Showing posts with label Glenda Farrell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Glenda Farrell. Show all posts

July 20, 2021

Little Caesar.

Review #1701: Little Caesar.

Cast: 
Edward G. Robinson (Caesar Enrico "Rico" Bandello), Douglas Fairbanks Jr. (Joe Massara), Glenda Farrell (Olga Stassoff), William Collier Jr. (Tony Passa), Sidney Blackmer (Big Boy), Ralph Ince (Pete Montana), Thomas E. Jackson (Sergeant Flaherty), Stanley Fields (Sam Vettori), Maurice Black (Little Arnie Lorch), and George E. Stone (Otero) Directed by Mervyn LeRoy (#596 - Random Harvest)

Review: 
There is an interesting curiosity one can find from movies made in the pre-Code era of Hollywood filmmaking. Sure, there were boards of censorship all across the country since the silent era, but one generally finds more interest in looking at the era of filmmaking when sound become prevalent in feature films. In other words, one sees things differently in film when you can hear the action to go along with it, regardless of the fact that public pressure would soon mount a Motion Picture Production Code that would soon oversee features for three decades. But that was in 1934, so let us jump back to 1931. This was the same year that saw the release of The Public Enemy (featuring James Cagney in the role that also made him a star) which came out three months after this feature, with each being based on written experiences in Chicago near gangster types, with this film being based off the book of the same name by W. R. Burnett (a novelist and screenwriter for decades who had resided in the city as a hotel desk clerk), with a screenplay written by Francis Edward Faragoh and Robert N. Lee (each nominated for an Academy Award for their work here, which they lost to the writers for Cimarron), with un-credited work by Robert Lord and Darryl F. Zanuck. Incidentally, Robinson and Cagney would star together in a feature together in Smart Money (1931), a crime drama that was the first and only time they starred together. For all the speculation about inspirations within the gangster Al Capone for either The Public Enemy or this feature (which drew not so much entirely on Capone but also criminals such as Salvatore "Sam" Cardinella), this was also the same year that he was charged and convicted of tax evasion that saw him put in jail. At any rate, those aforementioned films also made stars of their lead actors; Robinson had emigrated to the States from Romania as a child, but his first interest was in law before acting. Years spent in the theatre served him well when he started to make regular appearances in film with The Hole in the Wall (1929), which would be one of a handful of films he appeared in that ranged from second to supporting role (primarily in the crime drama genre). Of course, the gangster film did not entirely start with this film either, since one could argue that Underworld (1927) as the proto-gangster movie, and Lights of New York (1928), the first all-talking feature (which alongside Public Enemy and Little Caesar was released by the studio) also had elements of the crime drama in it. At any rate, Burnett was also one of the writers behind Scarface (1932), which also has stood as one of the lasting key pieces of the gangster film, particularly in the pre-Code era. 

At the helm for this feature is LeRoy, who had graduated from a brief stint in acting to writing comedies to directing his own features in the 1920s. Little Caesar is one of over thirty features that he would direct in the 1930s for a decade with plenty of audience appetite for films. As a whole, it might not be as devastating in raw entertainment as The Public Enemy, but its lead performance by Robinson essentially carries it enough to the point where it does not matter too much because one is having too much fun with the gripping interest generated in 79 minutes. LeRoy was one of the hardest working directors of his time, and it certainly shows in both his successes and missteps presented here, one that has some fairly well captured shots from cinematographer Tony Gaudio to accommodate some static moments (as is the case with early sound films, and this even has a few intertitles) without seeming too constrained or too apart while serving as a blunt instrument of efficient filmmaking. There would be a variety of gangster films over the next few years, but Little Caesar managed to stay its welcome with its reasonable edge for the subject that didn't go straight for easy tricks such as indulging in violence or confusing its message in simplified or complicated gobbledygook - it helped to build the clichés to gaze upon in the gangster film for years to come, if you think about it. You get a tale of someone rising the ladder in organized crime that doesn't pull punches, and Robinson is at the forefront of making this role his with no complication. He would find himself typecast in a variety of tough guy roles over the next few years (even taking a role in Larceny, Inc (1942) to offset his image with a comedy, which I fondly remember enjoying), and it isn't too hard to see why, owing to his voice and mannerisms that make him undeniably interesting to view through the film, whether spent trying to strong-arm Fairbanks Jr or strong-arm himself into the next big thing; everybody needs a good death scene in a gangster film (no matter how prepared/un-prepared one is for it), and he makes that final line stick with the right sense of doom and folly required. Fairbanks Jr and Farrell are meant to match him in sensibility, which generally works out fine in useful engagement without detracting from the general experience. The supporting cast prove worthy enough in setting the seedy atmosphere required in terms of grimy strength (ones that could be thought of as faceless brutes). Jackson plays the authority with coarse charm that doesn't serve to make this a straight moral tale. As a whole, its portrayal of the rise and fall of a crime lord proves quite interesting in cultivating a worthy atmosphere and tension within a great lead performance and fair support from others in a proven feature that has endured well for itself after eight decades since its release, a fitting marker for a star and director that had plenty of time to follow up their successes in their field.

On the board for the Count to Ten Project, updated.
1921: 5, 1922-23: 8 each, 1924: 9, 1926: 7, 1929: 5
1930: 6, 1934: 4, 1935: 5, 1936-37: 6, 1938: 5
1940-41: 8 each, 1944: 7, 1948-49: 8 each

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

July 9, 2021

Secret of the Incas.

Review #1696: Secret of the Incas.

Cast: 
Charlton Heston (Harry Steele), Robert Young (Stanley Moorhead), Nicole Maurey (Elena Antonescu), Thomas Mitchell (Ed Morgan), Glenda Farrell (Mrs. Winston), Yma Sumac (Kori-Tika), Michael Pate (Pachacutec), and Leon Askin (Anton Marcu) Directed by Jerry Hopper.

Review: 
Inspiration is an interesting thing to define. When interviewed for her work as costume designer for the film Raiders of the Lost Ark, Deborah Nadoolman Landis talked about the costume of its main hero Indiana Jones and the inspiration for the character's clothing being this feature, adding "We did watch this film together as a crew several times, and I always thought it strange that the filmmakers did not credit it later as the inspiration for the series." Of course, when filmmakers George Lucas and Steven Spielberg wanted to guide the production crew on what the film should seem like in style and acting, this was one of the films, while the other was China (1943, featuring Alan Ladd), and it just so happens each movie was released by Paramount Pictures. Really though, looking at this feature under any eyes as some sort of proto-Indiana Jones is a bad idea, because it forgets the basic truth for this feature: it's just a mediocre adventure with a guy in a hat and leather jacket looking for fortune and glory (at least without an artifact that melts people's skin off). I don't mean to clog up a review for one film with stuff for another, but it is evident to see and say why one film has endured for forty years in the popular culture while the other has essentially languished in lesser stature after half a century, and it is the general energy in the adventure that makes that evident. I mean, we are talking a movie about a guy who likes to call himself a "tour guide" for gullible tourists coming off the plane in Peru who just happens to find part of a relic (which I will call the doohickey) that if found intact can help him find a shinier doohickey linked to the end of the ancient Incas; of course he has to find a way to travel there, so when someone conveniently happens to need to escape a person with a plane (so he can "borrow" it, get it?), he just happens to get himself to Machu Pichu to find the doohickey that already had archaeologists ready to find the doohickey for the natives. The only other thing that might make it seem different is the fact that the film was actually shot on location in Peru and that the film was for a time really hard to find on video formats. Besides, director Hopper would basically be more known for his work on television (ranging from Wagon Train to The Fugitive) more so than his features, with this being the fifth of his eighteen movies as director.

Technically speaking, there isn't anything too terrible to watch here for 98 minutes, it merely happens to just be a movie with very average marks for a film that lacks subtlety in the way one would expect from a noir, which fits the middling level excitement that you wouldn't think would happen in something meant to be an adventure. You get exactly what you would expect from a movie with blah chemistry and one clear unkempt adversary, which is really a whole bag of "okay, sure" - even having a random supporting character join in as a villain would have been a useful surprise to chuckle. This was the twelfth film role for Heston (who replaced Wendell Corey, initially cast as the lead), who by this point had cultivated a bit of success with features in the 1950s just before he became a bigger star. Even in a movie that resembles a B-flick, Heston still makes it a worthy time to at least try to watch, enterprising in his blunt approach to living that is in need of a lighter film or a noir with tension. This was actually the last film for Young, who had been acting in films since 1928; he might be best known for his second phase in acting on television, such as Father Knows Best (which he had the lead role in radio and television for eleven years). He really only shows up in the second half of the film (because remember, the film needs to spend quite a bit of time meandering before getting to the temple), and he seems a bit too quiet to really make an impression beyond just the blah-blah doctor role, and the idea of any chemistry with Maurey seems more like a father-daughter dynamic, really. Maurey plays a Romanian defector with the timing of a hat rack knocked down by a sloth. At least the Indiana Jones series would hone their craft in snappy chemistry between its leads without cribbing from the passé energy seen here. It might interest you to note that Mitchell was a prime star in film, television, and theatre (playing support roles generally just in the first category) that lasted for nearly half a century; he makes for an interesting unkempt kind of adversary, one that pops in from time to time to serve as a parallel to Heston of sorts (while being nearly undone by a terribly ironic last scene in which he is talking about gravity right before falling down a ravine). 

It might interest you to note the presence of Yma Sumac, performing folk music native to Peru that had an octave range higher than most singers (four and half compared to most trainer singers with three). Of course, it also might not interest you to hear multiple performances of Sumac, because really it kind of drags the film down a bit in what we call "get to the point". The noir could probably get away with a song or two, but this is an adventure, not a stage show - now, if I watch a recording of an opera on film, then obviously I wouldn't make that statement. As a whole, there really isn't anything here that just screams for attention beyond just a mild experience with mild acting. If it wasn't for the "inspiration" part, it probably would have just lurked farther into obscurity, which means that basically this is a movie you watch to "look" for the moments or if one is interested in seeing Heston headline a movie before stuff like Ben-Hur (1959), I think. There's a plethora of movies from that era that are probably more suitable for a watch (good and... noticeably not good), and there are probably better adventure movies to sift through before/after this movie that one could probably look into, but if you really need to scratch the itch of curiosity over a somewhat obscure movie with a leather-clad fedora wearing hero, it might suit you. I can't endorse it as a winner, but I'm sure others will prove just fine (or less patient) with it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

June 27, 2015

Mystery of the Wax Museum.


Review #719: Mystery of the Wax Museum.

Cast
Lionel Atwill (Ivan Igor), Fay Wray (Charlotte Duncan), Glenda Farrell (Florence Dempsey), Frank McHugh (Jim), Allen Vincent (Ralph Burton), Gavin Gordon (George Winton), Edwin Maxwell (Joe Worth), and Holmes Herbert (Dr. Rasmussen) Directed by Michael Curtiz (#125 - Casablanca and #416 - Yankee Doodle Dandy, #505 - The Adventures of Robin Hood, and #529 - Mildred Pierce)

Review
Remember House of Wax (#271) with Vincent Price? Mystery of the Wax Museum is the original version, made by the same studio (Warner Brothers) that would make the remake 20 years later, with this movie based off an unpublished story, The Wax Works. This movie utilizes two-color Technicolor, a unique system utilized in some films (like the 1925 version of Phantom of the Opera), although the reception to the system was lukewarm due to the perceived artificial qualities it projected. This was one of only three films that Warner Brothers had under this system, and the last. Anyway, the movie's color actually helps set the mood very nicely because its artificial quality here makes the movie seem creepy, which for a movie like this, works. It works for a mystery like this, which moves quickly and never seems padded, setting its characters up and their motivations just fine. Atwill and Wray are the highlights, both having good scenes, sometimes together. The movie is quickly resolved, and I'm impressed at how it managed to be just effective, without having to resort to much final thoughts. It's a movie that looks good in its own way while being a fine little mystery that can be good for anyone looking for a quick 30's film to watch.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.