armstrong and Helen Mack (replacing Fay Wray from the original film) as the stars to basically be second-nature to the big effect (the film itself, well, was pretty disappointing, but that was a long time ago). Of course, there was one other aspect retained from the original Kong in Ruth Rose (familiar to Schoedsack, because she was his wife) as screenwriter. You may wonder just what does this have to do with Blind Adventure? Well, that was the other 1933 movie released by RKO Radio Pictures that had Armstrong and Mack as stars with Schoedsack as director, and Rose as a writer (Robert Benchley delivered uncredited work for the film); oddly enough, Cooper didn't produce the Kong sequel but did produce Blind Adventure. Schoedsack was a most curious filmmaker, as one would expect from somebody that honed their skills in the Signal Corps in World War I. He directed various films with a good chunk in collaboration with Merian C. Cooper (they met in Europe in 1918 and coincidentally were both pilots during the war), whether that involved producing films spent in the wilderness such as Chang: A Drama of the Wilderness (1927) or dramas such as The Last Days of Pompeii (1935) or effects-driven features such as Dr. Cyclops (1940) and his last key effort in Mighty Joe Young (yet another movie with Armstrong, Rose, and Cooper). Schoedsack died in 1979 at the age of 86.

The movie is perhaps too fitting for B-movie status within its 65-minute runtime and a premise involving "An American in foggy England all by himself". The enjoyment of the film depends on just how much you can take the film at face value with such little time to allow it to coat in interest. But B-movies were a dime a dozen, so those familiar with hazy surroundings will probably just be fine with what the film is selling, and I did eventually go with it, perhaps because sometimes one really does just go with the flow. So here we are with a plot about wrong houses wrapped in pea soup fog, incriminating cigarette cases, and friendly burglars. Armstrong I think is confident enough to hold the ship together with being thrust into such a strange time, which mostly means competent timing that is played for a bit of contrast with everyone that isn't about bluster with the previous Schoedsack ventures. Mack makes a casual lead to get thrust into the proceedings that mainly involves a bit of going along with whatever is happening and a bit of relief when it comes to "trifles". Of course, Young makes for a pleasant bundle of chuckles as the sly fox in the middle of pursuers and bumblers. This includes a minor adversary in Bellamy, who at least seems game within the mild diversion that comes when packed with other minor heavies that see one of them get bonked on the head at one point. As a whole, the enjoyment of the film depends on just how much a diversion one finds within such a short and measurable time, and I think it works out just alright, so take that for what it is worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Cavalcade.

Review #1339: Cavalcade.

Cast: 
Diana Wynyard (Jane Marryot), Clive Brook (Robert Marryot), Una O'Connor (Ellen Bridges), Herbert Mundin (Alfred Bridges), Beryl Mercer (Cook), Irene Browne (Margaret Harris), Tempe Pigott (Mrs. Snapper), Merle Tottenham (Annie), and Frank Lawton (Joe Marryot) Directed by Frank Lloyd (#099 - Mutiny on the Bounty and #1321 - The Sea Hawk)

Review: 
It is easy to say in retrospect what films are memorable or striking for a particular year (particularly when talking about awards for said films of a year). When one thinks of 1933, one would likely think of certain films like King Kong, The Invisible Man, or perhaps even Morning Glory before Cavalcade. This is a strange one, since this was the highest grossing film of the year, and it eventually went on to win the Academy Award for Best Picture in its year, the first and only win for studio Fox Film Corporation before its merger in 1935 along with an award for Lloyd, the second director to win two Academy Awards. Lloyd had a forty-year career directing films for a variety of studios, and this was one of his noted films (the war sequences, however, were directed by William Cameron Menzies). Maybe this is perhaps of its home video history, since its first VHS release came only in 1993, while the first stand-alone release on DVD and Blu-Ray came out in 2013, after being included in one of those prestige movie packs in 2010. This 2013 release came after winning an online write-in poll, which made it the last Best Picture winner to do so (of course it also is available on streaming services, but those don't count for anything). One must note the source material it comes from, a play by famed playwright Noël Coward, which had premiered in 1931 in London, which used hydraulics and moving components on a big stage for great effect. One can give credit for the ambition in making a British production (in terms of stars and writers while Lloyd was born in Scotland), but this generosity does not quite help the film when it comes to actually watching it.

For an epic that spans 30 years, one would be surprised to note that the pace of the 112-minute film makes one feel like they are spending 30 years watching it. Events come and go, but these characters remain flat for most of its run-time, as if the "stiff upper lip" is the only thing worth mentioning of these people. This is a march of platitudes (a fancy word for cliche) that is in search of an idea. Oh sure, one gets to see glimpses of history such as the Boer War, the Titanic, and World War I. But all of it feels tremendously empty, a by-the-numbers kind of romantic drama that seems dated now but certainly must've reeled others more familiar with the dawn of the 20th century than I. With such stagy qualities, one can't quite fault the actors for not quite living up to film standards, where one is left with a sense of detachment. Wynyard was an actress of the stage (before and after being borrowed for this film, a nominated performance), while Brook had fair success abroad from Hollywood before moving back to Britain in a few years later, reportedly in part because of kidnapping threats on his children. In any case, they seem unflappable as one could expect, but it seems hollow nowadays. At least Wynyard proves effective when it comes to the war sequences, checking on to see if her husband (and in another sequence, son) are still alive. The cliches have collapsed into other cliches, honestly. The best instance of that is a sequence involving a newly wed couple, speaking about romantic cliches while aboard a ship on April 1912. Gee, I wonder what ship these folks are on. Of all the events portrayed in the film, this is the only one that seems brushed aside, with the famous wreck of the Titanic and the fate of said characters being talked about just once in dialogue. One can depict flashes of war, the death of Queen Victoria, someone getting run over by horses, but I guess the Titanic is a bit too much. Seriously though, the way in people come and go in this film is astounding, where one would find more emotion present in someone's death in a children's book. At least the film looks like it spans a couple of decades, as opposed to being done on the cheap (not that there's anything wrong with that). On the whole, this is a film that has little enduring power, doing so on the basis of awards from decades ago and milder-than-mild spectacle that make it an antique above usual antiques. If you're into this kind of film, you might find something worth looking into, but for me I found mild disappointment above all, a piece that fits the 1930s in ambition but not one in terms of ultimate enjoyment.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Public Enemy.

Review #494: The Public Enemy.

Cast
James Cagney (Tom Powers), Jean Harlow (Gwen Allen), Edward Woods (Matt Doyle), Joan Blondell (Mamie), Donald Cook (Mike Powers), Leslie Fenton (Nails Nathan), Mae Clarke (Kitty), and Beryl Mercer (Ma Powers) Directed by William A. Wellman (#349 - Wings)

Review
Originally Edward Woods was going to be the main character, until it was decided that Cagney was more effective in the lead role, and it's not hard to see why. Cagney has a distinctive voice for the role and stature, which works especially well for a gangster film. The film itself may seem dated, but it is certainly an interesting look into the criminal world. The rest of the actors are good, and Cagney pairs off well with Woods, which is a fine surprise. The scene most refer to as the most memorable is the grapefruit scene as Cagney smashes it into Mae Clarke's face, leaving in a huff. It certainly is a powerful scene, and it must've been really surprising back in 1931. This film certainly shows its age, given the sound, the use of live ammunition in one scene, but despite that, the film manages to get its point across, about the criminal underbelly of small time gangsters, that can be in any town, any where. Countdown to 500 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.