New Orleans.

Review #1047: New Orleans.

Cast: 
Arturo de Córdova (Nick Duquesne), Dorothy Patrick (Miralee Smith), Marjorie Lord (Grace Voiselle), Irene Rich (Mrs. Rutledge Smith), John Alexander (Col. McArdle), Billie Holiday (Endie), Louis Armstrong (Himself), Richard Hageman (Henry Ferber), Jack Lambert (Biff Lewis), Bert Conway (Tommy Lake), Joan Blair (Constance Vigil), with Woody Herman and His Orchestra, Zutty Singleton (Drums), Barney Bigard (Clarinet), Kid Ory (Trombone), Bud Scott (Guitar), Red Callender (Bass), Charlie Beal (Piano), Meade Lux Lewis (Piano), and Mutt Carey (Trumpet) Directed by Arthur Lubin.

Review: 
A film with Louis Armstrong and Billie Holliday? Admittedly, that is a pretty good way to attract interest in a film, particularly one that titles itself after the city that help create jazz. However, if you are looking for a good musical showcase, you may find yourself a bit disappointed. The film is a love story - between a high society girl and a casino owner, while being a fictionalized version of the rise of blues. The biggest problem with the movie is that it falls prey to relying on its conventional story parts more than its musical talents. It's not so much that the main two leads (de Cordova and Patrick) are awful or anything, it's just that they aren't particularly inspiring people for the energy that the movie looks like it should have. Holiday (in her only film role) and Armstrong (who had appeared in numerous films prior to this one) prove to be more entertaining than the duo in part because they aren't bound down to the plot-line so heavily.

I'm reminded of Stormy Weather (1943, #841), which also featured African American performers. In that film, the plot wasn't anything too particularly inspiring, but it also never managed to find itself in the way of showing the musical talents. One could also cite other musicals that featured numerous talents with plots that weren't as flimsy as what New Orleans does. It could've been a love letter to jazz, but it instead feels like a half-hearted note. For a film that is as mediocre as it gets, the musical parts with Armstrong and Holiday are top-notch, being quite beautiful and engaging. The film runs at 90 minutes, which isn't a bad length. Would I recommend it? I suppose that if one can recommend watching awful movies in order to see it to believe it, I guess that recommending this for its musical bits and not much else is okay. It won't garner a positive review, but it will merit a honorable mention at least.

Happy Mardi Gras folks.

Overall, I give it 6 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.