Red River.

Review #1773: Red River.

Cast: 

John Wayne (Thomas Dunson), Montgomery Clift (Matthew "Matt" Garth), Walter Brennan (Nadine Groot), Joanne Dru (Tess Millay), Coleen Gray (Fen), Harry Carey (Mr. Melville), John Ireland (Cherry Valance), Noah Beery Jr. (Buster McGee), Harry Carey Jr. (Dan Latimer), (Two Jaw Quo), and Paul Fix (Teeler Yacey) Produced and Directed by Howard Hawks (#951 - The Big Sleep, #1352 - His Girl Friday, #1399 - Rio Bravo, #1687 - O. Henry's Full House), with co-direction by Arthur Rosson.

Review: 

I'm sure we all know the name Howard Hawks as a director. At least, I would hope so, in part because how diverse he managed to be within his filmmaking that spanned four decades within all of the major studios and multiple genres. He did films in his particular way that inspired plenty of future directors even after his death. Red River (1948) was the first of five Westerns that he would direct in his career, and it also would be the first of five films Hawks directed with Wayne as star. The film is adapted from Blazing Guns on the Chisholm Trail, a 1946 novel originally serialized in The Saturday Evening Post (albeit without the "Blazing Guns" part of the title, which was added for the hardcover publication) that was written by Borden Chase. When Chase chafed at changes to the story (one that resembled Mutiny on the Bounty, albeit with a fictionalized angle at a cattle drive), Charles Schnee was brought in to do the screenplay as well, with the two not actually writing together. Chase would write a variety of screenplays and stories, such as with Winchester '73 while Schnee would write and produce for films such as The Bad and the Beautiful. By this point in time, Arthur Rosson had moved from featuredirecting to do work as a second unit director, most notably for Cecil B. DeMille, but for this film he was given credit as a co-director, as he had shot some of the cattle drive and action sequences (as such, he gets credit here as a director, instead of using that weasely "co-director" label that is still present with certain animated features). The film was shot in 1946 but was delayed for two years, with a great deal of editing done by Christian Nyby. Somehow, right as the film had premiered in 1948, Howard Hughes claimed similarities between this film and The Outlaw (1943) with its climatic fight, and you may remember Hawks had been fired from the earlier film. This resulted in a few seconds being cut out in order to fast-track the film for the studio rather than deal with a frivolous lawsuit they would have won handily over Hughes and the content of his alleged Western. There existed two different versions of the film: The pre-release cut lasted 133 minutes while featuring shots of a diary for transition shots; the cuts forced by the lawsuit resulted in a 127 minute film (Hawks also commissioned Brennan to provide a voiceover instead of those shots). When interviewed late in his life (specifically an interview with Peter Bogdanovich), Hawks stated his preference for the shorter version, but it has not stopped the debate over just what version seems better.

You have to remember that Wayne is a movie star bigger than life, an icon that certainly stood differently in presence depending on just who was directing him. The lasting quote about him in this film comes from long-time collaborator John Ford, who famously stated (whether facetious or not) that he didn't know he could act. Well, Wayne does what he does in terms of handling the frontier front and center, only this time with an imitation of Captain Ahab with a granite foundation that works quite well with a look at a different Wayne (if only slightly): middle age. 1948 was the first year folks could see Clift on screen as an actor (he had starred on the stage for over ten years), with this coming out after The Search. He does quite well here, standing well against Wayne in conviction in not getting lost within such presence. You see the conflict within him about the measure of what being a man is, especially after being part of a makeshift family only to leave and comeback from it. It may be a Western, but it also could be thought of as a family tragedy too, since this involves the inevitability of what has to happen between father and son when it comes to being a man. Brennan accompanies the two with the expected supporting presence that matches with both with resourceful chemistry (as would be expected from a semi-regular on Hawks films). When Dru finally comes onto the screen, she brings an added edge needed when either paired with Clift or Wayne in a scene (the best one is the first though, involving her mood during a fight before casually taking an arrow to the arm). The rest of the character presences make their parts count well, whether that means a casual Ireland or the various associates that stand starkly to the granite-laced Wayne in terms of drive, which only makes the build to the climax all the more interesting. Apparently, Clift didn't care much for the overall conclusion (or his overall acting), which is strange, because it actually is quite interesting in sticking out from just being a fistfight. It doesn't seem like the "farce" that he thought it was in my mind - besides, Chase's story has one of them die, and we are talking about a film involving both family conflict amid a clash of relentless drive and youth along with moving cattle (Hawks and Chase did not exactly get along anyway). It seems quite foolish to learn a lesson right before they die anyway, and the film is called "Red River", not "Showdown at Red River", so there. The movie isn't perfect, but the ending isn't a letdown in the long run. It is an odyssey, pure and simple.

At any rate, Hawks created a worthy epic that isn't weighed down by needing a large scope or folks to try and reach over the presence of Wayne, because he has the skills of editor Nyby to go with Dimitri Tiomkin as a driving music composer and Russell Harlan in sweeping cinematographer to go with a dynamic cast that does what is needed in worthy entertainment. It is the classic imperfect Western for its time, one that moves steadfast for what Hawks wants to display about the nature of being a man that couldn't have been done by anyone else but him. In that sense, he did it exactly to his standards.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars

Kansas City Confidential.

Review #1381: Kansas City Confidential.

Cast: 
John Payne (Joe Rolfe), Coleen Gray (Helen Foster), Preston Foster (Tim Foster), Neville Brand (Boyd Kane), Lee Van Cleef (Tony Romano), Jack Elam (Pete Harris), Dona Drake (Teresa), and Mario Siletti (Tomaso) Directed by Phil Karlson.

Review: 
"This was so far ahead of itself that I say these pictures have been copied and recopied so many times. Unfortunately Phil Karlson never got the credit for it because I've never been a publicity hound. I come from the school where what we want to be judged by is up on the screen, not by how well I know so-and-so or so-and-so."

One can always find themselves in the mood for a hardboiled noir, whether it has a budget behind it or stars to look forward to. This falls right into the alley for producer Edward Small, who had a lengthy career of 53 years from his first Who's Your Neighbor? (1917) to The Christine Jorgensen Story (1970). Small produced a variety of genres and worked with various studios in his time through his production company, such as Eagle-Lion Films with Raw Deal (1948) and United Artists with films such as Witness for the Prosecution (1957). One particular director that worked with Small was Phil Karlson, with this being one of eight films that the two worked on together. Karlson worked on a variety of small films for a various group of studios from his start at Monogram Pictures to Columbia Pictures that worked for a variety of actors, such as John Payne, Elvis Presley, Dean Martin, and Joe Don Baker in a career of 31 years that had standouts such as The Phenix City Story (1955), The Silencers (1966), and Walking Tall (1973). Three further films were made with the Confidential title in New York Confidential (1955), Chicago Confidential (1957), and Hong Kong Confidential (1958), all of which were produced by Small.

One can see the makings of an interesting little film with its semi-documentary look and a composed pace of 99 minutes that generates a neat noir worthy of consideration from the public domain. One film that seems to have taken some inspiration from this was Reservoir Dogs (1992) with its aspects of the robbery. The screenplay was done by George Bruce and Harry Essex, while Harold Greene and Rowland Brown did the story. Payne (known for his musical and noir roles) does a fine job in his weary urgency, capable of throwing a punch alongside casual criminal conversation. Gray accompanies the film once the film jumps to its real setting (Mexico, filmed in California), and she makes for a fair innocent presence in a film with plenty of shade around her. Foster proves to be a sharp careful presence as the film's big bad, one that differs from the usual in being a good cop gone bad. Brand, Van Cleef, and Elam make for adequate heavies to view alongside the blunt nature of the film, comprised of the perfect caper and the attempts to escape its consequences. It follows plenty of noir aspects to a T with its own blunt edge that overcomes some of its low-budget limitations. Sure, it is the kind of film that you can see coming with its endgame, but it is all in the chase that really matters in the long run, where darkness has a little light at the end of the tunnel. In that regard, this is a fair experience to behold, one with plenty of punches to pack in its little cynical world without becoming a parody of itself, filled with a carefully picked cast and capable directing to make a fair gem worth thinking about at least once.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Vampire (1957).

Review #1291: The Vampire.

Cast: 
John Beal (Dr. Paul Beecher), Coleen Gray (Carol Butler), Kenneth Tobey (Sheriff Buck Donnelly), Lydia Reed (Betsy Beecher), Dabbs Greer (Dr. Will Beaumont), Herb Vigran (George Ryan), Paul Brinegar (Willy Warner), Ann Staunton (Marion Wilkins), and James Griffith (Henry Winston) Directed by Paul Landres (#848 - The Return of Dracula)

Review: 
It does seem like a nice way to tie the month together with a generic-sounding horror film with a vampire, seeing how I started the month with another generic-sounding title film with a werewolf. The one thing that this film shares with that film (aside from being an independent movie) is its science-fiction take on a creature of the supernatural - in this case, a guy turned into a vampire because he accidentally took experimental pills dealing with vampire bat blood and regressing animal minds to a primitive state. The vampire himself doesn't show up for most of its 75 minute run-time (for good reason, as one might say), but at least it is somewhat compelling with its sci-fi/horror crossroad to make it a light curiosity. The acting does tend to do just fine, such as the vulnerable yet humble Beal, who one can at take at face value with his struggle, showing some anguish for a film that badly needs it. The other actors are okay, with Greer generally seeming the most interesting when interacting with our lead, especially when it comes to dealing with the possibility of a "vampire". It isn't so much that the film is boring or such, but it just doesn't have enough of a spark going consistently, particularly with scares. The addiction angle is at least an interesting take when it comes to vampires, but it is amusing to note that the same director, writer (Pat Fielder), and producers (Arthur Gardner and Jules V. Levy) would return to do another vampire film the following year with The Return of Dracula - that actually turned out a bit better when it came to handling its vampire lead, actually. The makeup for the vampire is a bit of a disappointment. It has a lumpy composition, where those big eyebrows and hands make it seem more of a take on Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - of course it should be noted that this creature doesn't have any weaknesses that you would see in any other fictional vampires, where he gets taken down by bullets at the end. I suppose one can only do so much with a low budget (reported to around $110,000), but a tighter design would've gone a long way towards making this a bit more easy to take seriously. Actually, tighter pacing might have also been a big help as well, along with a better way to stage a climax that doesn't just have him just being shot in daylight (no, I am not saying a fight in a dark castle, although that amuses me more than suburban horror). On the whole, this is a film made on the cheap that will do the basic requirements needed that works best when found down the line on a dark cold night with not much else to do.

Happy Halloween. But the fun is not over yet...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.