The Mummy's Curse.

Review #2266: The Mummy's Curse.

Cast: 

Lon Chaney Jr (Kharis), Dennis Moore (Dr. James Halsey), Kay Harding (Betty Walsh), Virginia Christine (Princess Ananka), Addison Richards (Pat Walsh), Peter Coe (Dr. Ilzor Zandaab), Martin Kosleck (Ragheb), Kurt Katch (Cajun Joe), Ann Codee (Tante Berthe), Holmes Herbert (Dr. Cooper), and Napoleon Simpson (Goobie) Directed by Leslie Goodwins.

Review: 

Oh hell, let us get this over with. This was released six months after the last film and now takes place in the swamps...which seem more southern than what had been seen in the last one, which if one remembers correctly, was a sequel to a movie that was set 30 years after The Mummy's Tomb. That film basically was set in New England, so clearly the swamp from there must've morphed down under. And apparently, it is now 25 years after the supposed sinking of a mummy and his girl into the bayou, which means that really the film is set 55 years after The Mummy's Tomb, which means you could play pretend that this is the 1940s interpretation of the late 1990s (of course, there was no DVD to re-watch Mummy films before release so they probably just assumed people would assume "25 years later" meant like, the film was set in 1969 or something). Anyway, the only returning actor is Chaney, as this time one is spared having to go through exposition from someone like Zucco (I suppose being depicted not dying means he really did die). The director of the film was Leslie Goodwins, who actually had gotten his start with gagwriting and directing for silent films, which included Academy Award-nominated shorts. He directed from 1936 to 1959, with this apparently being his only horror film. The screenplay was done by Bernard Schubert and the story was done by Leon Abrams and Dwight V. Babcock. For once, the Egyptian-related woman is not the love interest of the totally relevant male lead. Eleven years later, Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy (1955) came out involving a mummy named "Klaris" played by Eddie Parker, who actually had done stunts for one of the previous Mummy films.

You already know the other three Mummy films of the 1940s kinda stunk, so you probably know this one is not much better. It actually has more mush than the last couple of features, where you basically can check out for 30 minutes and miss almost nothing. Things just happen and that is about it. Time and space might as well exist as just a concept. Part of the thing about writing two paragraphs for a review is that one tries to find the proper balance for buttering up the details how a film came to be or setting the table for the real review. You might notice that this second paragraph might suck, and that is because there just isn't that much to say about this film! It is bland in a way that will make one appreciate the lesser Frankenstein fare Universal had come up with (as evidenced here and here) because even those films felt like someone had commitment. At least Chaney had his round of drinking when in that chicken suit (at least the mask was preserved, because otherwise nothing else exists from Jack Pierce's line of work). The only memorable lines probably come from Simpson when it comes to "the devil's alive and he's dancing with the mummy" (he also says it in reverse). Where was I? Oh, right, the film ends with a cell-like room having its walls being brought down by the mummy that sees them perish while the once-princess is back to mummy form. Underwhelming is the easiest word to call this film, pure and simple. It is made on the cheap with the only value being that an hour could have been spent doing worse such as say, stubbing your foot or having to hear five stories from customers in a row. Flush the film and go to anything you can think about for horror.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931).

Review #2103: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931).

Cast: 

Fredric March (Dr. Henry Jekyll / Mr. Edward Hyde), Miriam Hopkins (Ivy Pierson), Rose Hobart (Muriel Carew), Holmes Herbert (Dr. John Lanyon), Halliwell Hobbes (Brigadier-General Danvers Carew), Edgar Norton (Poole), and Tempe Pigott (Mrs. Hawkins) Directed by Rouben Mamoulian (#773 - Applause and #1869 - The Mark of Zorro [1940])

Review: 

Well, I'm sure you are familiar with at least one adaptation of the 1886 novella The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, as written by Robert Louis Stevenson. The novella was popular enough to inspire a stage play in 1887 by Thomas Russell Sullivan, who was asked to write it by actor Richard Mansfield because he was intrigued at the idea of playing two roles. In the 20th century, a handful of the Jekyll and Hyde films took their inspiration from the play, and the screenplay by Samuel Hoffenstein and Percy Heath here is not too different. Undeniably, this had been on my to-do list for quite a while, because how could I resist the urge to do a 1930s horror film made by a major studio that wasn't from Universal? The only other Jekyll film I watched was the 1920 edition with John Barrymore, but that was five years ago (incidentally, 1920 also saw the release of Der Januskopf, a F.W. Murnau production that had Conrad Veidt as the star that is unfortunately lost). Besides, the pre-Code era is never a bad one to look through when it comes to the days of getting in tune with "talkie" films and literary adaptations that engage in a degree of entertaining acting along with the fact that one could even see the film at all. Cuts had been made later in the decade for a re-issue due to the Code, but thankfully those scenes are still around. When MGM made their own version of the Hyde story in 1941, they had Victor Fleming as director and Spencer Tracy as the star while making sure to purchase the rights to the previous 1931 film and they basically hid it to avoid competition, which meant one couldn't really study it or rescreen it on a regular basis for the next two decades (ironic too, because the 1941 film is generally considered fairly inferior to the 1931 movie). Apparently, it was Mamoulian who suggested the use of March for the lead role rather than Paramount's idea of using Irving Pichel (or Barrymore, but he was busy at MGM) because he would be fine but "not handsome enough" for the role of Jekyll. The makeup was done by Wally Westmore, but the key element to the effects for transformation came with cinematographer Karl Struss, who noted the use of panchromatic film with differing color in makeup for certain filters to go with certain camera shots. He actually felt that the effect for Hyde looked too much like a monkey while wishing it was more of a psychological change with subtle effect for the change in the mental state. 

Eventually, one sees the deterioration that comes with the arrival of Hyde to the scene, which does make for a useful 98-minute venture of costume drama in atmospheric scares. It is the kind of thing one would retain in their memory to go along with other present 1931 novel "adaptations" with Frankenstein and Dracula (either version). Evidently, one sees March as Jekyll just a notch above when they see him as Hyde in terms of scenes/time, which manages to come off as two distinct people in the boisterous way that March plays his hand. The film isn't a stagy stodgy adaptation in part because the camera action is focused on establishing the tension that comes from a man waiting to burst out of his traditional chains, whether that involves POV shots (which actually start the film) or the eventual crash of man and pre-evolved man. It probably isn't surprising that he won an Academy Award for this film (sharing it with Wallace Beery), because he is tremendous here, showing the tragedy that comes with curiosity that goes too far, which involves desperation and lunacy that impulsively strikes fear for those around him. Those transformation sequences (by potion or later by impulse) are astounding, and that first sequence of Hyde in the open as one of uninhibited design and desire works to what the film wants in distinct characterization with useful effect. What we have is a victim of his own desires. Hopkins and Hobart make up both sides of the impulse here, whether that involves charm or stuffy patience for the scenario presented in upbringing (one lives in a boarding room and the other is not allowed to marry until it reaches a certain day), which makes for a quality payoff when seeing the result of overblown desire (or passionate frustration). The rest of the cast play their parts in the roundabout way to be expected, contrasting the impulsive March handily. In total, this is a splendid horror film in its camera construction and its headliner performance from March that makes for a neat encompassing film still fit for the times required.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Night of the Creeps.

The Verdict (1946).

Review #2037: The Verdict (1946).

Cast: 

Sydney Greenstreet (Superintendent George Grodman), Peter Lorre (Victor Emmric), Joan Lorring (Lottie Rawson), George Coulouris (Superintendent John R. Buckley), Rosalind Ivan (Mrs. Vicky Benson), Paul Cavanagh (Clive Russell), Arthur Shields (Reverend Holbrook), Morton Lowry (Arthur Kendall), and Holmes Herbert (Sir William Dawson) Directed by Don Siegel (#893 - Dirty Harry, #920 - Invasion of the Body Snatchers, #1453 - The Shootist)

Review: 

There is good reason to view as many directors as possible when it comes to distinct presences of filmmaking, and Don Siegel is a clear one. The Chicago native started in the film industry within the library of Warner Bros. before he eventually rose to the head of their montage department, which would see him come up with montages for films such as Casablanca (1942). Siegel's career as a director started on pretty good footing, as his first short films with Star in the Night (1945) and Hitler Lives (1945) each won an Academy Award (the former for what is now referred to as Best Live Action Short Film and the latter for Best Documentary Short Film). The Verdict (1946) would be the first of countless films he would direct, which could involve noirs such as Riot in Cell Block 11 (1954), science fiction with Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) or five films spent with Clint Eastwood such as Coogan's Bluff (1968) that would prove influential for the star-turned-director. The movie is loosely based off the 1892 novel The Big Bow Mystery by Israel Zangwill, which had previously served as the basis for two films with The Perfect Crime (1928) and The Crime Doctor (1934). Peter Milne wrote the screenplay. Believe it or not, Greenstreet and Lorre appeared in eight films together. Greenstreet had been born in Eastry, Kent, England in 1879 and had actually tried to make his calling as a tea planter before his financial failures eventually led to acting. By the turn of the 20th century, he was doing his work on the stage, which he did on a regular basis in both Britian and America until he decided, at the age, of 61, to act in films. What better way to start a film career than with a first-time director in John Huston and various others in The Maltese Falcon (1941)? In the next eight years, he would appear in over a dozen feature films, and a number of them happened to feature Lorre, who worked for Warner Bros. in the time from 1941 to 1946. This happened to be the eighth and last film with both in key roles together (technically it is nine, since they were in Hollywood Canteen (1944) together, but that was a cameo bit).

What we have here is a locked room mystery that shuffles the layers around of what you think is a mystery winding down to the climax that finds itself wrapped in paranoia. The 86-minute runtime is the right amount to make a useful first crack for Siegel to hone his talent in something that makes an involving puzzle with seasoned pros (at least for those who are familiar with early 20th century character actor presences). Within its late 19th century atmosphere is a handy feature that wraps things up in the way you might hope to see from a puzzle that isn't so much a puzzle but an inevitability. Greenstreet is effective in the lead role as a man who is seemingly possessed to prove his worth as a man no matter where those decisions may take him in brimming and deductive work. Lorre is the ideal presence to pair him with, observant in the way only he could do in macabre interest in contrast to the looming somber nature of the lead. Coulouris makes a quality contrast to Greenstreet in slimy overconfidence that lingers every step of the way with the right sense of brimming timing. So, here comes the question that arises from the start: how is a man murdered when the door was locked and the windows were closed? Well, the surprise comes from the fact that the seemingly perfect crime is more than just jealousy and blackmail but is instead all about appearances and timing that is told in succinct and convenient fashion that seems about right for a B-level production. As a whole, The Verdict (1946) is a worthy first start for Don Siegel as director with a useful pairing in Greenstreet and Lorre to back up a mostly involving effort fit for curiosity in the now.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Dressed to Kill.

Review #1681: Dressed to Kill.

Cast: 

Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. John H. Watson), Patricia Morison (Hilda Courtney/Charwoman), Edmund Breon ("Stinky" Emery), Frederick Worlock (Colonel Cavanaugh), Carl Harbord (Inspector Hopkins), Patricia Cameron (Evelyn Clifford), Holmes Herbert (Ebenezer Crabtree), Harry Cording (Hamid), Leyland Hodgson (Tour Guide), and Mary Gordon (Mrs. Hudson) 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, #1161 - The House of Fear, #1216 - The Woman in Green, #1262 - Pursuit to Algiers, #1620 - Terror by Night)

Review: 

It has been said that Basil Rathbone wondered aloud on the set with one vocal question: "Why am I doing this?" Dressed to Kill is the fourteenth and final installment of the Rathbone-Bruce Sherlock Holmes series. If one had to play a character for seven years that had three notable phases, one can probably see where Rathbone's quandary comes in. At least the shift from to B-movie didn't hinder the look of these movies, because even when Universal Pictures aimed them for the war-time crowd, the movies managed to retain a basic sense of enjoyable mystery. Four of the twelve Universal films had managed to fall into the public domain (with this being one of them, although searching for the others isn't too hard) because of a lack of copyright renewal, and they were even released with digital restoration and colorization (by computers). It is only in recent years that one can enjoy these movies in proper DVD/Blu-Ray releases, for which can credit the UCLA Film and Television Archive (who restored the movies from 1993 to 2001, with funding coming from UCLA, Hugh Hefner, and later Warner Bros). Prints don't always survive in great condition, so imagine having to come up with something where the best possible prints are from 16-millimeter transfers. At any rate, this movie was written by Frank Gruber and Leonard Lee, with the former writer responsible for the previous film with Terror by Night. This time around, the plot involves music boxes with printing plates put in them that are...ripe enough for murder. It basically is a cat-and-mouse game to figure out what the boxes and plates mean before one side can get all three boxes. It might seem a bit familiar to The Pearl of Death (1944), which involved a thief putting a stolen pearl into one of a select group of Napoleon busts that hired a killer to find the bust at the cost of the folks with the busts, and that movie credited the 1904 story The Adventure of the Six Napoleons as its inspiration. It also borrows an aspect used in previous movies with a femme fatale as one of the key adversaries. One can credit the fact that these movies don't become a parody of themselves and have a remarkable consistency that while not exactly better than average is at the very least one to respect with craftsmanship. 

It all helps to have a few offbeat moments. Rathbone gets to fall under danger with a whole thing about gas that seems quite silly when paired with an earlier scene about comparing notes of the music box with a friend (of course hearing that box over and over doesn't help) and Bruce gets to make duck noises...somehow there is a context to that (i.e. a girl getting beat up for a music box that cries when found by the duo). Ah but that isn't quite fair to him, because they the exact chemistry needed to make this series roll as it needs to, and one only wonders how the radio series must have felt for folks back then. Honestly this is an okay way to end the series. It lacks a a proper climax, and it seems a bit familiar, but it maintains the consistency that this series has had without being a putrid way to close out what generally worked best in those little moments (i.e. like the ones I mentioned earlier). 72 minutes isn't too much to ask with a familiar group of actors fit for a familiar style of movie. Rathbone and Bruce play their parts with what is needed in the textbook style of detectives that are definitive without looking stiffly bored in the proceedings, no matter if you've watched one or all of these before seeing this. Morison leads the group of adversaries with worthy energy that makes a capable threat to match the heroes without looking like a copy of the folks from before, able to match in diverting energy, and this works best in a scene paired with Breon, in which they share a few lines with each other that ends with a quality ambush. Worlock plays the other part of the threat just fine (this was his fifth appearance in the series) while Harbord plays things with stock calmness of a character that actually had appeared in a few of the original stories (in this series, it is Lestrade that got the attention with six appearances). At any rate, there is a general causal quality that Neill has honed without trouble. This was the penultimate film he directed (Black Angel came out just two months after this film), as he died later that year at the age of 59, having directed over a hundred movies. If you've seen one, you've nearly seen all the other films, but Dressed to Kill maintains itself to serve as the logical conclusion to a series that more often than not generated useful mystery and workable performances to make it worthy enough for those who are curious for what it managed to do in the span of seven years and fourteen films.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

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.

The Pearl of Death.

Review #1056: The Pearl of Death.

Cast: 
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson), Evelyn Ankers (Naomi Drake), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Miles Mander (Giles Conover), Ian Wolfe (Amos Hodder), Charles Francis (Digby), Holmes Herbert (James Goodram), Richard Nugent (Bates), Mary Gordon (Mrs. Hudson), and Rondo Hatton (The Creeper) 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, and #1040 - The Scarlet Claw)

Review: 
The Pearl of Death (released less than three months after The Scarlet Claw) is the ninth film in the Sherlock Holmes series with Rathbone and Bruce, with this film involving the search of a valuable pearl that is linked to a series of murders. Given that previous plots have involved supernatural terrors, pyjama murders, house murders and wartime spy plots, I can't say that this plot is any stranger or weirder than the other films. As such, this film meets the standards for fans of the series, with no real detraction or distractions. Once again, Rathbone and Bruce do their jobs with the right kind of class and mannerisms that you would expect, although it is weird that the film has Holmes inadvertently starting the main plot by exposing the security system that protects the pearl. The supporting cast is acceptable, with Ankers and Mander playing capable adversaries without any bombast. Hoey does a fine job as expected, with a bit of entertaining banter between him and Rathbone. In any case, the rest of the movie is fairly suspenseful, moving along with all the right patterns and pace (69 minutes) that will satisfy people in the mindset for it that doesn't come off as an listless retread of any tricks utilized in the other films in the slightest.

The story took inspiration from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's short story "The Adventure of the Six Napoleons", with the additions of an accomplice to the villain and The Creeper, played by Hatton. He became an icon of sorts due to his unusual facial features that were caused by acromegaly, which distorted his head shape along with his face that happened to him gradually after he had been a soldier in World War I and a journalist. He had appeared in small roles in four other movies prior to this one. The reception of Hatton (who delivers a decent if not briefly sinister job in his time on screen) and his portrayal of the Creeper led to Universal Pictures casting him into two other films with his as "The Creeper" (albeit unrelated to this film): House of Horror and The Brute Man, both released in 1946, the same year of Hatton's death. In any case, this is a capable film that works just as well as most of the other Holmes films.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon.

Review #873: Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon.

Cast:
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson), Lionel Atwill (Professor Moriarty), Kaaren Verne (Charlotte Eberli), William Post Jr. (Dr Franz Tobel), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Holmes Herbert (Sir Reginald Bailey), Mary Gordon (Mrs. Hudson), and Henry Victor (Dr. Joseph Hoffner) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man)

Review:
This is the fourth of the Holmes series with the Rathbone-Bruce duo (with the previous three reviewed here previously: #583 - The Hound of the Baskervilles, and #721 - The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, #798 - Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror), premiering in Los Angeles in late December 1942. This film uses elements of the Doyle story The Adventure of the Dancing Men (actually just the code, but still), while taking place during the War, though this one is more of a spy flick. On the whole, it's a standard kind of flick that entertains in part due to Rathbone and Bruce, but also a relatively good climax. Obviously it's not a film to watch for faithfulness to Holmes stories (literally watch any other Sherlock adaptation), but the charm of the two actors along with a relatively sane plot make for good entertainment. I especially like how Holmes goads Moriarty on to drain his blood slowly, which is one of a few good moments in a climax that moves at its own pace. Obviously the tones of the war are prevalent once again (with a bombing test in the middle of the film), but there is some room for some sort of mystery. Atwill plays Moriarty fairly decently, stated with a good deal of coldness for an actor very prevalent in this era. Moriarty had already been portrayed in the series before (by George Zucco in the second film), but I suppose it's part of the tradition to reuse (or "revive") villains. The rest of the cast is okay, with some comic relief by Hoey and Bruce (the former would star in five more Holmes films), though the real focus is how the movie goes through the motions with some grace and some logic, with no real twist this time around. On the whole, it's an average film that would be nice for anybody looking to kill some time at 68 minutes, or just someone looking for some fine standard fare, with a bit of adventure for the time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

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.