The Ringer (1952).

Review #2019: The Ringer (1952).

Cast: 

Herbert Lom (Maurice Meister), Donald Wolfit (Dr. Lomond), Mai Zetterling (Lisa), Greta Gynt (Cora Ann Milton), William Hartnell (Sam Hackett), Denholm Elliott (John Lemley), Norman Wooland (Inspector Bliss), Dora Bryan (Mrs. Hackett), and Charles Victor (Inspector Wembury) Directed by Guy Hamilton (#280 - Diamonds Are Forever, #289 - The Man with the Golden Gun, #291 - Goldfinger, #293 - Live and Let Die, #612 - The Devil's Disciple)

Review: 

Admittedly, Guy Hamilton really is just known for his work with the James Bond films if he is mentioned among British directors for random conversation, and that is fine. He directed 22 films, and four of them were part of the Bond series, but it never hurts to give focus to other works that someone does beyond saying that he directed one of the best Bond films in Goldfinger (1964) (and probably one of the lesser of them with Diamonds Are Forever, but thats another story). He had an ambition to become a filmmaker from a young age, but he had to deal with other matters first, such as serving in the Royal Navy in World War II with the 15th Motor Gunboat Flotilla. After the war, he found work as an assistant director (under the hire of Alexander Korda), which saw him work with people such as Carol Reed and for films such as The African Queen (1951). Hamilton would get his first chance to direct with this film when Reed inspired him to play hardball with Korda unless he got a directing job. Hamilton never looked back and directed for the next three decades in a variety of genres, such as the POW story The Colditz Story (1955), the historical drama The Devil's Disciple (1959, done after he replaced Alexander Mackendrick) or countless action flair like Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins (1985). The film is an adaptation of the 1929 play of the same name by Edgar Wallace, which was in turn was a re-working of his 1925 novel The Gaunt Stranger. Wallace was a prolific writer of his time in the early 20th century that ranged from journalism to nearly 1,000 short stories to even screenplays, which includes the original first draft for King Kong (1933) before his sudden death from diabetes that year. At any rate, there were four prior adaptations of Wallace's work in 1928, 1931, 1932, and 1938 (one was a silent and one was even a German-Austrian film). This was made on the tail end of the career of Alexander Korda as a producer, who made hundreds of films as either director/producer until his death in 1956 (by sheer coincidence, Korda actually expressed an interest in making a film of Ian Fleming's 1954 novel Live and Let Die, which Hamilton would later get to do as director in 1973). 

It is evident how stage-bound the film is, since it basically utilizes two places for most of its 78 minutes, which seems about right for a low-budget British production. I can say this much: it is a pretty decent way to start a career for a first-time director, one with a share of composed thrills and a solid cast to make a useful curiosity for those who like quick films to view from an age long ago. I do applaud the fact that Lom is given some room to play the lead role as a heel. He was a versatile presence in film for years because of the way he carried his voice in any type of role. It works here with a role that probably would've been an adversary in a different thriller but is instead one that is being stalked (British "stalked", not really stalked). Wolfit was actually an actor-manager who toured Shakespeare productions for many years, but he did do his share of acting from time to time (this was the second film he did from his return after not doing one from 1939-1951), although his legacy is perhaps best captured in The Dresser, a play-turned-film about a dresser close to an actor that was written by a one-time dresser of Wolfit. He fuzzes about as someone who seems to have nothing better to do than lurk between the foreground and background, which is mildly interesting when interacting with Gynt, who has charming curiosity for someone who is basically there to see watch potential downfall. It is a calm cat-and-mouse game, not one for scene-chewing. With that in mind, Zetterling is also pretty charming in a role meant to counter Lom when it comes to "normal folks". Hartnell once described himself as a "legitimate character actor" when it came to work in theatre and film, and given that he played a mix of police, solider or toadies in film, it isn't surprising to see him here, albeit with him trying to do a Cockney accent, which goes over fine for a mildly amusing role. You may or may not have a good guess on who ends up being the title character, since "master of disguise" is something that has little room for hard questioning with the amount of people who have lines in the film, but the film at least doesn't throw many red herrings to play tricks. There aren't any scenes that distract from the mystery or drive on to start waving their hand in the "move it along position", which generally means it is on the right foot. It is a quickie represented, not one going on mayhem, which is probably best represented by the eventual turn in its climax, which is quite enjoyable in the curious amoral way it closes things out without being too neat and tidy. As a whole, it probably won't be the first pick on anybody's list for thrillers, but if you came across it, you would be just fine with what you end up seeing, and it makes some sense to see Guy Hamilton go on to better things.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Count Dracula.

Review #1913: Count Dracula.

Cast: 

Christopher Lee (Count Dracula), Herbert Lom (Professor Abraham Van Helsing), Klaus Kinski (R.M. Renfield), Frederick Williams (Jonathan Harker), Maria Rohm (Mina Murray), Soledad Miranda (Lucy Westenra), Paul Muller (Dr. John "Jack" Seward), Jack Taylor (Quincey Morris), Jesús Puente (the Minister of Interior), and Franco Castellani (Renfield's Warden) Directed by Jesús Franco.

Review: 

Consider, for a moment, the state of Dracula movies in 1970. I think we can agree there are two actors you can think of when it comes to Count Dracula: Bela Lugosi and Christopher Lee. Lee first played the role for Hammer Film Productions in Dracula (1958), which also featured Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. Lee didn't return for The Brides of Dracula (1960), but he would return for the next couple of films with Dracula: Prince of Darkness (1966), and Dracula Has Risen from the Grave (1968). Now here we are in 1970...with Christopher Lee playing the role of the Count in three films (as star, not counting any guest appearances), two of them from Hammer. Taste the Blood of Dracula was released in May while Scars of Dracula was released in November. But we are here to talk about the odd man out: Count Dracula, released in April of 1970 as a production between Spain, Italy, West Germany, Liechtenstein, and the United Kingdom. An experimental film comprised from behind-the-scenes footage from the making of this film (which shows how the effects and sets were designed) was shot in high-contrast black-and-white that was called Cuadecuc, vampir (1971), which was directed by Pere Portabella. Lee would do a few more movies as Dracula, which even included a comedy with Dracula and Son (1976). Oh, but there is one more thing to consider: This was directed by Jesus Franco, a Spanish filmmaker proficient in many, many, many exploitation / B-grade movies (as done in Spain, France, West Germany, Switzerland, and Portugal) who directed from 1959 to 2014 that specialized in sex and sadism in his horror features (for which there are nearly 200 of them), which varied in budget depending on who was his producer. Harry Alan Towers, who he shot nine films for, was the producer on this film, which evidently was presented as a more faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel (incidentally, Towers was behind the production of films that had Lee star as Fu Manchu). Well, at least as faithful as one can be, anyway, because not even the death sequence in the climax matches the book (as opposed to being stabbed with knives...here he dies in a fire). At least Lee's Dracula changes in age throughout the movie. There are a handful of writers: Erich Kröhnke did the story, while Augusto Finocchi and Jesus Franco did the screenplay, but there are others responsible depending on the language version: Harry Alan Towers did the English screenplay, while Dietmar Behnke did the German script and Milo G. Cuccia and Carlo Fadda did the Italian version.

So, when looking at the Dracula movies played by Lee (not counting the comedy), there is an undeniable appeal...it sure is a shame that it is not nearly as good as even the most average Hammer Dracula movie. Imagine being outclassed by Dracula movies that see an atheist-turned Christian lead hero. Well, the movie may be hampered by a low budget when it comes to failing to live to expectations, but the real problem is that the movie is just not exciting enough. It seems too static to go anywhere beyond what might have worked on television than a film experience. Granted, telling a book that is comprised of diaries for a film is hard, but there isn't an interesting perspective to really latch onto here. The 97-minute runtime moves with pale pacing that doesn't have a single striking element beyond just having Lee look slightly more interested to play the role with dialogue than usual. So yes, when viewing performances on a curve, his performances usually reflect the energy of the movie more than anything, which means he is the best part of a dull time despite not being his best portrayal of the character. Lom was apparently cast after Franco's first choice of Vincent Price fell through (my God, could you imagine how Price would have been? Oops, where were we?). Lom is technically a wise choice to counteract Lee as Van Helsing, mildly dignified in what is needed despite a silly script. He may not compare well to say, Peter Cushing (who went 12 years between portrayals), but he does fine in the exposition sequences, even if Lom and Lee don't share a scene on screen together (since heaven forbid both actors be on set at the same time). The core of Williams, Rohm, Miranda, and Muller are not particularly special, and this is a problem when Dracula isn't around for a good chunk of the feature (you know, the time after the Transylvania sequence). Kinski barely has anything to do besides a handful of "weird" moments involving flies and yep, it sure is a shame to be outclassed by Dwight Frye without saying a word. The silliest thing is not Dracula's death but instead a sequence where our characters are being stalked by deadly animals...that are stuffed. At least it makes one a bit complimentary to Francis Ford Coppola trying to do his own "faithful adaptation" of the book 22 years later. In short: Count Dracula may seem more like the book, but it doesn't come close to the exploitative fun that came from the Hammer movies, which means this movie is only worth watching if one is really into seeing Christopher Lee in movies or like cheesy horror movies. Don't take my word for it, Terence Fisher (who directed Lee in the first Dracula film twelve years prior) was quoted as saying “For the first ten minutes I thought, my God, it’s better than mine – and then I thought no it’s not!” I cannot recommend the movie as a good one, but if one really wants to see something with Lee or Franco, well, here is something to bite on if better movies aren't easier to find. A stinker is a stinker, but some stinkers are more fun to write about than others as opposed to actually sitting down and watching it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Happy Halloween, everyone. I hope you have enjoyed the horror reviews in October and enjoy your holiday time....and stay tuned for November.

El Cid.

Review #1408: El Cid.

Cast: 
Charlton Heston (Don Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar, El Cid), Sophia Loren (Doña Ximena), Herbert Lom (Ben Yusuf), Raf Vallone (García Ordóñez), Geneviève Page (Doña Urraca), John Fraser (Alfonso VI, King of Castile), Douglas Wilmer (Al-Mu'tamin, Emir of Zaragoza), Frank Thring (Al-Kadir, Emir of Valencia), Michael Hordern (Don Diego), Andrew Cruickshank (Count Gormaz), Gary Raymond (Prince Sancho), Ralph Truman (King Ferdinand), and Massimo Serato (Fañez) Directed by Anthony Mann (#947 - He Walked by Night)

Review: 
"I'm not a genius, I'm a worker."

Epic films, when in the right hands, can prove to be entertaining spectacles that make one interested in the subject matter or in its setting. Anthony Mann served to be a good choice to make an epic film, despite having most of his work being film noirs and westerns. Mann found his first calling with the theatre as an actor and eventually as director. After some work in the Theatre Guild and the WPA Federal Theatre Project, he was hired by David O. Selznick to scout talent and serve as casting and screen test director, doing so for films like Gone with the Wind (1939). After a few years of assistant directing, he made his debut as main director in Dr. Broadway (1942). He directed B-movies (mostly noirs and dramas) for numerous studios such as Paramount Pictures, RKO, and Eagle-Lion in his early years, with highlights being T-Men (1947), Raw Deal (1948) and un-credited work on He Walked by Night (1948). He soon added Westerns to his foray with Winchester '73 (1950), which would be the first of his with James Stewart. This was the fourth-to-last film (along with his last major success) of a career that spanned over thirty films in 26 years before suffering a heart attack at the age of 60. This film was produced by Samuel Bronston, who was behind a few historical epics such as John Paul Jones (1959), King of Kings (1961), 55 Days at Peking (1963, also starring Heston) and The Fall of the Roman Empire (1964, also directed by Mann and starring Loren).

It should figure that theatre-turned film star Heston would star in an epic like this, since a selection of his memorable films over a career that spanned six decades and dozens of movies were from epics like The Ten Commandments (1956), The Big Country (1958), and Ben-Hur (1959). Accompanying him is international star Loren, who came from poverty as a child to beauty pageant participant and eventual actress who became the first thespian to win an Academy Award for a non-English language performance with Two Women (1960). When the film isn't spending time on its sets or setting up its battles with bombastic nature, Heston and Loren are present to make a fair couple of passion to look upon a film that spans years and sometimes seems to feel like it too. This is a loose depiction of El Cid, the celebrated national hero of Spain that lived in the eleventh century, which has proven a source for numerous works such as the epic poem El Cantar de Mio Cid, and noted historian Ramón Menéndez Pidal was a consultant on the film. There is plenty of time to spend in three hours with something that wants to depict honor and legend that makes for a diverting time that keeps its conflicts in check without too much confusion or becoming a shell of itself and seeming outdated. It won't win all the credit for complete accuracy to history (such as the actual fate of El Cid), but the legend still presents itself with enough power from this film to inspire further interest regardless. Heston and Loren did not get along too well in making the film, but they still manage to come off together decently, perhaps in part because of that tension that carries over to a good chunk of its first half, and it eventually ekes its way out of seeming wooden on both sides, with Heston being a towering presence and Loren being a timeless figure of devotedness. The rest of the actors fall in line just as well, but the true highlight is undoubtedly the battle sequences. Any time that one gets to see a tremendous execution of horses and knights is a good one to have, with the jousting sequence being a fun one to view especially. The strangest thing is not the fact that Heston was unimpressed by the film (with some of that reason being Mann's insistence on shooting the battles himself), it was the fact that he felt that director best suited for the film was William Wyler, while conversely feeling that Mann would have been the better choice for Ben-Hur (1959). Regardless of that fact, one cannot deny that this is a fair epic to stand for its era, mixing spectacle and romance with a capable director and stars to make it a useful experience to view once as a showing of a tale worth looking into further.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

A Shot in the Dark.

Review #899: A Shot in the Dark.

Cast:
Peter Sellers (Jacques Clouseau), Elke Sommer (Maria Gambrelli), George Sanders (Benjamin Ballon), Herbert Lom (Charles Dreyfus), Tracy Reed (Dominique Ballon), Graham Stark (Hercule Lajoy), Moira Redmond (Simone), Vanda Godsell (Madame LaFarge), Maurice Kaufmann (Pierre), Ann Lynn (Dudu), David Lodge (Georges), André Maranne (François), Martin Benson (Maurice), and Burt Kwouk (Kato) Directed by Blake Edwards (#329 - The Pink Panther and #481 - The Party)

Review:
One thing that definitely can be said about this is that it certainly continues the laughs from The Pink Panther (released less with Sellers in control this time around as the main lead, with a more peculiar accent that became the hallmark of the character. With a great deal of slapstick and gags that combine with an engaging cast willing to have fun, A Shot in the Dark is also a fine sequel, while introducing newcomers that would become mainstays in the franchise, such as Lom as the long-suffering Dreyfus and Kwouk as Cato, the skilled servant used to "help" Clouseau in keeping his skills. Both are prime in their roles, with the latter getting especially more compelling the more the film goes on. It's also a pretty decent mystery as well, where the facts and allure balance handily with a movie that never veers too seriously but also never veers too ridiculously off-point, where every scene has something worth watching. Sellers and Sommer have a fair balance of chemistry together, right from their opening scene, where Clouseau catches on fire. Sellers seems at ease doing this role, with the right sense of bumbling incompetence that never ceases to entertain nor overstay its welcome, even when it repeats a gag or two a few times. I'd say some of the situations, but that just spoils the fun of what is a good romp. The movie gets wild, but it never goes completely off the rails, always having a sense of responsibility, with a fairly concocted climax as well.  At 102 minutes, A Shot in the Dark is also pretty well paced, having the right amount of gags and characters to make for a fun movie for anyone.

Countdown to #900: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. Tomorrow night: Number Nine Hundred.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Ladykillers (1955).

Review #567: The Ladykillers.

Cast
Katie Johnson (Mrs Louisa Alexandra Wilberforce), Alec Guinness (Professor Marcus), Cecil Parker (Major Claude Courtney), Herbert Lom (Louis Harvey), Peter Sellers (Harry Robinson), Danny Green ('One-Round' Lawson), and Jack Warner (Police Superintendent) Directed by Alexander Mackendrick.

Review
Today is the 100th Anniversary of Alec Guinness' birth. Whether you remember him as Obi-Wan Kenobi (as I do) or Prince Faisal in Lawrence of Arabia, Guinness was a great actor of his time that will always be remembered for his charm and his ability to act as any type of character, and that goes for this film as well. Guinness acts well among a variety of actors (including a young Peter Sellers), in fact everybody in this film do splendid jobs, they all act well together in their own way. The movie has many moments of hilarity, especially at the end, but spoiling that ruins the fun. One of my favorite moments though is when all the characters try to capture a bird back into its cage...and fail miserably. I don't know why I find it so funny, maybe it's just a scene that shows how strange yet funny the movie can get. However you choose to honor Guinness' birthday, this is a good film to showcase the very best of Alec Guinness.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.