The Invisible Man's Revenge.

Review #2450: The Invisible Man's Revenge.

Cast: 

Jon Hall (Robert Griffin / The Invisible Man), Leon Errol (Herbert Higgins), John Carradine (Dr. Peter Drury), Alan Curtis (Mark Foster), Evelyn Ankers (Julie Herrick), Gale Sondergaard (Lady Irene Herrick), Lester Matthews (Sir Jasper Herrick), Halliwell Hobbes (Cleghorn), Leyland Hodgson (Sir Frederick Travers), and Doris Lloyd (Maud) Produced and Directed by Ford Beebe. 

Review:

You may or may not remember that The Invisible Man wasn't exactly the Universal favorite. It took seven years from the release of The Invisible Man (1933) to merit a follow-up and, well, they never appeared in one of the Universal crossover movies, so you got The Invisible Man Returns (1940). Instead, you got stuff like The Invisible Woman (1940), a comedy feature (starring Virginia Bruce) and Invisible Agent (1942), a spy movie that happened to have Jon Hall play the title character. With this movie, Hall became the only actor to play an Invisible Man in multiple movies. The movie was directed and produced by Ford Beebe, a grab-bag man of directing various genres for cheap, whether as the Western with Overland Bound (1929), the serial such as Flash Gordon's Trip to Mars (1938) or the adventure with Bomba, the Jungle Boy (1949-1955). The movie was written by Bertram Millhauser, who had written for several mysteries such as four Sherlock Holmes movies. Previously, Beebe had directed a horror movie for Universal with Night Monster (1942).  Universal did one other Invisible Man, albeit as a spoof, with Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man (1951). There were movies abroad that cribbed from the H. G. Wells novel such as The Invisible Man Appears (1949) and The Invisible Avenger (1954), which each had effects work by Eiji Tsuburaya and there was also the Japanese feature The Invisible Man vs. The Human Fly (1957). And then of course there was some overrated Universal movie in 2020.

Now we are in the realm of pushing mad scientists to the sidelines for tired plots about revenge. To put it out of the way, this is the weakest of the three Invisible Man movies. You would think a movie that relies on draining blood from people to maybe become visible again would have an effect on you, but nope, the whole thing is just played for mild-mannered scare. The story (77 minutes long) isn't even that involving either, since the lead character is presented as just a weird guy trying to get revenge, so even if his motives were interesting beyond "maybe" being screwed over in safari, he does his stuff in the most complicated of ways, because it isn't enough to target two people, no, he wants to get their daughter married to him as well. He gets rescued by someone and decides, yes, I'm going to give them a bit of a boost and try to help them win a game of darts too. The ending is sheer audacity in ridiculous: the loyal dog of the guy the Invisible Man kills ends up being responsible for his demise, because he just happened to wander all the way through. Hall in general is too bland to really make this path of "revenge" that interesting. Carradine at least looks enthused to not be in a Universal movie with makeup (he played Count Dracula a few times) but he isn't even allowed to really go off for curiosity. Sure, his plan to help a guy gain visibility (dog gets drained of blood) sounds mad but he is quickly disposed of anyway. To say nothing of the bland triangle between Hall, Curtis, and Hendrick is the easiest thing, because really, getting money sounds more compelling than having to get visible just so you can "get" a girl. Everything is stacked in just doing things in the corniest of ways that don't even make for a great showcase of invisible effects this time, save for a scene or two. As a whole, for a studio that pumped out stuff such as House of Frankenstein the same year as this, you get basically the same amount of rushed ham-handedness for a pretty tired movie. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Sarah and Son.

Review #1648: Sarah and Son.

Cast: 

Ruth Chatterton (Sarah Storm), Fredric March (Howard Vanning), Fuller Mellish Jr (Jim Grey), Gilbert Emery (John Ashmore), Doris Lloyd (Mrs. Ashmore), William Stack (Cyril Belloc), and Philippe De Lacy (Bobby) Directed by Dorothy Arzner.

Review: 

"When I went to work in a studio, I took my pride and made a nice little ball of it and threw it right out the window."

When it comes to the history of women in cinema, one name that should come up in consideration is Dorothy Arzner. There were a selection of female directors  in the first years of the 20th century, although the pioneer in the field was Alice Guy-Blaché, who produced and directed for Gaumont Film Company beginning in 1896 for France. She would later take credit for giving a start to another pioneer with Lois Weber, who would direct and write her own films in the advent of the silent era. The shift to sound alongside the consequences of further focus on commercial interests led to less opportunities for women filmmakers, but one director that found a place within the silent and sound eras was Dorothy Arzner. The California native grew up around the times of actors because her father owned a restaurant near a theatre that would attract various actors to dine. She initially wanted to become a doctor, having studied at the University of Southern California. However, she would shift her interests upon spending a few months with a surgeon's office. The passing of World War I alongside a flu epidemic meant that folks were needed for work, and Arnzer found her chance with Famous Players-Lasky Corporation (now known as Paramount Pictures) and William DeMille. Seeing the units of the studio work led to inspiration, as seeing the unit of Cecil DeMille in directing interested her with his drive of telling folks what to do on set. She would start as a typist before moving to script writing and eventually editing (in a span of six months); she would edit by her estimate 52 films in such a short time that ranged from Blood and Sand (1922) to The Covered Wagon (1923) while observing a variety of directors that ranged from James Cruze to Fred Niblo. In 1927, she was planning to leave for Columbia Pictures to write/direct, but a chance encounter with Walter Wanger (a production head in New York that she encountered upon wanting to say goodbye to anyone before leaving). She would get her chance to direct with Fashions for Women (starring star of the time Esther Ralston), which proved to be a wise choice. She would become noted for directing famed silent actress Clara Bow to her first talkie with The Wild Party (1929), with her idea to create a flexible microphone to help a nervous Bow (essentially creating one of the first boom mics). Among the early films of Arzner, it is the only one of her first five to survive intact. Sarah and Son (1930) is her sixth of eighteen overall films she would direct, with her films at Paramount generally having little interference before she shifted to freelance work by 1933. In that decade, there were only three women who directed a film: Dorothy Davenport, Wanda Tuchock, and Arzner. Her career would last for two decades, marching to the 1940s with First Comes Courage (1943). She would retire after the release of the film (owing to a bout of pneumonia that weakened her right before production ended), although she would work with a variety of professions relating to acting such as the Women's Army Corps with wartime training films, the Pasadena Playhouse, and teaching at the UCLA Film School.

Although her films languished in obscurity for years, there certainly is time still to look upon her perspective of filmmaking. This would be one of the first films that starred Ruth Chatterton, who was known for her stage work at the time (along with, I kid you not, side work as aviator), with successes like this film soon leading to a nickname of "The First Lady of the Screen." (Madame X (1929) and this film would each garner Academy Award nominations) and this was also the second of four films that Arnzer would direct Fredric March (this was the year before his first big role with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde). The film is an adaptation of the novel of the same name by Timothy Shea, with playwright Zoe Akins writing the adaptation. It is the classic melodrama for 86 minutes, involving lost kids, weird spouses, and dangerous peril leading to dramatic last shots. In other words, it's a decent little movie that obviously works on just how much one rolls with the punches of its story in keeping their eyes open. We are talking about a movie that has someone try to fool a mother with a deaf mute kid as their actual son, after all. It's an okay time, since 86 minutes isn't too long to see through to its inevitability and its one key performance. Chatterton does quite well in her range to carry the film within its two segments (1915/1918 and 1928) with patience and interest for playing to dramatic flair without hamming it up for a role requiring some banter and singing. March follows along with some fair charm, playing second fiddle within an okay romance that can only go so far (i.e. finding the child seems more important to think about). This was the third and last role for Mellish Jr, who died a month before release of a hemorrhage at the age of 32. The performance is okay, subdued in those moments spent in the first half that comes and goes quickly. Emery and Lloyd serve as the foils with varying results of middling okay quality. No one is overacting or struggling too much with speaking to the microphone. There are moments here and there that work fine, such as the reunion between mother and son that override sillier moments (the entire segment involving a family believing someone is nuts for thinking their son is totally not adopted) that makes a passable effort. The world didn't really need a dozen of films like this one, but it doesn't hurt to see the perspective of Arzner when it comes to useful melodrama from a time long ago - take it or leave it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

I will admit that I wanted to take some time off, so taking eight days off seemed like a good time to take (I also had to/still am dealing with Blu-Ray player issues). Admittedly, one themed month is usually not enough. March happens to be Women's History Month (and today incidentally is International Women's Day), so the time has come for a trove of films with female directors. Guesses can be made about what is to come, but there certainly will be at least ten films to cover over the month, which I hope will be a good one in terms of varying perspectives.

Next Time: Mädchen in Uniform (1931).

The Ghost of Frankenstein.

Review #845: The Ghost of Frankenstein.

Cast
Lon Chaney Jr. (The Monster), Cedric Hardwicke (Dr. Ludwig Frankenstein/Henry Frankenstein), Ralph Bellamy (Erik Ernst), Lionel Atwill (Dr. Theodore Bohmer), Béla Lugosi (Ygor), Evelyn Ankers (Elsa Frankenstein), Janet Ann Gallow (Cloestine Hussman), Barton Yarborough (Dr. Kettering), Doris Lloyd (Martha), and Leyland Hodgson (Chief Constable) Directed by Erle C. Kenton.

Review

The original three films (#072 - Frankenstein, #394 - Bride of Frankenstein, #844 - Son of Frankenstein) are all entertaining, with Boris Karloff making for a superb monster. This is the first film without Karloff playing the role, with Chaney (who we saw in #260 - The Wolf Man) now taking the role. His performance in this one isn't as interesting, mainly because he never speaks, mainly just lumbering around, more than he did in the last one. The monster this time is wearing a suit (unlike that fur coat from the last one...don't ask how he's back to the suit), and it's a shame that there isn't much to him, save from lifting a girl to try and get a ball midway through the movie. At least Lugosi returns once again, though it isn't as memorably creepy this time. The lines at the end where he talks about living forever are pretty chilling, though. It really a movie only interesting at the end, when the Monster gets some sort of brain surgery. It is a quick movie at 67 minutes, but there really aren't too many great moments to it. I do find it funny that there is another Frankenstein around to operate on the monster (and that the ghost looks like him, too), but also funny that when he looks at the original Frankenstein's notes that it shows clips from the first film. Hardwicke does okay, but he isn't as fun as the other two Frankensteins. The effects are adequate, but it is clear to note this was the first Frankenstein movie made as a "b-picture", with lower budgets and reuse of actors. It's not a bad flick by at means, but it really doesn't seem to do anything new, which is probably why the next film would be a crossover between a familiar monster...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.