The Raven (1935).

Review #2293: The Raven.

Cast: 

Béla Lugosi (Dr. Richard Vollin), Boris Karloff (Edmond Bateman), Lester Matthews (Dr. Jerry Halden), Irene Ware (Jean Thatcher), Samuel S. Hinds (Judge Thatcher), Spencer Charters (Colonel Bertram Grant), Inez Courtney (Mary Burns), Ian Wolfe (Geoffrey "Pinky" Burns), and Maidel Turner (Harriet Grant) Directed by Lew Landers (#2260 - The Return of the Vampire)

Review: 

You might remember that Universal had done a few horror films based on the works of Edgar Allan Poe. Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932) and The Black Cat (1934) had each featured Lugosi, and just like the latter, he co-stars with Karloff for a "adaptation" of The Raven. Apparently, several writers were brought in to try and bring treatments for writing, but only David Boehm would be given credit. The movie isn't really an adaptation of the 1845 poem of the same name by Poe because, well, if you read it, you would know all it involves is a man who sees and hears of a raven that goes "Nevermore" among other various rhymes (interestingly, there was a 1915 film that went by the same name as the poem that merely was a biographical film about Poe himself). It merely is a film where a man really seems to like the works of Poe instead, complete with seeing a solo dance set to a recitation of the story and a torture device straight from "The Pit and the Pendulum". This was the third appearance of Karloff and Lugosi together (eight by the end of the 1940s) after the aforementioned Cat film and Gift of Gab, a musical comedy that probably nobody interested would care about unless they like bit parts; the next film with the two was The Invisible Ray (1936). This was the kind of movie that probably unsurprisingly led to people being weird about horror movies, with one British paper wondering what was behind the movie that was "of "horror" for "horror's" sake", accusing it as nonsense for trying to hide under the Poe inspiration while saying it has no indication of "imaginative control" in story or treatment. This was among the first films directed by Landers, who actually was born Louis Friedlander before he elected to go by Landers for directing later on. Nearly thirty years later, Karloff appeared in the next "adaptation" of the Raven story as part of the Corman-Poe cycle for AIP.

It actually is a pretty neat movie when you get down to it, mostly because its obsessive glee is pretty infectious for such a carefully curated runtime of just 61 minutes. Lugosi gets to eye-ball his way through a movie that is more his show than Karloff's show in the best of ways imaginable for cut-rate spooks. Lugosi gets to have some fun moments involving a considerable ego (he says at one point that he is "a law unto myself") and getting to play a game of cat-and-mouse with Karloff, who gets packed in with some makeup because of the nature of the plan drawn up of obsessive love by way of extortion; the theory of ugly folks going around doing crimes because of said ugly is amusing here, suffice to say. It's funny to compare it with say, Supernatural when it comes to saying just how clearly better one is in doing a movie with enjoyment within a limited body-count potential (this one has one, technically) because it actually feels like there is commitment with one's lead stars to go with a story that runs bold-faced into devotion with no hacky limitations. I like how one can have such a delusion of being a god can go hand in hand with basically being a fan of literary works, particularly one that likes scary moving doors to use on people. Sure, the others besides our duo are merely "fine", but you get madcap enjoyment seeing Lugosi, even with an obvious ending involving beasts liking the sight of happy normal folks. As a whole, it isn't a great Universal horror film, but it does fine with those other Poe films they made and has a worthwhile duo to make a neat curiosity anyway.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

THX 1138.

Review #1725: THX 1138.

Cast: 

Robert Duvall (THX 1138), Donald Pleasence (SEN 5241), Maggie McOmie (LUH 3417), Don Pedro Colley (SRT 5752), Ian Wolfe (PTO), Marshall Efron (TWA), Sid Haig (NCH), John Pearce (DWY), and James Wheaton (Voice of OMM 0000) Directed by George Lucas (#113 - Star Wars, #141 - American Graffiti, #142 - Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, #143 - Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones, and #144 - Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith)

Review: 

A half century later, there are quite a few things to unpack with this particular movie. For one, it was the feature film debut for George Lucas. As one must remember, the California native grew up with an appreciation for comics and science fiction (take note of the clips shown in the opening of the film), and this would serve him quite well when he entered the University of Southern California and its school of Cinematic Arts; he cited educators Lester Novros and Slavko Vorkapich (chair of the school) as influences on Lucas, who made numerous short movies as a filmmaker that were fairly abstract (ranging from a minute to seven, with only one having a narrative). He graduated with a bachelor's degree in fine arts in 1967, but his time spent with USC did not end there, as he went back as a graduate student in film production, with one of his duties being to teach students of the United States Navy that were studying documentary cinematography and working under Verna Fields in editing movies for the United States Information Agency (Fields would later edit a number of features for fellow USC filmmakers as a pioneer in her own right). In total, Lucas made nine short features from 1965 to 1968; the one that matters most to this discussion is his sixth in Electronic Labyrinth: THX 1138 4EB, made in the course of 12 weeks in 1967. He had an idea for a future film with existing stuff utilized for said future, and he tasked his friend (and fellow USC student) Matthew Robbins to write a brief outline involving the THX character and a chase scene. He utilized the Navy connection to helpful effect, since Navy folks served as crew for the movie while helping him get access for various locations to shoot. The result was a movie that won 1st prize at the National Student Film Festival in the Dramatic category. Later on, Francis Ford Coppola (fresh off Finian's Rainbow) helped Lucas with a deal to make a feature film with Warner Bros.-Seven Arts (co-produced with American Zoetrope, which Coppola and Lucas founded in 1969), and Lucas made the feature over the course of five weeks in the fall of 1969. A year was then spent in the editing room by Lucas and Walter Murch (who each wrote the movie). If you can believe it, studio executives did not appreciate what they saw of the final workprint, and they requested an edit to be done within the studio, which took out four minutes from the final edit. Made on a budget of $777,777, the movie was a mild success on initial release (making its budget back plus $122K).

I'm sure you are aware of the story that comes from a movie dedicated to the illusions of safety and order within a closed-off society filled with restrictions and watchful eyes everywhere. In fact, I know you have, because there have been a handful of books and movies that have run on similar lines for decades, such as George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, for example. Of course, we are talking about a movie with Chapperell race cars modified to look like jet cars. We are also talking about a movie that seems quite curious to talk about when thinking about Lucas as a filmmaker given what would come later in the decade, and yet it is the key piece in trying to understand what he aspired to do as a maverick filmmaker in terms of visual storytelling (along with his intent to not have studios try to control the production of his movies). Perhaps it was fate that a bleak movie involving the pitfalls of consumerism and conformity took its own path to reaching audiences. It likely seems more fitting of its decade than with the next two films Lucas directed, that might be for sure, which might seem a bit off-putting for those who come in completely cold for this sci-fi movie. Of course this isn't quite a movie one watches for acting chops; in an interview, Colley noted that Lucas seemed to not be too comfortable around actors, treating the production as like one of his student films (perhaps ironically, an actor in one his future movies would say something fairly similar years later); certainly it is an interesting sight to see a group of shaved actors amidst a crowd of other voices, and Duvall certainly does fine a role that requires a bit of a blank slate sparked into breaking out of obedience into ordinariness. Pleasance, gripping in confined obedience that drips of pathetic ooze within certain pieces of dialogue, matches fine with what is required from someone dealing in the middle of a society without any choices, where fear of the unknown can be a powerful deterrent (and easily identifiable). McOmie (in her one and only film as star) is used for poignant moments with attempts at breaking free with a sense of emotion that can be construed as fear with a bit of warmth waiting to break free. Colley proves curious in those moments seen on screen within the prison sequence, one in the middle between comfort and curiosity in the angle of finding a way out. The movie relies on visual interest within a dystopia where prisons have no walls, kids have IV lines for economics in their veins, and people like to take substances to curb their emotions as they work under jobs that are terribly dangerous (factories even announce the death tolls of the period in an attempt to promote safety); when not working, people just buy things without much thought while watching odd holograms. The robot policeman are the only visual adversary one sees, since you never actually see just who is in control, knowing only that set budgets are set for the capture of anyone who tries to escape. It is mostly a visual movie, which is interesting to see when most of the stuff is white (clothing, bald hair, et cetera) but certainly not the easiest film to sit through in its versions; the movie was restored in 1977 with an 86 minute run-time that restored the four cut minutes on the original release that was later put out on VHS and LaserDisc, while a Director's Cut was supervised by Lucas in 2004 that restored the film on an audio/video level while adding a few bits of computer generated imagery (along with adding detail to certain sequences) that resulted in a run-time of 88 minutes (in fact, one can apparently watch it with just the sound effects and score present with no dialogue, if one is into that sort of thing). Perhaps the easiest parallel in terms of a student film being turned into a movie for effect is Dark Star (released three years later...by sheer coincidence, it was made by a USC alum and included a reference to this movie), where it might have reached better as just a student film; regardless, I thought this movie was interesting in the right parts to work in generating a curious bleak world in imagery that leaves more for thought rather than thrills. It isn't a great achievement in originality with its story, but it does prove diverting in visual nature with the right kind of curiosity to make it worthwhile to overcome its shortfalls and work out fine, one that certainly merits attention as a cult classic, one that is just odd enough and interesting enough to win out.

Overall, I give it 8 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.

The Scarlet Claw.

Review #1040: The Scarlet Claw.

Cast: 
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson), Gerald Hamer (Alistair Ramson), Paul Cavanagh (Lord William Penrose), Arthur Hohl (Emile Journet), Kay Harding (Marie Journet), Miles Mander (Judge Brisson), David Clyde (Sgt. Thompson), Ian Wolfe (Drake), and Victoria Horne (Nora) 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 Scarlet Claw was the eighth film in the Sherlock Holmes series (and sixth released by Universal) that featured Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. Although the film is not an adaptation of any of the stories by Arthur Conan Doyle, the film has some similarities with The Hound of the Baskervilles, which had already been adapted into a film (#583) with Rathbone and Bruce five years prior. Qualities that the two share involve a terror that is painted with phosphorescent but also a terror of the supernatural that inspires fear, an escaped convict on the loose, and drawing the killer out through making the villain believe that Holmes has left. In any case, the earlier film (and novel) are both better than this film, although this movie is actually fairly entertaining in its own right. It is usually cited by some critics as the best of the twelve Sherlock Holmes films released by Universal, and I can't really doubt that assessment. John P. Fulton provides the "special photography" for the movie, and the effect used to show the glowing figure that menaces in the mist for the first half of the film is fairly clever. The sets (meant to evoke a Canadian village) for the film do a fine job in making for a somewhat moody feel that feels a bit different from other prior films to the film's advantage. It's hard not to like Rathbone and Bruce in their roles as they just blend in fairly seamlessly. Hamer proves to be a decent villain for the film, and Cavanagh and Hohl also provide fair performances. The plot seems to be constructed well, managing to not have anything too out of the bend. At 74 minutes, this is an easy one to recommend for people, particularly for people wanting more adventures with Sherlock Holmes. It isn't anything too groundbreaking or great, but it will prove satisfactory for viewers on the whole.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.