The Return of the Vampire.

Review #2260: The Return of the Vampire.

Cast: 

Bela Lugosi (Armand Tesla), Nina Foch (Nicki Saunders), Roland Varno (John Ainsley), Frieda Inescort (Lady Jane Ainsley), Miles Mander (Sir Fredrick Fleet), Matt Willis (Andreas Obry), Ottola Nesmith (Elsa Walter), Gilbert Emery (Dr. Walter Saunders), Leslie Denison (Detective Lynch), and William Austin (Detective Gannett) Directed by Lew Landers.

Review: 

Believe it or not, I actually was trying to find time to do this film for quite a few years. Sure, it probably doesn't sound like much, what with the title being probably the most generic one could ever do...but it is Bela Lugosi playing a vampire again. Sure, Mark of the Vampire (as directed by Tod Browning in 1935) had you going with the idea of Lugosi as a lead vampire (until that twist), but, well, here you get the real deal. This is for a movie that is basically a discount version of Dracula (1931), complete with a subservient person that, uh, turns into a wolf. It was released by Columbia Pictures, who could be efficient in cheap B-moviemaking, which is probably evident pretty quickly here, complete with select stock footage shots (the climax involves WWII footage, take a guess what that means). The film was written by Randall Faye and Griffin Jay based on an idea by Kurt Neumann; Faye was a regular writer (and sometimes director) on plenty of cheap features from 1926 until he died in 1948. The movie was directed by Lew Landers, who actually had a handful of experience in horror as a journeyman director, as he went from actor to assistant director by the early 1920s before becoming a director of pretty much anything and anywhere, such as The Raven (1935), which also featured Lugosi as star (Landers would then shift over to TV by the 1950s prior to his death in 1962). It wasn't quite the last time Lugosi played a vampire, but further efforts were, well, comedies such as Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948) and Mother Riley Meets the Vampire (1952). The movie was released in the same year as Universal's Son of Dracula and ended up being a decent hit.

You have to remember that Lugosi was basically typecasted after the success of Dracula (1931), particularly because of his Hungarian accent (of course by that time he was a naturalized US citizen). He couldn't get that many starring roles unless it involved horror or being with studios beyond Universal Studios. Chronic sciatica (and taking drugs to treat it that left him addicted) did not help matters for an actor that was relegated to doing stuff for studios such as Monogram Pictures. This was one of those rare times in the 1940s where he could actually do something as a star for a name studio, and I think he handled it confidently enough to make one want to see it as more than just a cheap Dracula imitation. Lacking the elegance befitting of the older film for something more akin to a creature of the night, he carries the film when required to do so to go with a movie that is generally paced well enough to let things go where they need to without overextending itself. Sure, it was made during the war, but there sure is something to making a vampire feature involving "bombing raids" with complete seriousness for a runtime of 69 minutes. Inescort and Mander prove suitable presences to do the investigative aspects required (the "vampire pursuit" is a bit cheekier when you consider the ending is addressing the audience!). Foch plays the object of pursuit patiently enough to make one go with the usual flow. Willis doesn't exactly have the werewolf makeup do him many favors, but the dilemma of a once-devotee is at least semi-compelling enough to view in the lens of trouble and toil to be free. I kind of like the idea of having a vampire tale told in two different war-time settings (the opening quarter of the film involves Emery and Inescort during 1918 putting a stake in the vampire only to inspire questions about putting a stake in a "living" person 25 years later!), complete with the vampire trying to impersonate a concentration camp escapee. It is the kind of brazen horror film that one can appreciate even as a clearly average movie, and the fact that Lugosi was there to lead the way rather than be trapped by a hokey foundation is a worthwhile thing to say when recommending a decent way to start the horror season.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Welcome to October. It probably won't be as busy as last year's extravagant event, but we will try to cover plenty of new ground in horror, whether that involves sequels long awaited or remakes to go along with new directors and familiar ones. For example, the next review is Macabre and the one after that...is Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III.

Murder, My Sweet.

Review #2233: Murder, My Sweet.

Cast: 

Dick Powell (Philip Marlowe), Claire Trevor (Helen Grayle/Velma Valento), Anne Shirley (Ann Grayle), Otto Kruger (Jules Amthor), Mike Mazurki (Moose Malloy), Miles Mander (Mr. Grayle) Douglas Walton (Lindsay Marriott), Don Douglas (Police Lt. Randall), Ralf Harolde (Dr. Sonderborg), and Esther Howard (Mrs. Jessie Florian) Directed by Edward Dmytryk (#715 - Crossfire)

Review: 

The 1940s were a tremendous time for mysteries and film noirs, with a handful involving Raymond Chandler in some form. Chandler had done a handful of writing in his early life, but he had worked in civil service and a variety of other things, which ended with being fired as vice president of the Dabney Oil Syndicate in the midst of the Great Depression. It was then that Chandler decided to write pulp fiction for a living (as inspired by reading stuff such as the pulp magazine Black Mask), which included his first novel (involving the character of Philip Marlowe) with The Big Sleep in 1939; Chandler finished seven novels with Marlowe prior to his death in 1959 at age 70. The first film based on Chandler's books was Time to Kill (1942), which was based on Chandler's third novel The High Window (1942) but with the lead character's name being "Michael Shayne" (which actually was a detective character created by Brett Halliday featured in a handful of films). There was then The Falcon Takes Over (1942), which borrowed elements from Chandlers' second novel in Farewell, My Lovely (1940) that was actually the third film in a series with a gentleman detective named "The Falcon". Now here we are in 1944 with the first Chandler adaptation with the Marlowe character while the author was busy with scripts himself (he co-wrote Double Indemnity along with And Now Tomorrow). RKO, who had been behind the aforementioned Falcon film, was behind this film, which was scripted by John Paxton. At the hand to direct is Dmytryk, who had risen from editor to directing by 1935, which was mostly in the B-category. RKO changed the title before release on the grounds that people thought it was a musical. The next adaptation of the Farewell novel would be in 1975, featuring Robert Mitchum as Marlowe. 

Powell was actually more known for his singing and romantic image. Incidentally, he had applied for the lead role in Double Indemnity, but he lost out to Fred MacMurray. The resulting success of this film altered his image, and he would feature again in a Dmytryk film with Cornered (1945). Considered by some to be among the first of the film noirs, it is pretty evident one has a wonderfully boiled movie on their hands that maneuvers through 95 minutes with worthwhile pacing and dialogue (as sometimes told in voiceover) in cutting efficiency. There is a casual edge to Powell that carries the film in ways that could only be done in an era of blistering need for entertainment. He drifts in and out with curiosity that really could fit the description made once in the film as not so much a detective but a slot machine. His nightmare in this atmosphere is one that we can get behind within all of the dirty work that arises in mystery that is especially familiar to those who love their cut-rate stories. Shirley (in her final role prior to retiring) and Trevor are the dueling objects of curiosity that each do pretty well in the usual expectations, particularly for the femme fatale in the latter. Mazurki makes a worthwhile heavy (with a little bit of help in angling, since the former wrestler was only slightly taller than Powell). The climax in finishing the setup of its intro (a man with a blindfold) is a pretty good one in closing such a lingering story of crosses with worthwhile reward (Chandler was once quoted as saying an ideal mystery was "one you would read if the end was missing", incidentally). As a whole, when it comes to seedy noirs relayed to audiences with worthwhile conviction and foundation, you can't go wrong with films such as this one to check out. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Private Life of Henry VIII.

Review #1678: The Private Life of Henry VIII.

Cast: 

Charles Laughton (Henry VIII), Merle Oberon (Anne Boleyn), Wendy Barrie (Jane Seymour), Elsa Lanchester (Anne of Cleves), Binnie Barnes (Catherine Howard), Everley Gregg (Catherine Parr), Robert Donat (Thomas Culpeper), Franklin Dyall (Thomas Cromwell), Miles Mander (Wriothesley), Laurence Hanray (Archbishop Thomas Cranmer), William Austin (The Duke of Cleves), John Loder (Thomas Peynell), Lady Tree (The King's Nurse), John Turnbull (Hans Holbein), Frederick Culley (Duke of Norfolk), William Heughan (Kingston), and Judy Kelly (Lady Rochford) Produced and Directed by Alexander Korda.

Review: 

Alexander Korda was involved in the realm of film for over forty years of his life. In fact, he would get his brothers involved with the industry to work alongside him as well, with Zoltan becoming a director and Vincent serving as an art director (for which he would win an Academy Award, which fittingly came with The Thief of Bagdad in 1940). Born in Austria-Hungary, he had changed his name from Kellner and started work in the film industry during the start of the first World War; his first writing project with Watchhouse in the Carpathians (1914) also became his first time directing a film. Over the next five years, he would eventually turn to producing his films as well as directing, with the presence of Corvin Film behind him that resulted in highlights such as White Nights (1916) and Harrison and Barrison (1917, which Korda called his favorite of the period). Trouble in his native country caused him to leave and never return, and he would spend the next two years in Austria and the next four in Germany, with The Prince and the Pauper (1920) helping to spur Korda on to the idea of making films for an international audience (incidentally, that film also happened to have a portrayal of Henry VIII). In 1926, he moved to Hollywood and would spend the next five years there. Although he had a few highlights such as The Private Life of Helen of Troy (1927, a comic biopic) while doing well with silent and sound, he grew tired of the studio system; a move to Europe meant brief time spent in France before settling in England, where he created his own company with London Films in 1932. In total, Korda would film/produce in six different countries while directing until 1947 and producing until his death in 1956. With this film, Korda made his gamble in trying to make an elegant film that honed British but could still attract attention through international waters while featuring a man of the stage with Laughton, who had made his way into acting on the stage in 1926 before dabbling into acting two years later, and while this was only the second time he would appear in a historical role (he had played Emperor Nero the previous year), this was the movie that turned him into a star in a career that spanned numerous portrayals of historical figures that went from Rembrandt to William Kidd (incidentally, he would play Henry VIII two decades later with Young Bess).

It could be easy to say that there isn't exactly a great central structure to this film. Keep in mind, we have a movie that runs at 97 minutes that can only depict five of the six wives married by the King (the first one is called a "respectable lady" in the opening title-card). After all, the king had married six wives but married five them in a span of ten years (after his marriage to Catherine of Aragon lasted 24 years before being the first of three annulled marriages) that has been characterized as both the most important monarch in English history and also one wracked with ego that could be tender to women but prone to withdrawal once out of love. In other words, if one doesn't really consider all of the historical quibbles, one probably won't also think about it goes with a resourcefully cheap but ultimately curious little gem. If Laughton is the biggest gem of the movie, he certainly deserves the credit for making what could have been a mild affair and turns it into a useful venture full of bombast that never seems like a complete caricature or a rosy portrait. Instead, it is a poignant movie that aims well to international audiences (it was the first non-Hollywood nominee for Best Picture), and eight decades has not quite withered the high-spirited efforts from Korda and his crew, right down to Korda regulars Lajos Bíró and Arthur Wimperis delivering a serviceable script that keeps the tempo relatively sane, at least to what one needs from Vincent Korda and his set design that keeps things fairly level. Laughton has the confidence required of such a big role to go alongside gravitas to make it more than just an offbeat king with a habit for women and eating food whole. If he ended up forming the perception of what folks had of the king in the eyes of an audience member, then so be it, because it does have a flattering edge in playing to the audience that can end with a roar or a curious glance (as one supposes it isn't all fun and games in the life of a king that just wants love to last). Oberon (in one of her first key roles) doesn't have as much time to start the first of numerous stories with the wives of Henry, but she has a striking energy to her that makes what seems like a routine dead person walking roll fairly different. Barrie does fine with garnering the next story with what is needed without being coy. Lanchester would appear in a total of twelve movies with Laughton (the two after all were married until the latter's death in 1962), and she proves quite interesting here, garnering some curious moments that make a fanciful third story, complete with a card game scene with Laughton that is one of the highlight scenes. Donat had just entered film in the year before the release of this film within Korda productions (after entering stage in 1921), and he makes a useful supporting presence for what is needed in the key story between him and Barnes, who garners some worthy ambition into a decent spirited chemistry with Laughton, complete with her watching him wrestle in front of all. Gregg is the last key lady of the movie, and while the portrayal probably won't hone well to the spirit of the person portrayed (namely the idea of a henpecked king), she comes out with at least some sort of dignity (the last line that breaks the fourth wall after she leaves the screen is up to you). In general, it is Laughton that helps to shape a movie that would have likely gone near the deep end without a centralizing performance from a growing star, which means one gets a usefully diverting time that hits the mark in relative entertainment without sacrificing showmanship or dedication, which can be credited to Korda and Laughton, who each can credit this film as a time to shine for the right reasons.

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.