The Return of the Vampire.

Review #2260: The Return of the Vampire.

Cast: 

Bela Lugosi (Armand Tesla), Nina Foch (Nicki Saunders), Roland Varno (John Ainsley), Frieda Inescort (Lady Jane Ainsley), Miles Mander (Sir Fredrick Fleet), Matt Willis (Andreas Obry), Ottola Nesmith (Elsa Walter), Gilbert Emery (Dr. Walter Saunders), Leslie Denison (Detective Lynch), and William Austin (Detective Gannett) Directed by Lew Landers.

Review: 

Believe it or not, I actually was trying to find time to do this film for quite a few years. Sure, it probably doesn't sound like much, what with the title being probably the most generic one could ever do...but it is Bela Lugosi playing a vampire again. Sure, Mark of the Vampire (as directed by Tod Browning in 1935) had you going with the idea of Lugosi as a lead vampire (until that twist), but, well, here you get the real deal. This is for a movie that is basically a discount version of Dracula (1931), complete with a subservient person that, uh, turns into a wolf. It was released by Columbia Pictures, who could be efficient in cheap B-moviemaking, which is probably evident pretty quickly here, complete with select stock footage shots (the climax involves WWII footage, take a guess what that means). The film was written by Randall Faye and Griffin Jay based on an idea by Kurt Neumann; Faye was a regular writer (and sometimes director) on plenty of cheap features from 1926 until he died in 1948. The movie was directed by Lew Landers, who actually had a handful of experience in horror as a journeyman director, as he went from actor to assistant director by the early 1920s before becoming a director of pretty much anything and anywhere, such as The Raven (1935), which also featured Lugosi as star (Landers would then shift over to TV by the 1950s prior to his death in 1962). It wasn't quite the last time Lugosi played a vampire, but further efforts were, well, comedies such as Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) and Mother Riley Meets the Vampire (1952). The movie was released in the same year as Universal's Son of Dracula and ended up being a decent hit.

You have to remember that Lugosi was basically typecasted after the success of Dracula (1931), particularly because of his Hungarian accent (of course by that time he was a naturalized US citizen). He couldn't get that many starring roles unless it involved horror or being with studios beyond Universal Studios. Chronic sciatica (and taking drugs to treat it that left him addicted) did not help matters for an actor that was relegated to doing stuff for studios such as Monogram Pictures. This was one of those rare times in the 1940s where he could actually do something as a star for a name studio, and I think he handled it confidently enough to make one want to see it as more than just a cheap Dracula imitation. Lacking the elegance befitting of the older film for something more akin to a creature of the night, he carries the film when required to do so to go with a movie that is generally paced well enough to let things go where they need to without overextending itself. Sure, it was made during the war, but there sure is something to making a vampire feature involving "bombing raids" with complete seriousness for a runtime of 69 minutes. Inescort and Mander prove suitable presences to do the investigative aspects required (the "vampire pursuit" is a bit cheekier when you consider the ending is addressing the audience!). Foch plays the object of pursuit patiently enough to make one go with the usual flow. Willis doesn't exactly have the werewolf makeup do him many favors, but the dilemma of a once-devotee is at least semi-compelling enough to view in the lens of trouble and toil to be free. I kind of like the idea of having a vampire tale told in two different war-time settings (the opening quarter of the film involves Emery and Inescort during 1918 putting a stake in the vampire only to inspire questions about putting a stake in a "living" person 25 years later!), complete with the vampire trying to impersonate a concentration camp escapee. It is the kind of brazen horror film that one can appreciate even as a clearly average movie, and the fact that Lugosi was there to lead the way rather than be trapped by a hokey foundation is a worthwhile thing to say when recommending a decent way to start the horror season.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Welcome to October. It probably won't be as busy as last year's extravagant event, but we will try to cover plenty of new ground in horror, whether that involves sequels long awaited or remakes to go along with new directors and familiar ones. For example, the next review is Macabre and the one after that...is Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III.

Goin' to Town.

Review #2007: Goin' to Town.

Cast: 

Mae West (Cleo Borden), Paul Cavanagh (Edward Carrington), Gilbert Emery (Winslow), Marjorie Gateson (Mrs. Crane Brittony), Tito Coral (Taho), Ivan Lebedeff (Ivan Valadov), Fred Kohler (Buck Gonzales), Monroe Owsley (Fletcher Colton), and Grant Withers (Young Stud) Directed by Alexander Hall.

Review: 

Mae West made twelve films as an actress, if you can believe that. She was 39 when she made her debut with Night after Night (1932), and it was a comic relief role that she wrote her own dialogue for. That isn't a surprise when you consider that the Brooklyn native, who had been involved in shows from a young age, had cultivated a reputation on the stage for several years before signing a short deal with Paramount Pictures. 1933 saw her rocket into film name status with the releases of She Done Him Wrong and I'm No Angel, both featuring her with Cary Grant. Her trip of stardom subsided after The Heat's On (1943), one of only two films that she did not contribute to the script or dialogue in any shape or form, although she continued to do work in the stage and clubs, free from the preening censor-happy boards that had hindered her later film work (let it be known that the only time I decry lewd amusement is when it isn't particularly funny, such as with, say, Myra Breckinridge). As such, Goin' to Town saw her write the screenplay based on a story by Marion Morgan and George B. Dowell. Not to be forgotten is Alexander Hall, a theatre actor from a young age who worked as a silent actor before eventually moving on to production of film with editing, assistant directing, and well, contract directing. He directed a handful of films from 1932 to 1956, with Here Comes Mr. Jordan (1941) probably being his most notable feature.

The point of picking films on a whim is not so much to give a spotlight to just the best films one has to offer but doing films that, well, will give someone a spotlight worth talking about and then see what goes from there. As a 74-minute attempt at musical comedy, it is fine. West dominates one's attention with her mannerisms and some of her lines that seem to hit and miss in the idea of curtailed risqué, as if the idea of a woman trying to become a lady while having fun with the bounds of courtship needs to be toned in some sort of way. But West always seems on her element, one who simmers what would probably a bland pot of plot with a lesser actress and makes it a worthwhile time (how can one go wrong with lines such as "Juge, wherever there's a man concerned, I always do my best"?). Her fun is our fun, if you get around to it, as if in some ways you might want to enjoy a film like comfort food (note: please do not think of actors as food). She even tries the opera with a staging of Samson and Delilah, which is somewhat funny to consider. Emery is probably the most interesting of the supporting cast, probably because one has to really not try to make a butler / assistant seem bland, and he keeps things on the level. Cavanagh makes do with tolerable material of just being someone that looks like the kind of person that could tolerate the antics that come from West being West and vice versa (which basically means not looking annoyed to be on screen as a second banana); Owsley, meant to be a fool willing to do a loveless marriage, is fine in that regard when briefly with West. Gateson makes a quality adversary, one who ices things with West as if she was a pest that needed to be taken out of commission. As a whole, the movie has a few decent gags when it comes to West remarking upon what seems odd her to her in the idea of people and "manners" when it comes to what really matters for titles. It might not be the first film one should go with to look upon West, but it serves as a decent middle ground of watchable entertainment for those who are interested in seeing her at work, whether as writer or actor.

Overall, I give it 7 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).

A Farewell to Arms.

Review #1611: A Farewell to Arms.

Cast: 

Helen Hayes (Catherine Barkley), Gary Cooper (Lieutenant Frederic Henry), Adolphe Menjou (Major Rinaldi), Mary Philips (Helen Ferguson), Jack La Rue (Priest), Blanche Friderici (Head Nurse), Mary Forbes (Miss Van Campen), and Gilbert Emery (British Major) Directed by Frank Borzage.

Review: 

It is easy to say a film is overdue to cover when you can see it any time you like, which is particularly true for this film. It was originally distributed by Paramount Pictures, but somehow it managed to fall into the public domain when its copyright was not renewed. This was a film released in the middle of the career of established director Frank Borzage, who by this point in time was the second director to have received two Academy Awards for Best Director (he started his career in 1916, after having appeared in a few short films) with dramas such as 7th Heaven (1927) and Bad Girl (1931). The screenplay was done by Benjamin Glazer (who also co-produced the film) and Oliver H.P. Garrett, which was based on the novel of the same name by Ernest Hemingway. He had written the novel in 1929 that was based on his experiences in World War I, in which he served in the Italian Front (his stint in a Milan hospital with treatment from a nurse that he fell in love with, was dramatized into a film of its own with In Love and War decades later). This is the first of two film adaptations, with the other being released in 1957. This film was released before the advent of a tighter Production Code (hence content like abandoned duty and babies born out of wedlock and such), which means that one has a mix of romanticism and cynicism that proves quite enjoyable.

The film received four Academy Award nominations with Best Picture, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Sound, and it won in the latter two categories, certainly earning a merit as some sort of prestige picture for its time. In other words, it is the kind of movie that you can look to and highlight from the curious era of the 1930s, just making its way out of the silent era while continuing the trend of adapting notable works of literature with spin for its target audience that just happen to deal with either war, romance, or a bit of both (besides, the Best Picture winner that this film lost to happened to involve drama and coverage of war - the inferior Cavalcade (1933), naturally). In that sense, even if Hemingway wasn't exactly thrilled by the film's tone compared to his book, I'm sure one will find enough to enjoy in a romance rift with energy and tragedy. Featured as our stars are two rising stars that would become famous names in time. Hayes was already an actress by the time she was a teenager (she is known as "First Lady of American Theatre" for a reason), and her debut in feature film with The Sin of Madelon Claudet (1931) garnered an Academy Award for her. She reportedly developed a crush on Cooper during production, and it is clear to see a brimming honesty coming from her that makes for a well performance in vulnerability. Cooper had been established as a star with film roles such as The Winning of Barbara Worth (1926) and The Virginian (1929), so it only seems appropriate to see him in a strong brimming kind of film like this, where he towers a bit over Hayes (by at least a foot, although the camera angles certainly help sometimes) that makes for an interesting romantic courtship. He composes himself well in careful charisma like a mighty oak tree, one might say. Not to be forgotten is Menjou, a name actor in silent and sound films (with a select group of lead roles owning to his suave nature that served for a five decade career), playing cavalier with Cooper that works quite well in turning the screws for what is needed without fiddling the mustache in scene-chewing. Philips goes along okay, although it is La Rue who makes memorable effort in a "wedding" sequence in the middle of the film. There were actually two endings to the film, depending on preferences of the theater at the time of release, with one following the novel and the other being more optimistic. Hemingway, displeased already by the altering of tone with his novel into less cynical, was angered by the decision for theater owners. One silver lining is that he struck up a friendship with Cooper that lasted for over 20 years (and he surely must have found it engaging to see Cooper star in another adaptation of his work a decade later). In any case, what we have here is a fine film to see play out for 88 minutes in classic traditional fare for those who like that sort of thing. It isn't great, but it certainly represents a well effort for its stars and director in entertainment, for which one can fit their curiosity for any time they like.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Dracula's Daughter.

Review #297: Dracula's Daughter.

Cast
Otto Kruger (Dr. Jeffrey Garth), Gloria Holden (Marya Zaleska), Marguerite Churchill (Janet), Edward Van Sloan (Van Helsing), Gilbert Emery (Basil Humphrey), Irving Pichel (Sandor), Halliwell Hobbes (Hawkins), Billy Bevan (Albert), and Nan Grey (Lili) Directed by Lambert Hillyer.

Review
This is one of those "Wait, there was a sequel to this?" kind of film, having been a sequel of Dracula (#71), released 5 years it, with no Lugosi (Except one wax model of him), but Van Sloan is back as Van Helsing (misspelled as Von Helsing, but whatever), which is a plus. The acting is ranges from good to okay, depending on the actor/actress. Kruger and Holden do a good job, along with Van Sloan, as he was back in Dracula. Churchill is okay, but not much else other then a small annoyance. The rest of the actors are all alright, doing a standard yet useful job. There are a few scares, but not as chilling as the first one or as mysterious. It is slightly original, not really based off any novels (Okay it was actually based off a short story, but it apparently didn't take any of the story's plot), but it is short enough to run a suddenly short length of 71 minutes. In the end, while the film does have some good moments that might work, it is slightly bogged down by sluggish pace at times and a weird pace of story. Not bad, but not great either. Countdown to 300 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.