The Suspect (1944).

Review #1826: The Suspect. 

Cast: 

Charles Laughton (Philip Marshall), Ella Raines (Mary Gray), Dean Harens (John Marshall), Stanley Ridges (Inspector Huxley), Henry Daniell (Gilbert Simmons), Rosalind Ivan (Cora Marshall), Molly Lamont (Mrs. Edith Simmons), and Raymond Severn (Merridew) Directed by Robert Siodmak (#468 - Son of Dracula and #797 - People on Sunday)

Review: 

Sure, perhaps there is something captivating about how obscure a movie is, because there certainly are a handful of thriller adaptations to come across when studying the 1940s, but surely there is a good reason why this one fell through the cracks. Maybe it was the title, because there are at least six other movies out there with that title. The film is an adaptation of the book This Way Out, which was written by James Ronald. As such, the screenplay was done by Bertram Millhauser and Arthur T. Horman. The film was directed by Robert Siodmak, probably best noted for his future effort in The Killers (1946) in a 39-year career, and he was given the task of handling an actor that apparently suffered from bouts of uncertainty. Of course, Laughton was an Academy Award winning actor that could play classical or modern parts, so who wouldn't take the risk if you are Universal Pictures? Besides, he had the name value that compared well when faced with a mix of American and British character actors with either some experience behind them (like Ridges or Daniell) or less (Raines).

It turns out one has a very mediocre thriller on their hands, one that is about as hypnotic as an old frog. The aspects that are interesting prove to be flourishes rather than anything particularly interesting, whether that involves a somewhat interesting chemistry between Laughton and Raines or the idea of some sort of actual suspense in the crime angle. The 85 minutes are brisk, but it probably isn't surprising that the film did not exactly become a known name since its premiere in 1944. The streets of 1902 seem nearly comatose when it comes to characters with complexity or challenge, if only because the main character's weakness is being too decent. So yes, it is probably the politest portrait of a murderer one could watch, which means that it is more of a Laughton showcase. To be fair, he does deliver an interesting performance here, since this is a middle-aged role that requires a bit of earthy presence (i.e., not just a smart-mouthed youth), one that needs patience and dignity, and you get the idea. There isn't a hammy performance with him on this one, since he calmly walks through the film with no trouble in displaying the quandaries presented here, maneuvering through the slowly building gears of turmoil while trying to stay as himself, which only seem to make him burrow down rather than up even after one is done seeing the chemistry-building scenes with Raines, since that is generally the most curious part of the movie in seeing the mismatch (well, whatever you want to call it). Besides, Ivan and Daniell are only mildly interesting as the heels to Laughton, ones who aren't exactly the kind of folks you frown to see go away - one knows crime doesn't pay (to the standards of the film board of the time) anyway. Ridges is stuck in the middle with no real distinguishing qualities that seems a problem when one is trying to see an investigation and trap take place. You would think the poison sequence would generate something other than mild bemusement, but not quite. There is an attempt of distinguished air here that doesn't seem fitting for a movie that begs for something more, as if you know what you are getting into before you really see it. One sort of struggles to say things about the movie beyond just Laughton, because if had included a lesser actor, one could have lapsed into a snooze. But, since here we are with this, I guess you won't be irritated too much. Honestly, this is a toss-up kind of movie, where one will either find it to be splendid enough despite its failings or just too unremarkable to be worth one's time. For me, I just can't see myself recommending it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Philadelphia Story.

Review #1355: The Philadelphia Story.

Cast: 
Cary Grant (C.K. Dexter Haven), Katharine Hepburn (Tracy Samantha Lord), James Stewart (Macaulay "Mike" Connor), Ruth Hussey (Elizabeth Imbrie), John Howard (George Kittredge), Roland Young (William Q. Tracy), John Halliday (Seth Lord), Mary Nash (Margaret Lord), Virginia Weidler (Dinah Lord), and Henry Daniell (Sidney Kidd) Directed by George Cukor (#479 - Travels with My Aunt and #974 - A Star is Born)

Review: 
There are films that are born to be classics. This is one of those movies, pure and simple. Who better to headline this film than three prime stars of Hollywood's Golden Age: Grant, Hepburn, and Stewart. Each had their own way of finding success, which they would utilize for several decades, with a combined five Academy Awards on 18 nominations between them, with the latter two receiving the most benefit from the film in their own ways. had found herself drawn to acting while in college, with her debut in theater occurring in 1928. She spent four years with mostly small roles, but she was noticed in The Warrior's Husband by a scout that led to subsequent screen-testing for RKO for A Bill of Divorcement (1932). Director George Cukor was impressed, and the two would become friends that would do ten films together. She proved a success with the film, and she subsequently won an Academy Award for her third film in Morning Glory (1933). However, her career soon went through a series of setbacks in terms of audience appeal (both in film and theater) that would enclose the rest of the decade, which led her to be dubbed "Box office poison" in one film journal. There were a few moderate successes among slight flops, with a good deal of those films now being held in better respect, such as Mary of Scotland (1936) and Bringing Up Baby (1938). In 1939, she starred in the comic play The Philadelphia Story by Philip Barry. Inspired by the antics of socialite Helen Hope Montgomery Scott, Barry wrote the play directly for Hepburn, who took on the lead role alongside funding it, which ran for over a year to success. When it came to film rights, Hepburn was given the films rights as a gift by Howard Hughes, which she soon sold to Metro Goldwyn Mayer for the chance to star and choose her own team to direct, write and star. This led to the hiring of Cukor, Donald Ogden Stewart (with un-credited help for the award winning work by Waldo Salt), and the aforementioned two sides of the dynamic triangle for the film in Grant and Stewart, who had just found success in leading roles through You Can't Take It With You (1938) and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939).

It is easy to see why this proved to be Hepburn's resurgent comeback. Beyond the fact that she has two dynamic leads to go alongside a game script, she proves her ground with allure, where one sees her vulnerability alongside a good sense of humor that has tremendous chemistry with the other leads. Grant does just as well, having a good sense of timing and debonair nature. Stewart provides some offbeat everyman charm that generates the kind of warmth one would expect from him while delivering a few laughs in one notable scene where he is carrying Hepburn home after a midnight dip, while singing bits of "Somewhere over the Rainbow". Hussey and Howard also prove to be quite interesting in comparison to the others, both lending their own kind of depth (whether fawning or cynical, respectively) that keep them from being just in the background. Young, Nash, and Weidler also keep the support moving with their contribution to the depth the film has in compelling entertainment. The film is generally listed under the genre of romantic comedy with the subgenre of "comedy of remarriage", in which a couple divorces and flirts with others before remarrying (in a time where affairs were not allowed by the Production Code). It has plenty of passion along with moments of amusement, starting right from the opening scene, with an friendly exchange of broken golf clubs and a shove to the ground from the newly divorced leads. Cukor is certainly the right director for this kind of material, one that is smart with where it wants go in romance and amusement, keeping a steady pace of 112 minutes with plenty of heart that makes it a seminal picture of its genre and for the decade as a whole. It is a tremendous achievement for its iconic stars and its director that is definitely worth a look anytime.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

The Woman in Green.

Review #1216: The Woman in Green.

Cast: 
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson), Hillary Brooke (Lydia Marlowe), Henry Daniell (Professor Moriarty), Paul Cavanagh (Sir George Fenwick), Matthew Boulton (Inspector Gregson), Eve Amber (Maude Fenwick), and Frederick Worlock (Doctor Onslow) 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, #1056 - The Pearl of Death, and #1161 - The House of Fear)

Review: 
This is the eleventh film of the Sherlock Holmes series of films with Rathbone and Bruce, release three months after the previous film. If you're at all familiar with how these things go for these features, you'll probably find yourself satisfied with this installment. Anyone looking to jump in these films out of random will also find themselves with a workable winner in any case - it won't be much of a waste in any case with a run-time of just over an hour in 68 minutes. I do think the title is pretty amusing, given that this is a black-and-white film, and I don't think anyone even mentions green at any point. Then again, with a focus on severed forefingers (not shown, obviously), blackmail of rich people, and hypnotism, one won't really think about that too much. It doesn't have much in terms of deep mystery, but it is a decent experience in entertainment at least, having a few interesting sequences. Rathbone is as efficient as ever, never seeming lost in the shuffle or disinterested in getting the best out of what he can with the scenarios presented - consistent as one can. Bruce plays up to the standard of his second fiddle character with comic relief - some of which that works, some that doesn't, with two easy moments easy to highlight you can judge for yourself. One involves him being a skeptic of hypnotism and its effectiveness, opening stating his doubts when at a presentation, only to have him subsequently tricked into being hypnotized and taking off his shoe and rolling his pant leg. The other is him leading the way to "rescue" Holmes while the other authorities arrest the others, including him hopping up on a ledge to get him down. Whatever the case may be, Rathbone and Bruce are around to keep things steady.

This is the third film with the character of Professor Moriarty (The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1939), played by George Zucco, and Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon (1942), played by Lionel Atwill), with each having the same type of fate for its villain: falling off a great height. This is the third different actor to play the role, but it also happens to be his third appearance in the Holmes series, joining the tradition of re-using actors for multiple appearances (as is the cast with Brooke and Cavanagh). Daniell proves fine, with one key highlight being a sequence in which he sneaks into Holmes' place in order to have a conversation with him midway through the film, warning him about further pursuit into the mysterious killer. Of course his final fate is a bit ridiculous, since he tries to escape jail by jumping from one ledge to another - while wearing handcuffs, and he then just falls down to death. I guess just having him go to prison didn't pull the final punch they wanted. Brooke is okay as the person referred to in the title, although she isn't really too particularly compelling with the hypnotism aspects. This is the second of four films you can find in the public domain (alongside Secret Weapon and the last two films of the series - Terror by Night and Dressed to Kill), which makes them readily available. In recent years, they were digitally restored and given computer colorization by Legend Films; the Universal films had for decades deteriorated in terms of cellulose nitrate film, requiring restoration from the UCLA Film and Television Archive, which took eight years to restore the twelve films from 1993 to 2001. As a whole, this is a decent film among other okay films of the Holmes cycle with Rathbone and Bruce, being just as well to recommend as other features for anyone looking for a bit of quick mystery.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Great Dictator.

Review #1054: The Great Dictator.

Cast: 
Charlie Chaplin (Adenoid Hynkel - Dictator of Tomania / A Jewish Barber), Paulette Goddard (Hannah), Jack Oakie (Napaloni - Dictator of Bacteria), Henry Daniell (Garbitsch), Reginald Gardiner (Schultz), Billy Gilbert (Herring), Maurice Moscovitch (Mr. Jaeckel), Grace Hayle (Madame Napaloni), Carter DeHaven (Bacterian Ambassador), Emma Dunn (Mrs. Jaeckel), Bernard Gorcey (Mr. Mann), Paul Weigel (Mr. Agar), and Chester Conklin (Barber's Customer) Directed by Charlie Chaplin (#353 - Monsieur Verdoux, #599 - The Kid, #600 - City Lights, #759 - The Gold Rush, #775 - Shoulder Arms, #820 - Modern Times, #923 - The Pilgrim, #1025 - The Circus, and #1041 - A Woman of Paris)

Review: 
The Great Dictator was Charlie Chaplin's first true sound film, along with his first without his character of "The Tramp", which he had utilized for his silent films. In any case, the film was released a year after the beginning of World War II, with Chaplin playing a parody of Adolf Hitler and Oakie playing a parody of Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, although it was noted by Chaplin in later years that had he knew about the horrors of the concentration camps, he wouldn't have made the film. The film manages to be brilliant in utilizing comedy, satire and drama without having either of its elements being lost in excess, being a funny but also brave movie that holds its principles together by finding a balance in its two environments, with credit going to Chaplin and his script. Chaplin also does a tremendous job in both of his roles, having a fine distinct nature that works well within the mistaken identity parts later on, with the dictator parts having numerous highlights with all of the gestures and posturing that definitely strikes a chord. The parts with the barber might remind you a bit of the Tramp, although he plays it more of a outsider type that certainly fits. Goddard does a fine job in her parts on screen, having fine chemistry with Chaplin at points. Oakie does a stand-out job, having the correct amount of bombast and stature that makes for amusing rapport with Chaplin when they are both on screen together, particularly one scene involving chairs. Daniell and Gardiner also do fine jobs in their parts, distinct in their roles within the dictatorship that leave room for amusement. The rest of the actors do fair jobs in their roles. There are numerous great sequences and gags involving both slapstick and language, with one of my favorites being the ballet with a globe, which is helped by the music by Meredith Willson and Charlie Chaplin, fairly brilliant in its own right that has a fine timing to them that helps contributes to the flow of the film effectively for several scenes. The cinematography by Karl Struss and Roland Totheroh (a regular for some of Chaplin's films) is acceptable for the movie and its look.

The film does run finely at 124 minutes, never feeling too long. I will state that the climax of the film feels a bit sudden, particularly since it ends with a speech, which is an inspiring piece at least, so I can't blame Chaplin for wanting to incorporate it in a film he had all control over. Since that serves as the last point for the film, it is strange to wonder what would've happened after that point in the film, although apparently a folk dance sequence was apparently going to serve as the finale, and there were also plans to include shots of people from all over the world that would accept the message of peace, but these were abandoned after a bit of shooting from Chaplin. In any case, the movie isn't ruined by the last part, so take his words for what you will. The film was nominated for five Academy Awards (Outstanding Production (now known as Best Picture), Best Actor, Writing (Original Screenplay), Best Supporting Actor (Oakie), & Best Music (Original Score), although it fell short each time. It has since been selected by the Library of Congress for preservation in the National Film Registry, and it is easy to see why. This is a brilliantly made movie that serves as a fine piece of entertainment for all ages that belongs with the rest of Chaplin's classics for a look.

Overall, I give it 9 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.

Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror.

Review #798: Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror.

Cast
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Doctor John H. Watson), Evelyn Ankers (Kitty), Reginald Denny (Sir Evan Barham / Voice of Terror), Thomas Gómez (R.F. Meade), Henry Daniell (Sir Anthony Lloyd), Montagu Love (General Jerome Lawford), Olaf Hytten (Admiral Sir John Fabian Prentiss), and Leyland Hodgson (Captain Roland Shore) Directed by John Rawlins.

Review
Following two excellent Holmes films (#583 - The Hound of the Baskervilles, and #721 - The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes) were released by 20th Century Fox in 1939, Universal Studios bought the rights from the Doyle estate to make films about Holmes - updated to the present day. In fact, the opening title card talks about how Holmes (and Watson) is "ageless, invincible and unchanging", with this movie being about Holmes trying to take down a Nazi agent using propaganda through the radio (which did occur during the War). It is an interesting premise, but I can't resist to wonder if there were other movies dealing with plots like this. There is at some sort of mystery to the film, and the movie does move quickly enough, at 65 minutes (if you wonder why I always mention the length of a movie as positive/negative, it's merely a way to try and justify how the movie does with regards to pacing, or if a movie is too long or too short to try and enjoy, for my taste anyway. In this case, the movies does a fine job in terms of satisfying its goal of telling a story with a short length).

While it is a b-movie, it is at least a movie that tries its best to be entertaining while dealing a subject as serious as treason during wartime, not coming off as cheesy, nor too overblown (it's interesting to note that the movie ends with a title card stating to buy war bonds). Rathbone and Bruce are consistent as ever, making for a fine duo that play well off each other. Ankers is also pretty decent, making a good contribution to the plot. Denny (there really isn't spoilers if the movie is over 70 years old, so no complaints) is okay, coming off as so unassuming that you really don't think he's the villain, because...well, it is strange to presume that a member of the "Inner Council of British Intelligence" would be behind all of this - unless he was an impostor, because Holmes is a master at deducing that sort of thing, and it helps that I'll let it slide unopposed. It's a movie that is fairly passable for its time, even if it isn't as enjoyable as the previous films. Bottom line: Take it for what it is worth.

Countdown: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Lust for Life.

Review #620: Lust for Life.

Cast
Kirk Douglas (Vincent van Gogh), Anthony Quinn (Paul Gauguin), James Donald (Theo van Gogh), Pamela Brown (Christine), Everett Sloane (Dr. Gachet), Henry Daniell (Theodorus van Gogh), Madge Kennedy (Anna Cornelia van Gogh), Noel Purcell (Anton Mauve), and Niall MacGinnis (Roulin) Directed by Vincente Minnelli (#405 - The Reluctant Debutante and #510 - Father of the Bride)

Review
Vincent Willem van Gogh was a very talented painter who suffered a very tormented life, he painted many things, but he didn't have much success until after his death. There have been a few movies based off his life (and one episode of a certain television show revolving around one of his paintings...Alright, I admit, "Vincent and the Doctor" was a fine episode, go watch it.), but we're (I mean me, but let's just say 'we' to make you readers feel like you're involved in this review, if you don't feel like you are already) focusing on the 1956 version with Kirk Douglas, who does looks like Gogh, especially with his red flowing hair, and he delivers a really great performance, you empathize with this poor guy, and even watching Douglas painting is fun to observe. Anthony Quinn doesn't has much screen time, but he certainly does leave an impression on you, which is good and all; honestly I was surprised he won an Oscar for this role, it takes an hour for him to appear, even Donald is seen first, but oh well. Lust for Life lists credit to the various galleries (along with collectors) that allowed the works of Gogh to be photographed for the film, and it helps the film with its artistic edge, it makes the movie more colorful and it just shows the genius that was Vincent van Gogh. This is a powerful movie that is sometimes slow, but mostly cool to watch, especially with its paintings, seriously, go google Vincent van Gogh (or go to an art museum), and look at the colorful and vividness of his paintings, they are magical, just like the film.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.