Showing posts with label Julie Bishop. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Julie Bishop. Show all posts

October 16, 2023

The Black Cat (1934).

Review #2111: The Black Cat (1934).

Cast: 
Boris Karloff (Hjalmar Poelzig), Béla Lugosi (Dr. Vitus Werdegast), David Manners (Peter Alison), Julie Bishop (Joan Alison), Lucille Lund (Karen Poelzig), Egon Brecher (The Majordomo), and Harry Cording (Thamal) Directed by Edgar G. Ulmer (#797 - People on Sunday, #803 - Detour, #943 - The Man from Planet X, #1364 - Bluebeard, #2058 - Strange Illusion)

Review: 
Well, if you can make a movie loosely (loosely) based on the "Murders in the Rue Morgue", why not another? Universal did that in 1932 with Bela Lugosi as the star in a "mad doctor" role, and while the reception was not particularly favorable at the time, here we are anyway. The movie shares the title of an Edgar Allan Poe short story "The Black Cat". Edgar G. Ulmer co-wrote the story with Peter Ruric, which was one of the pen names for pulp writer George Sims (who also used Paul Cain as a name); they were inspired by psychiatry and the eccentricities of occultist Aleister Crowley; Ulmer apparently was quoted later as saying that the Poe story is "not a story you can dramatize". It is probably one of Ruric's better known efforts, since his other film credits include films such as, uh, Mademoiselle Fifi (1944). This was the first and only film Ulmer (who had one noted film with the co-directed People on Sunday to his name) made for a major studio, as he was soon blacklisted from the major studios after it was found that he had an affair with a woman (the script assistant on this film and later his wife) that happened to be married to the nephew of Carl Laemmle, the co-founder and owner Universal Pictures. As such, he would be relegated to a litany of lower-budget studios that saw him direct films that ranged from ethnic dramas to melodramas. It wasn't the first film to use the Poe story in loose inspiration, as evidenced by Unheimliche Geschichten (1919, 1932). By coincidence, Maniac (the exploitation film) was released the same year as this film that used the Poe story for loose inspiration. Seven years after the release of the film, Lugosi would star in a comedy horror remake that turned it into a mystery house feature. The next attempt at covering the Poe story came with Tales of Terror (1962). This was the first film to feature both Boris Karloff and Lugosi (both previously featured in Universal horror films as Frankenstein and Dracula, respectively) together, and they would appear in five further films for Universal (along with two others), such as The Raven (1935), which was an even looser inspiration from the Poe story of the same name.

Somehow, one finds a film (66 minutes) about revenge of genocide, preserved dead people, offscreen skin shedding, odd music cues, and a would-be cult ritual in a very modern looking house. On the middle of the clash is Manners and Bishop (who went by Jacqueline Wells until the 1940s). One only cares about the straight men (the former was in both Dracula and The Mummy) for about the length it takes to write a sentence when it comes to Universal horror films. Evidently, Ulmer felt the best way to deal with Lugosi and his apparent tendency to overact (combined with his accent) was to "cut him down" when it came to focusing to reaction shots with him on screen. Karloff (playing a character named after Hans Poelzig, who worked on The Golem like Ulmer did) on the other hand is let loose to do his impression of evil, which results in a tightwire act that makes for fairly useful struggle, even if the film itself is built on the loosest of motivations. It is an odd film that can't really decide whether to be a revenge film or a weirdo cult film, and the way they shoehorn the film title is especially amusing, as it is revealed that Lugosi's character is deathly afraid of cats and the main mansion (with its distinct architecture and strange choices and history) has a pack of black cats around. It is Lugosi and Karloff who carry the film (because it certainly isn't going to come from the two squares), a calm cat and mouse game waiting to fester that works best depending on which style of acting works best in bluster, since Lugosi seems to act with his eyes just as much as when you let the camera stay on him to contrast with Karloff having that cold stare of devilish intent. There of course can be credit for the weird stuff that is present (on screen or not) for a film released in 1934 while also noting that it is a weirdly constructed film. It has an odd runtime / pace comparison that might as well serve right for an odd film where the villains are more interesting than the heroes (you've got one blatant one and basically a co-conspirator waiting to strike). In general, it's a weird delight that sounds about right for an Ulmer film or for those interested further in the Universal line of wired horror films. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
Next up: 20 years later, what lies beneath The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)?

July 3, 2015

The Threat.


Review #723: The Threat.

Cast
Michael O'Shea (Detective Ray Williams), Virginia Grey (Carol), Charles McGraw (Arnold "Red" Kluger), Julie Bishop (Ann Williams), Frank Conroy (District Attorney Barker MacDonald), Robert Shayne (Inspector Murphy), Anthony Caruso (Nick Damon), Don McGuire (Joe Turner), and Frank Richards (Lefty) Directed by Felix E. Feist.

Review
It's a cheap little quickie of a b-movie that runs 66 minutes, made in the heyday of film noirs, with this being released at the turn of the decade. Yeah, that's a boring way to describe the movie, but at least the movie isn't as boring, so there's that. The movie is at least quick with its approach, and it also manages to make McGraw a main focus, and he does an excellent job as the villain, mainly because of his voice, which rings well with his chemistry with Grey and O'Shea. It's a rough and tough kind of movie, with the kind of hostage formula style you'd see from old movies, but it at least is entertaining enough if you're in the mood for it. If you'd like a movie from the 40's that will be short, to the point, and decent enough, this is for you. Is it great? No, but it is at least something to not be embarrassed by. You won't remember much from it after a while, but it is passable enough.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.