The Mummy (1959).

Review #2096: The Mummy (1959).

Cast: 

Peter Cushing (John Banning), Christopher Lee (Kharis / The Mummy), Yvonne Furneaux (Isobel Banning / Princess Ananka), Eddie Byrne (Inspector Mulrooney), Felix Aylmer (Stephen Banning), Raymond Huntley (Joseph Whemple), George Pastell (Mehemet Bey), Michael Ripper (Poacher), George Woodbridge (P. C. Blake), and Harold Goodwin (Pat) Directed by Terence Fisher (#257 - The Curse of Frankenstein, #258 - Dracula (1958), #272 - The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959), #469 - The Revenge of Frankenstein, #833 - Spaceways, #857 - Frankenstein Created Woman, #858 - Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed, and #859 - Dracula: Prince of Darkness, #1280 - The Brides of Dracula)

Review: 

"I have always strenuously tried to avoid being blatant in my pictures. Instead, whenever possible, I have used the camera to show things - especially nasty things - happening by implication."

If you recall, Hammer was on a roll with horror films fit for the international tastes. The successes of The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) proved that Terence Fisher was the right and reliable pick for Hammer's big venture in horror, and his subsequent direction of Dracula (1958) started yet another franchise for Hammer. Who better to do a film involving another monster with familiar cast and crew involved? While the film one might think of it as a remake of The Mummy since it has the same time, it actually seems more in line with the three sequels since the last name of Banning and the name of Kharis came from those, while The Mummy's Ghost also involved a swamp for its climax (at any rate, instead of tana leaves, one sees a Scroll of Life). In general, Universal (releaser of those classic horror films) distributed the film under the "International" label for, well, international releases. The film was written by Jimmy Sangster, who had written several scripts for previous Hammer films. Evidently, the writer of the 1932 adaptation in Nina Wilcox Putnam thought it was "disgusting" and was displeased that it was done without her knowledge or consent (ironic, since the resulting film is considerably superior to the older film in most respects). Three further films were done by Hammer with mummies with The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (1964), The Mummy's Shroud (1967), and Blood from the Mummy's Tomb (1971); of these, only Pastell returned to appear in any of the films from the original cast, and he only appeared in Tomb; perhaps not surprisingly, none of the films were as successful as the original.

It probably would surprise nobody that the film was a reliable success with how efficient it is with being a viscerally gripping feature that exceeds the original Mummy films with plenty to spare. It is a vibrant feature beyond just being in color, to put it mildly. It is familiar routine (lost loves and impending doom) but it is entertaining routine that does not waver from its goals with distracting relief or imbalances. One would like to not play favorites with film-watching when it comes to acting, but I always find myself smiling at the prospect of seeing Christopher Lee in a lead role, even if it involves him under plenty of makeup, which is exquisite. With a role that invites only dialogue for the flashback sequence (for obvious reasons), he makes for a quality threat that has a looming wandering quality of tragedy that makes a distinct monster than if one simply had a stuntman do it all because of the eyes that come out to play; incidentally, he suffered a handful of injuries on the film, such as separating his shoulder for a break-in sequence. This also applies to Cushing, who has the great dignity required to make his leading qualities all the more enterprising for someone to follow along, because heaven knows there is no man that can deliver exposition like he can. Furneaux is the lookalike that is really more of an alluring presence in the latter part of the film, which goes about as well as you would think in passive energy. The supporting cast is fine, although it is mostly headlined by Pastell and his fervent energy. There are a handful of scenes one could highlight, such as the first sight of the mummy rising, or perhaps the story of how the mummy came to be (exposition is great when delivered by Cushing and Lee being present), but the sequence where Cushing essentially taunts Pastell with regard to his beliefs just to stoke the flame a bit probably should be mentioned. At any rate, it is a gripping feature made in the perfect time for Hammer to stoke the flames of spooking its audience in consistent entertaining fashion with a game cast and director to accomplish everything required to make one of the most interesting films involving mummies of its time. For the Hammer fan at heart, this is one of the more entertaining efforts by the company.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Tomorrow: AIP double feature.

Henry V (1944).

Review #1788: Henry V.

Cast: 

Laurence Olivier (King Henry V of England), Renée Asherson (Princess Katherine), Robert Newton (Ancient Pistol), Leslie Banks (the Chorus), Felix Aylmer (the Archbishop of Canterbury), Robert Helpmann (the Bishop of Ely), Vernon Greeves (The English Herald), Gerald Case (the Earl of Westmoreland), Griffith Jones (the Earl of Salisbury), Morland Graham (Sir Thomas Erpingham), Nicholas Hannen (the Duke of Exeter), Michael Warre (the Duke of Gloucester), Ralph Truman (Mountjoy, The French Herald), Ernest Thesiger (Duke of Berri, French Ambassador), Frederick Cooper (Corporal Nym), Roy Emerton (Lieutenant Bardolph), Freda Jackson (Mistress Quickly), George Cole (the Boy), George Robey (Sir John Falstaff), Harcourt Williams (King Charles VI of France), Russell Thorndike (the Duke of Bourbon), Leo Genn (The Constable of France), Francis Lister (the Duke of Orleans), Max Adrian (The Dauphin), Jonathan Field (The French Messenger), Esmond Knight (Fluellen, Welsh Captain in the English Army), Michael Shepley (Gower, Captain in the English Army), John Laurie (Jamy, Scottish Captain in the English Army), and Niall MacGinnis (MacMorris, Irish Captain in the English Army) Directed by Laurence Olivier.

Review: 

Admittedly, covering a war-time effort is an interesting story in talking about a film. Of course, we are talking about the directorial debut of one Laurence Olivier, who did five overall theatrical productions to go along with his more famous vocation as an actor. As one might expect, he started in the stage, specifically debuting as an actor for the All Saints Choir School at the age of nine. He dabbled in acting on numerous occasions as a growing child, and it was the encouragement of his father that led him to do the profession. He studied at the Central School of Dramatic Art before starting his professional line of work in theater in 1926 (doing so before he was even twenty). He added films to his line of work in 1930, but it wasn't until Wuthering Heights (1939) that he truly received international notice. He showed dedication to any craft he desired to do, whether as an actor or in the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm when World War II approached. He took on theater operating afterwards, which included directing/starring in Shakespearian roles. We are also talking about the first adaptation of a William Shakespeare work that received wide-spread acclaim. Olivier was asked by BBC TV director Dalas Bower (a member of the Ministry of Information) if he could do a rendition of Henry V (written by William Shakespeare roughly around 1599) for film as part of boosting the morale of the public. Olivier had starred in As You Like It (1936), but he felt that it was a considerable challenge to make a film of a Shakespeare work (specifically with the Hollywood angle with directing actors for certain scenes with Shakespeare dialogue - that film along with A Midsummer Night's Dream (1935) and Romeo and Juliet (1936) were each considered flops). At any rate, Olivier stated that it was William Wyler who inspired him to direct the film himself, which would utilize England's lone Technicolor camera at the time (along with filming in Ireland for the battle and England studios...for the rest). Olivier received two of the four Academy Awards (the film was released in America in 1946), and he was rewarded with an Honorary Academy Award for his efforts in bringing the film to the screen. His next effort in Hamlet (1948) would be the first non-American film to win Best Picture and earn Olivier an Academy Award victory for acting (and producing). The next big effort to do the play into a film would not be done until 1989 by Kenneth Branagh, which received notice in its own right (as it contrasts this film with its own presentation of the material that was described as more realistic).

Certain aspects of the play were omitted, mostly in its presentation of the title character (who in one sequence in the play hanged a friend for crimes committed against the French); Olivier, alongside Dallas Bower and Alan Dent, did un-credited work in the writing in bringing Shakespeare's words to the screen. With its lavish sense of color and framing, it likely isn't a surprise that the film (eventually) was a noted international hit with audiences (one that would see the presentation of French royalty in this film as akin to certain current threats of the time), one that was set in both 1415-1420 and 1600, as it is presented as "THE Chronicle History of KING HENRY THE FIFTH with his battle fought at Agincourt in France BY Will Shakespeare" by a Chorus that tells its audience to let imaginary forces work to picture the production. It is all the things one might expect from 137 minutes of classic British cinema, warts and all. It is efficient in the ways intended with stirring passion for its subject matter that makes for a mostly grabbing effort from folks clearly interested in having Shakespeare resonate on the screen. Regardless of where it ranks in British cinema, it has a key place in entertainment value for its country. It is spectacle (with sweeping William Walton music) that grows on you, pure and simple. Olivier obviously was ready to direct a major motion picture along with act as its star, and he does so with confidence that builds through the film with brimming interest. He acts to the screen with the right timing that works for theatrical sensibility (i.e. it doesn't seem molded for only a stage), one with relentless drive that makes the whole experience (such as the St. Crispin Day speech) worth it. The rest of the cast have their own varying levels of presence, most notably with Leslie Banks as the Chorus or with the comic relief. As a whole, it is medieval pageantry that does what it is intended to in stoking the war effort that is both spectacle and curiosity without becoming dated or a Shakespearian misstep, acting dignified without becoming obstinate. It serves as a worthy debut for its actor/director/producer in all the ways, for what it is worth.

Next Time: Rome, Open City.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Ivanhoe (1952).

Review #946: Ivanhoe.

Cast:
Robert Taylor (Sir Wilfred of Ivanhoe), Elizabeth Taylor (Rebecca), Joan Fontaine (Rowena), George Sanders (Sir Brian De Bois-Guilbert), Emlyn Williams (Wamba), Robert Douglas (Sir Hugh De Bracy), Finlay Currie (Sir Cedric of Ivanhoe), Felix Aylmer (Isaac of York), Francis de Wolff (Front De Boeuf), Norman Wooland (King Richard), and Basil Sydney (Waldemar Fitzurse) Directed by Richard Thorpe (#327 - Jailhouse Rock)

Review:
Based off the historical novel of the same name by Sir Walter Scott, Ivanhoe manages to shine as a fine piece of entertainment, filled with Technicolor spectacle and costumes to go with it. I can't say it's as good as The Adventures of Robin Hood (#505), for example, but it is at least a pretty interesting piece of work. Robert Taylor is a capable lead, managing to give off a commanding presence pretty quickly. An interesting fact is that Taylor, along with Thorpe and producer Pandro S. Berman, would later make two more films together in the next few years (Knights of the Round Table and The Adventures of Quentin Durward), forming an unofficial trilogy. Elizabeth Taylor does a fine job in this sweet but also capable character. Fontaine doesn't have as much to do, but she gives off a competent feel. The three form an interesting love triangle that does prove somewhat compelling, alongside the main plot, anyway. Sanders is the main adversary, and he does an alright job in making him somewhat three dimensional, particularly around the end of the film. The Norman-Saxon plot is decent, though nothing too special. Miklós Rózsa does a fine job with the music score, being quite heroic and quite fitting for the movie. The jousting sequence is well executed, and the battles are also pretty well done in capturing excitement and pacing.  Within its 106 minute run-time is a movie that balances a fine line between action and structure that does not drag itself too often, and while it may succeed more in the former than the latter, it definitely is worth consideration, with its spirit of thrills outweighing the risks.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.