The Son of Dr. Jekyll.

Review #2602: The Son of Dr. Jekyll.

Cast: 

Louis Hayward (Edward Jekyll / Dr. Henry Jekyll and Mr. Edward Hyde), Jody Lawrance (Lynn Utterson), Alexander Knox (Dr. Curtis Lanyon), Lester Matthews (Sir John Utterson), Gavin Muir (Richard Daniels), Paul Cavanagh (Inspector Stoddard), and Rhys Williams (Michaels) Directed by Seymour Friedman.

Review:  

I suppose it makes sense to have at least one movie start off as an outlandish joke. Jack Pollexfen and Mortimer Braus came up with the idea initially when talking about outlandish film titles that had them wondering if they could knock out a quick story involving, well, the son of Jekyll. They got Columbia Pictures to buy into it, although they would not be involved with the production. You might recognize Pollexfen for his work on such films as The Man from Planet X, which he co-wrote and co-produced; he had decided to become a writer in the 1940s after initially working as a reporter that eventually saw him transition to low-budget filmmaking. The third writer involved with the film was Edward Huebsch, who ended up at the tail end of his writing career because of his ties to the League of American Writers that had him included on the Hollywood blacklist (he attempted a comeback with co-writing the adaptation of Twilight's Last Gleaming in 1977). Incidentally, Pollexfen ended up doing a few other "continuation" scripts, as he also did Return to Treasure Island (1954) to go along with writing and producing Daughter of Dr. Jekyll [1957]. He continued to do films such as Indestructible Man [1956] until his last production in 1964. For a cheapie production, Columbia got Seymour Friedman, a journeyman director who made a handful of movies in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

Well, when you make a movie that takes place in the "aftermath" of a story, you might as well go all-in in the absurdity: a title card talks about the "climax [of] his brutality" in Mr. Hyde killing his wife and running down the street from a mob only to be trapped up top in the mansion that sees him fall to his death. Of course, there is a poor new orphan in 1860 that needs to be kept secret in his origins with regards to a trusteeship until it comes to a pass in 1890 with a man who wants to set the record straight on his father and oh damn it, this is just cribbing a bit from Son of Frankenstein from ol' 1939, isn't it? A good chunk of it is Hayward trying to navigate the game of public perception of being the son of someone associated as a monster. The bounds of prejudice (which range from a rat reporter trying to grab a story or kids throwing rocks) naturally covers a select group of ground before the mystery eventually unravels that basically loops the story back to where we started in a town ready to get the torches ready back in the old mansion. All of this comes for a movie where you can only drag out a mystery for so long (78 minutes) before you go, "well, there's only so many people worth checking...", and it all builds up to a very mediocre movie. Hayward had a steady enough career (thrillers, adventures, dramas) to where I'm sure calling him a discount Basil Rathbone would not be the worst thing in the world for a movie that he just never lifts up beyond wannabee redemption stuff that goes in one ear and out the other; it isn't even worth seeing him paired with Lawrance as the would-be married couple, and to say nothing of Knox and whatever you call his "motivations". In a different movie, perhaps in a different time, it could've been one of those experiments worth trying out to see how horrific the world can be when wrapped up in prejudice and people willing to profit off of it...but it all feels flat, as if nobody could be bothered to make a compelling toady to want to them humbled or added to the body count. Bland jerks just aren't enough to deliver any kind of atmosphere for a movie, pure and simple. As a whole, this readily available movie isn't exactly on the high-end of the totem pole of Jekyll & Hyde movies, but its curious little moments ensure that things could always be better and most surely could be worse too.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

The House of Fear (1945).

Review #1161: The House of Fear.

Cast: 
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson), Aubrey Mather (Bruce Alastair), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Paul Cavanagh (Dr. Simon Merivale), Holmes Herbert (Alan Cosgrave), Harry Cording (Captain John Simpson), Sally Shepherd (Mrs. Monteith), and Gavin Muir (Mr. Chalmers) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, #925 - Sherlock Holmes in Washington, #936 - Sherlock Holmes Faces Death, #1021 - The Spider Woman, #1040 - The Scarlet Claw, and #1056 - The Pearl of Death)

Review: 
The House of Fear is the tenth film of the Rathbone-Bruce series of Sherlock Holmes movies, released seven months after the previous installment in March 1945. It would prove to be the first of three Holmes features released in 1945 - the second (The Woman in Green) was released in July and the third (Pursuit to Algiers) was released in October. The credits state that the film was based off the 1891 story "The Adventure of the Five Orange Pips" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, although it seems the only thing the film took from it was the orange pips, which are present in letters sent to a group of men (all seven of which who have life insurance policies) living in a castle prior to their deaths, one by one. The mystery itself is a bit shaky, but at least there is some atmosphere present and a fairy game ensemble cast to push the film towards respectability, even with a collection of cliches (house on a cliff, spooky servants, secret passageways, odd villagers, etc). One wonders how to describe Rathbone playing a role that he played consistently for six years (in film and on radio) that defined him without feeling like a broken record; he does a fine job with the material he is given without feeling tired, and that's the best thing that can happen for this film. Bruce is at task to deliver the qualities expected from being the second banana to Rathbone, giving off some comic relief (most notably a bit with an owl), but at least he does play some part in the final deduction for the better. Mather plays the nervous one okay, and the other members of people in the castle are all okay, although there really isn't much of a villianous presence besides Shepherd creeping about while giving the men their letters. Hoey also does a bit of stumbling about as Lestrade in his fifth go at the role, of which he did six times, appearing in Terror by Night the following year. On the whole, it's not hard to see that the filmmakers were pretty comfortable with how they were making these mystery films as efficiently and quickly as possible (taking only a few weeks to make on cheap b-movie budgets) - with this one running at just 69 minutes. It isn't too ridiculous nor too boring to spend some time with. If you are a fan of the series of films with Rathbone and Bruce, this one will prove just fine for viewers and it works fine for anybody looking to pass some time with a film that has some good old-fashioned mystery cliches - right down to its title. The film isn't the best or worst of the series, being a middle-of-the-road kind of movie that is alright on its merits.

Next Review: Overlord (2018).

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Sherlock Holmes Faces Death.

Review #936: Sherlock Holmes Faces Death.

Cast:
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. John Watson), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Arthur Margetson (Dr. Bob Sexton), Hillary Brooke (Sally Musgrave), Halliwell Hobbes (Alfred Brunton), Minna Phillips (Mrs. Howells), Milburn Stone (Captain Vickary), Gavin Muir (Phillip Musgrave), and Gerald Hamer (Major Langford) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, and #925 - Sherlock Holmes in Washington)

Review:
I hope that I am not boring you folks with the reviews of these certain films; I do indeed have some interest in these detective films, which clearly have some sort of appeal for me. This is the sixth of the Rathbone series (#583 - The Hound of the Baskervilles, #721 - The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, #798 - Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, and #925), but this one is a mystery revolving around murder in a house (instead of something involving the war, though there are military characters present). After three films of wartime infused spy plots, this certainly comes off as refreshing (honestly, the title is a bit strange - doesn't he always face people dying?). One of my favorite scenes is when Holmes realizes one of the clues in a "ritual" involves a checkerboard floor on one of the rooms, and naturally Holmes decides to use the people in the house in order to act the ritual out. The film runs smoothly enough at 68 minutes, mixing capable characters alongside Rathbone and Bruce (with his character having a bit more competence than before) as expected. One of the more quirky scenes with Rathbone is him talking to a squawking raven. It isn't the best Holmes film with Rathbone (for me, nothing tops the first film), but it certainly is an improvement over the previous three movies, in part because of the way it operates itself. The villain (Margetson), while not strong or particular clever, is somewhat satisfying in that he is not merely one dimensional. Brooke is a somewhat fair supporting actress (the most quirky scene involving her is one where she is reciting a ritual and a bolt of lightning strikes through a window and hits a suit of armor near her). It ends with a dialogue between the two main actors about a "new spirit abroad the land" that isn't about greed (inspired by an act of selflessness by Brooke's character), which is interesting if not somewhat broad. The mystery is entertaining enough, and this is a fairly good way to spend an afternoon with a serviceable type of movie like this.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Sherlock Holmes in Washington.

Review #925: Sherlock Holmes in Washington.

Cast:
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. Watson), Marjorie Lord (Nancy Partridge), Henry Daniell (William Easter), George Zucco (Heinrich Hinkel), John Archer (Lt. Pete Merriam), Gavin Muir (Mr. Lang, government agent), and Edmund MacDonald (Detective Lt. Grogan) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man and #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon)

Review:
This is the fifth film to star Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes (#583 - The Hound of the Baskervilles, #721: The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, #798: Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror, #873: Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon). This was released in April of 1943, barely a few months after the previous film was released (having gone into general release in February after premiering in December). At 71 minutes, this runs a bit longer than the previous two films, with a fine climax involving Rathbone and Zucco, who exchange a good amount of dialogue with each other that is nifty while helping the movie get some sort of momentum. Much like the last film, it goes through the motions of a spy flick made during the war with some sort of coherence and logic. The parts in the beginning (on a train) do have some cleverness to them in watching how it is executed, though the middle edges (with occasional use of stock footage) don't compare as well. Rathbone and Bruce are up to their usual level of class, with the latter having brief moments of amusement, such as drinking milkshakes (after all, they are in America). Lord is decent as the innocent, with some degree of entertaining nature. Here's a brief summary of the film: Secret info gets turned into microfilm that is hidden into a certain type of object that falls in innocent hands. Obviously this isn't something too new (nor something that wasn't done after this film), but it works in some part to see how far the thrills try to go. There is at least some sort of effort by the others to make it seem tolerable. Notably, the movie ends with the main two characters having an exchange about America and a quote by Winston Churchill about justice and peace. It's a feel good kind of movie that will work for anyone looking for some more Sherlock things. Is it good? Not particularly (for me, anyway), but I'm sure that it'll work for others looking for some form of entertainment.

Footnote: At least this film isn't The Boy Next Door.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.