She (1935).

Review #1841: She.

Cast: 

Helen Gahagan (She Who Must Be Obeyed), Randolph Scott (Leo Vincey), Nigel Bruce (Professor Horace Holly), Helen Mack (Tanya Dugmore), Gustav von Seyffertitz (Billali, She's mortal Governor), Lumsden Hare (Dugmore), Samuel S. Hinds (John Vincey), and Noble Johnson (Amahaggar Chief) Directed by Lansing C. Holden and Irving Pichel (#617 - Destination Moon, #709 - The Most Dangerous Game, and #1374 - Quicksand)

Review: 

There are certainly a few weird distinctions that come with this film, if you think about it. For one, it was produced by Merian C. Cooper, who worked in film for over four decades in a variety of positions that ranged from director to producer; King Kong (1933) is undoubtedly the one he is remembered for and for good reason, so one isn't surprised to see Cooper involved with this film, which was meant to be an fantasy adventure epic (complete with a score by the same composer as Kong in Max Steiner). The movie is an adaptation of the 1886 novel of the same name by H. Rider Haggard (likely best known for King Solomon's Mines, which he wrote one year prior), with the screenplay written by Dudley Nichols and Ruth Rose; you may recognize the latter name as the co-writer of the screenplay for King Kong (she met Ernest B. Schoedsack, a collaborator with Cooper on numerous films on the production of Grass in 1925 and thus wrote a total of six scripts for Cooper's productions after Schoedsack and Rose married), and Nichols would win an Academy Award that year for another script with The Informer. The most unusual pairing of directors might be with this film, since it features a journeyman director in Pichel and Holden, with the latter being more known for his service in World War I for the 95th Aero Squadron, where he shot down seven enemy pilots. As it turns out, Cooper was also serving in the War as a pilot. For Holden, this was his first and only feature film while also serving as a production illustrator; he worked on two other films in the art department alongside one short directed before he died in a plane crash in 1938 at the age of 42. 

Of course, the main thing to remember is that the film was meant to be shot in Technicolor, complete with sets and costumes ready for its lavish fantasy adventure, but RKO Radio Pictures at the last moment cut Cooper's budget (instead of $1 million for this film and another production with RKO, he now had just $1 million combined to make two films). However, a recent re-release by Legend Films presents the film in "colorized" form by screen legend Ray Harryhausen, who was a friend to Cooper, so one technically has the option to see the film as it might have been if it the film was shot in color (having seen what the color print looks like, I cannot actually agree with the idea, but folks will be folks). RKO wanted to have Joel McCrea and Frances Dee for the leads, while Cooper wanted to borrow Greta Garbo from MGM for the title role, but Randolph Scott (borrowed from Paramount) and Helen Gahagan make a fair compromise. The film failed at the box office, costing the studio over $180,000, although it did break even after it was re-released in 1949 when paired with The Last Days of Pompeii (the other RKO production Cooper produced in 1935), although twelve minutes of the 102 minute run-time were cut. It was feared that the film was lost because of a fire that wiped out a print from the studio vault. The original film only exists because of the efforts of Raymond Rohauer. He had invited filmmakers and stars to attend showing and discuss their contributions to film, and it was during one of these tributes that he was approached by Buster Keaton, who asked him if he would be interested in his "garage full of film", and one of the prints found was this film.

Haggard wrote three further novels involving the title character before his death at the age of 68 in 1925. Five adaptations of varying length were constructed before the making of this feature, with the 1925 version (the first feature-length adaptation) even having intertitles written by Haggard himself. Since the making of this film, three further adaptations have followed, with one occurring in 1965, a sequel to that film in 1968, and a post-apocalyptic version in 1984. The striking difference between the film and novel is that the book was set in the Artic rather than Africa, and the film reportedly takes elements from the previous She works. So, we have a pursuit for a fountain of youth-I mean a Flame of Life involving Art Deco decoration and one prominent prop utilized from King Kong that features a dance sequence with choreography that was nominated for an Academy Award. It results in a production that obviously deserved better from RKO that nevertheless makes for useful spectacle. It eventually turns from general pulp to useful curiosity in romance when Gahagan finally appears, but the general trio of Scott-Bruce-Mack do prove worthy in setting the movie up without falling prey to all of the wooden dialogue they sometimes have to say to get the adventure going. Scott walks through the role with the kind of "strong, silent type" of patience that makes one see why he would become an ideal man for the Western for years to come. Bruce had moved to Hollywood from Britian in 1934, and he cultivates a stuffy but always diverting piece of the puzzle, while Mack makes for an assertive romantic interest that serves a worthy spark with Scott. Speaking of which, there is Gahagan to consider. A stage actress before she became a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, her icy demeanor in the face of immortality and diminishing humanity certainly jumps the movie's interest level when she shows up to engage with Scott; her appearance and cadence would inspire the look of the Evil Queen for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937). While the sets and effects generally work out well for the movie, I would say that the lessened budget does affect the scope of certain scenes, where one wonders just what would have happened with the right amount of staging, but I do think there is still a worthy flair for adventure and allure present to push the film with enough conviction to make the eventual climax more than just someone deciding their future on a flame. In that sense, She (1935) is quite the fascination to hear about along with actually watch as a whole, serving as an interesting example of the quest feature with dutiful fascination fit for a hidden gem.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Rebecca (1940).

Review #1828: Rebecca. 

Cast: 
Joan Fontaine (The second Mrs. de Winter), Laurence Olivier (George Fortescue Maximilian "Maxim" de Winter), Judith Anderson (Mrs. Danvers), George Sanders (Jack Favell), Reginald Denny (Frank Crawley), Gladys Cooper (Beatrice Lacy), C. Aubrey Smith (Colonel Julyan), Nigel Bruce (Major Giles Lacy), Florence Bates (Mrs. Edythe Van Hopper), Edward Fielding (Frith), Melville Cooper (Coroner at trial), Leo G. Carroll (Dr. Baker), and Leonard Carey (Ben) Directed by Alfred Hitchcock (#219 - Rope, #223 - North by Northwest, #446 - Spellbound, #447 - Psycho, #450 - Vertigo, #455 - Rear Window, #553 - Strangers on a Train, #800 - Shadow of a Doubt, #910 - Notorious, #963 - The Lodger: A Story of the London Fog, #964 - The Ring (1927), #965 - Downhill, #970 - Mr. and Mrs. Smith, #977 - Frenzy, and #1343 - The 39 Steps, and #1739 - The Birds)

Review:

It does become interesting to consider just how many movies one can see of the late Alfred Hitchcock, particularly since his line of work has taken up nine percent of all films I've ever seen, which is a weird way of saying seventeen films. Of course, the real story is the fact that this was not only the 26th feature film directed by Hitchcock, it was his first directed in Hollywood. Hitchcock was forty years old when he decided to move to Hollywood, having believed that he reached his peak in his native Britain, and it was the efforts of producer David O. Selznick that led to him moving; the two signed a seven-year contract; Hitchcock would end up producing more films by himself than with Selznick, and they would have their disagreements in terms of personality and professionalism when it came to this film, to where they only worked on one other film together in Spellbound a couple of years later, most notably because Hitchcock liked to film a controlled cut without too much extra footage. As such, this is an adaptation of the novel of the same name that had been written by Daphne du Maurier, and it was Hitchcock who had adapted her previous book Jamaica Inn in 1939. Incidentally, the book had been adapted on radio by Orson Welles in 1938, and a stage adaptation had been done by Du Maurier in 1939. Selznick aimed to be quite faithful to the book, as much as one can do with the Production Code, which had one particular rule about spouse death. Hitchcock was a busy man, since this was also the year of release for Foreign Correspondent, which like this film would be nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture (other films nominated were films such as The Grapes of Wrath, The Great Dictator, and The Philadelphia Story). As it happened, Rebecca would win the award, making it the only Hitchcock film to ever win the honor; Selznick, as the recipient of the award, became the first back-to-back winner for a producer. As such, the screenplay was done by Robert E. Sherwood and Joan Harrison, while the adaptation was done by Philip MacDonald and Michael Hogan. 

Several actors were considered for the main roles, such as Ronald Colman, William Powell, Olivia de Havilland, Loretta Young, among others. Sometimes one needs a Gothic vision to really see the talents of Hitchcock come alive, if only because one wants to see just where the rabbit hole goes in mystery and tortured romance, where the unsaid is more biting than the action. 130 minutes never felt so magnificent when it comes to how Hitchcock has handled the macabre with the terror that comes from memories of a deceased wife that haunts both an estate and the husband himself (incidentally, one never sees the title character nor knows the name of the one of the main characters) that creates such diverting paranoia without becoming a costume show; George Barnes and his cinematography help in that regard to make a stirring film look as alive as it does, and it probably isn't surprising that Barnes won an Academy Award for his work. Of course, the cast is just as effective as the crew. Olivier portrays the vulnerability required with such brooding patience that makes for quite a volatile and curious interaction with Fontaine, one ripped by the past that holds him down further than anything else could, which means one is watching a gripping performance that isn't just a show for Olivier (a talented actor already noted for his performance in Wuthering Heights the year before). Fontaine (the younger sister of actress Olivia de Havilland) had a few key roles in films before this film, most notably Gunga Din (1939), but this was the film that made her a key star (Fontaine however did not care for her typecasting for just melodramatic roles, which would include films done by Selznick like Jane Eyre (1943) and even another du Maurier adaptation in Frenchman's Creek the next year). It doesn't take much to see why she became a star, because her performance is quite excellent, one with the exact type of withering vulnerability required in showing doubt that doesn't become overshadowed by the other members of the cast, and the growing confidence by the second half only helps to make a well-rounded performance of curiosity. Anderson (considered one of the great stage actors of her time) makes a compelling adversarial presence, one who lurks around Fontaine that practically glides from scene to scene (complete with a lack of blinking) that makes the final result all the more haunting. Sanders, when he does show up, makes a perfect cad to view against the others, and the rest of the cast keeps the proceedings dignified and well invested. As a whole, the movie is a classic worth viewing among all the other Hitchcock classics for what is seen and what isn't seen in this Gothic mystery that has the highlights from its director and producer in Selznick without becoming consumed by itself. One can debate just where the film rests among the classics, but one knows by the time the film ends that it is up there in the margins somewhere for what it ends up doing with a master at work.

Overall, I give it 10 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.

Terror by Night.

Review #1620: Terror by Night.

Cast: 

Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. Watson), Alan Mowbray (Major Duncan-Bleek), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Renee Godfrey (Vivian Vedder), Frederick Worlock (Professor Kilbane), Mary Forbes (Lady Margaret Carstairs), Skelton Knaggs (Sands), Billy Bevan (Ticket Collector), and Geoffrey Steele (The Honourable Roland Carstairs) Produced and 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, and #1262 - Pursuit to Algiers)

Review: 

This was the thirteenth film to star Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, respectively, and this is the penultimate feature in the 14-film series loosely based on the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Honestly, one probably would need a primer on just what happened before in this series to really compare the quality of the films from 20th Century Fox and Universal Pictures; the first film is likely the most interesting, while the war-themed films were certainly offbeat, ranging from sabotage ring voices to the return of Moriarty (twice) to microfilm matchbooks to Rondo Hatton to Algiers. Decrying the shift to modernizing the tales is an easy out, but it was the mindset of the producers at Universal to try and keep up with the tastes of young filmgoers (much to Rathbone and Bruce's reluctance, as pointed out by Bruce in his unpublished autobiography). Besides, it wasn't the first Holmes adaptation to turn to modern-day technology, as Sir Doyle had decried the use of telephones for his Victorian icon for the Stoll Pictures series of shorts/features (Doyle lived long enough not only to introduce The Lost World but also admire Eille Norwood as his favorite portrayal of Holmes on screen). At any rate, Rathbone and Bruce (who were good friends besides acting) were also starring in The New Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, with Rathbone and Bruce starring in over 200 episodes before Rathbone left in 1946 (Bruce would leave the following year) that served as adaptations of the Doyle works into 30 minutes. The Neill films were generally made fast (roughly taking over three weeks to make, generally shot out-of-sequence), but they were efficient enough to keep the ball rolling for further interest while usually only running an hour. 

So here we are, back with a series that now has a train murder mystery on its hands with a group of character actors and a hour to spend in the public domain. The film was written by a new writer this time with Frank Gruber, who generally specialized in writing in detective stories and Westerns through magazines and features (he would also write the next film). If you've kept up with the series by this point, there is no good reason to stop now, and what we have is a fairly serviceable film, fair in its setup of mystery in false leads and twists without devolving into anything out of step in nonsense. One gets to see a bit of danger for the lead, a bit of comic amusement (for better or worse), and other familiar aspects and folks (such as Hoey and Worlock, regulars at this point) that prove just diverting enough to keep the tone up to the usual Neill levels. In other words, it will keep your attention for those who seek an effort from the 1940s (read: 75 years ago), with relatively standard acting and pace with its one set (and jewel) keeping focus well. At this point in time, Rathbone was clearly itching to spirit away from playing Holmes (amid the fear of typecasting), but it never seemed to interfere with his work. As is the case for the standard bearer of calm analytical disposition, he delivers a fine performance, one that makes an encounter with a would-be killer while outside seem like a walk in the park. Bruce does what is given to him in retorts for clues and/or offbeat bumbling, whether that means in interacting with passengers that range from friend to foil or in dealing with thieves (teapot or otherwise) - there may be better portrayals of Watson out there, but Bruce will stick with you regardless. Mowbray follows along with Bruce with useful presence, a fair presence to counteract the other supposed figures of suspicion without being reduced to the stature of a coat rack. Hoey makes his last appearance as Lestrade go well enough, even sharing an interesting moment of discussion with Rathbone and Bruce that keeps the film on the conventional toes. Godfrey, sporting an "accent", does okay but is overshadowed by the burrowing bluster of Worlock (who gets the better of Bruce in one amusing sequence). Others fill the detail to what is needed, whether that involves stuffiness in Forbes or conniving with Knaggs, each longtime presences in cinema. As a whole, the film makes enough sense of itself with execution in intrigue and its setting to make for a relatively useful affair in a series winding down but still packing interest in a neat one hour package. If you've done one, what's another one (or thirteen) going to hurt?

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars. 

The Rains Came.

Review #1351: The Rains Came.

Cast: 
Myrna Loy (Lady Edwina Esketh), Tyrone Power (Major Rama Safti), George Brent (Tom Ransome), Brenda Joyce (Fern Simon), Nigel Bruce (Lord Albert Esketh), Maria Ouspenskaya (Maharani), Joseph Schildkraut (Mr. Bannerjee), Mary Nash (Miss MacDaid), Jane Darwell (Aunt Phoebe - Mrs. Smiley), Marjorie Rambeau (Mrs. Simon), and Henry Travers (Rev. Homer Smiley) Directed by Clarence Brown (#423 - A Woman of Affairs, #433 - Angels in the Outfield, and #484 - Plymouth Adventure)

Review: 
If you want a disaster film to go along with your romance, I guess this could fit the bill. This was a film that 20th Century Fox spent nearly half of its 100-day schedule in making rain to go along with a flood sequence (using a 50,000 gallon tank of water on a studio soundstage), with 33 million gallons of water used, with a fifth of the $2.5 million budget being spent on flood and earthquake scenes. It surely paid off for its effects crew, since E. H. Hansen and Fred Sersen ended up as the first awardees for Best Visual Effects through this film. Who better to helm the film than veteran director Clarence Brown (a versatile director of romance, dramas and period pieces) and established actors like Loy (a versatile actress known for vamp roles prior to The Thin Man in 1934), Power (a matinee idol in the latter 1930s along with the 1940s), and Brent (a leading man for romances primarily in the 1930s and 1940s) to go with it. The film was adapted to the screen by Philip Dunne and Julien Josephson from the 1937 novel of the same name by Louis Bromfield. A remake would be produced by the studio with The Rains of Ranchipur (1955), which changed the ending (so no one dies). This is a glossy but finely crafted film,  where one will be pleased at what they get on a visual level alongside the romantic quartet when it comes to generating intrigue. Loy certainly seems to be having fun with such a mischievous (at least at first mischievous) headline role, brash but immensely watchable every time she is on screen, whether that involves playful banter or helping the sick. Power comes off a bit reserved, but it works out in making calm passion. This plays itself out with Loy's death scene, where Brown had told her to try acting it out with her eyes open through holding her breath. It is a striking scene, one must say. Brent plays a decent rogue, one that fits in contrast to whoever leading lady he is playing towards, whether that means a clash with Loy or a fresh (in that this was her debut role) Joyce. Bruce (a character actor since 1922 whose most famous portrayal was of Dr. Watson starting in 1939) certainly does fine with a boorish turn, and Ouspenskaya certainly proves a charmer from time to time. The romances play out fine for its 105 minute run-time, where one can see how they'll draw themselves out but not find themselves predicting everything (for a film with a title like this, at least).  In a year with plenty of romance and spectacle on numerous fronts, The Rains Came is a decent little gem among others. It makes for a decent show with its fair passion and well-done effects to make a diverting time to go with, utilizing a workable cast and an accomplished director to get things done without too many troubles.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Ah yes, the end of the month (and the tribute to the 1930s) has come. If you are wondering, I have not forgotten about doing films from the current year as well. Those will be sprinkled into March at their own time, apart from the primary goal of March, the third phase of Tribute to the Decades with the 1940s.

Pursuit to Algiers.

Review #1262: Pursuit to Algiers.

Cast: 
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson), Marjorie Riordan (Sheila Woodbury), Rosalind Ivan (Agatha Dunham), Morton Lowry (Steward), Leslie Vincent (Prince Nikolas / Nikolas Watson), Martin Kosleck (Mirko), Rex Evans (Gregor), John Abbott (Jodri), and Gerald Hamer (Kingston) Produced and 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, and #1216 - The Woman in Green)

Review: 
As the Rathbone-Bruce batch of Holmes films gravitates towards its end, one would imagine that this film (the twelfth of the series) would continue on the decent path of the others with its traditional pacing and fair quality alongside offbeat choices involving plotting or characters. After all, this is a movie that starts with Holmes getting a clue to a secret place from a menu with fish and chips and then being recruited to escort a prince back to his country on a plane that is too small for both Holmes and Watson (because one needs a famed detective to escort a prince home). At least one can't say these films have given up on making themselves sticking out (this happened to be released three months after The Woman in Green). Surprisingly (or not), Holmes is presumed to be dead (again) when the plane is shot down, but he shows up on the ship with Watson en route to Algiers because he doesn't like plans set up by others (I can agree with that).  Really, you could make a comedy about these assassination attempts at the prince (disguised as Watson's nephew, because he has quite the resemblance), ranging from trying to poison the tea to knife throwing through a port-hole (ouch) to exploding paper hat packages, but at least one can say they'll have some sort of smile when watching this film, which is mostly set on a ship. It even finds time for a song for Watson to sing, which goes along fine actually. There isn't much of a mystery this time around, since you get to know who the assassins and their plot very early on, so it really seems more of a quiet thriller more than anything, complete with red herrings (with diamonds that don't matter, no less) to boot. At least there are some references to previous Holmes works that will make it seem a bit interesting, such as Watson talking about a giant rat of Sumatra. The highlight of the film proves to be the duo of Rathbone and Bruce, who walk through this conventional kind of vague mystery film just fine, with the latter having his own moments that aren't just there to make fun of the character he plays, such as the aforementioned song or when he believes that Holmes is dead and has to collect himself. The other cast-mates are hit and miss, save for the main trio of villains, who don't even get a showdown scene with Holmes. Imagine watching a movie for 65 minutes and having a twist ending instead of some silly showdown where Holmes and Watson could outsmart three bumbling agents (one of them being wrestler Wee Willie Davis). This is a ridiculous movie, but in the collection of Sherlock movies, it is at least light entertainment that works itself out just fine. You won't find yourself frustrated at what you see, unless you are a strict enthusiast for the Holmes canon or really want something more from the 12th of fourteen movies from seven decades ago. For me, this is just fine. Can one strive for films more (or less) than fine? Sure, but this will work for those curious enough to look further.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Woman in Green.

Review #1216: The Woman in Green.

Cast: 
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson), Hillary Brooke (Lydia Marlowe), Henry Daniell (Professor Moriarty), Paul Cavanagh (Sir George Fenwick), Matthew Boulton (Inspector Gregson), Eve Amber (Maude Fenwick), and Frederick Worlock (Doctor Onslow) 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, and #1161 - The House of Fear)

Review: 
This is the eleventh film of the Sherlock Holmes series of films with Rathbone and Bruce, release three months after the previous film. If you're at all familiar with how these things go for these features, you'll probably find yourself satisfied with this installment. Anyone looking to jump in these films out of random will also find themselves with a workable winner in any case - it won't be much of a waste in any case with a run-time of just over an hour in 68 minutes. I do think the title is pretty amusing, given that this is a black-and-white film, and I don't think anyone even mentions green at any point. Then again, with a focus on severed forefingers (not shown, obviously), blackmail of rich people, and hypnotism, one won't really think about that too much. It doesn't have much in terms of deep mystery, but it is a decent experience in entertainment at least, having a few interesting sequences. Rathbone is as efficient as ever, never seeming lost in the shuffle or disinterested in getting the best out of what he can with the scenarios presented - consistent as one can. Bruce plays up to the standard of his second fiddle character with comic relief - some of which that works, some that doesn't, with two easy moments easy to highlight you can judge for yourself. One involves him being a skeptic of hypnotism and its effectiveness, opening stating his doubts when at a presentation, only to have him subsequently tricked into being hypnotized and taking off his shoe and rolling his pant leg. The other is him leading the way to "rescue" Holmes while the other authorities arrest the others, including him hopping up on a ledge to get him down. Whatever the case may be, Rathbone and Bruce are around to keep things steady.

This is the third film with the character of Professor Moriarty (The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1939), played by George Zucco, and Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon (1942), played by Lionel Atwill), with each having the same type of fate for its villain: falling off a great height. This is the third different actor to play the role, but it also happens to be his third appearance in the Holmes series, joining the tradition of re-using actors for multiple appearances (as is the cast with Brooke and Cavanagh). Daniell proves fine, with one key highlight being a sequence in which he sneaks into Holmes' place in order to have a conversation with him midway through the film, warning him about further pursuit into the mysterious killer. Of course his final fate is a bit ridiculous, since he tries to escape jail by jumping from one ledge to another - while wearing handcuffs, and he then just falls down to death. I guess just having him go to prison didn't pull the final punch they wanted. Brooke is okay as the person referred to in the title, although she isn't really too particularly compelling with the hypnotism aspects. This is the second of four films you can find in the public domain (alongside Secret Weapon and the last two films of the series - Terror by Night and Dressed to Kill), which makes them readily available. In recent years, they were digitally restored and given computer colorization by Legend Films; the Universal films had for decades deteriorated in terms of cellulose nitrate film, requiring restoration from the UCLA Film and Television Archive, which took eight years to restore the twelve films from 1993 to 2001. As a whole, this is a decent film among other okay films of the Holmes cycle with Rathbone and Bruce, being just as well to recommend as other features for anyone looking for a bit of quick mystery.

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.

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.

The Spider Woman.

Review #1021: The Spider Woman.

Cast: 
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. John Watson), Gale Sondergaard (Adrea Spedding), Vernon Downing (Norman Locke), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Alec Craig (Radlik), Arthur Hohl (Adam Gilflower), Mary Gordon (Mrs. Hudson), and Teddy Infuhr (Larry) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, #925 - Sherlock Holmes in Washington, and #936 - Sherlock Holmes Faces Death)

Review: 
This was the seventh film in the Sherlock Holmes series with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Holmes and Watson, respectively, and it happens to be the first one since The Hound of the Baskervilles (#583) to not include Holmes' name on the title, and that would occur for the rest of the film series. This time around, Holmes is investigating a series of suicides that are termed as "pjyama suicides" (as spelled in the film), with the villain being dubbed a "female Moriarty"; this isn't so surprising, seeing how Moriarty was already featured as a villain twice in a three year span. Admittedly, the biggest surprise in the film happens in the first ten minutes: Holmes fakes his death in order to investigate the murders...of course this doesn't really fool the villain all too much by the time they meet (with Holmes in disguise), which makes this seem a bit ridiculous.

Fans of the stories will note the film's incorporation of elements from The Sign of the Four (1890), along with the short stories "The Final Problem", "The Adventure of the Empty House", "The Adventure of the Devil's Foot" and "The Adventure of the Speckled Band", so that is certainly interesting. This is an okay movie, but I find it to be not as good as the previous film in the series, mostly because the film feels likes its going through the motions, although it has a standard level of satisfaction. It has a mildly compelling performance from Sondergaard, although her character isn't exactly too menacing. Rathbone and Bruce are both fairly consistent as one would expect; the sequence with Bruce where he tries to out what he believes in Holmes in a disguise (portrayed by Hohl) is a bit ridiculous, especially because it seems obvious that it wasn't him, and it feels less surprising when compared to when he exchanged words with a person that turned out to be Holmes in disguise. The climax of the film, which takes place in a carnival atmosphere with a shooting gallery is pretty unusual, but I do find it to work with the odd nature of the movie, which is at the very least somewhat entertaining. At 62 minutes, it is worth at least some of your time, depending on whether you are in the mood for another story with Sherlock Holmes.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Sherlock Holmes Faces Death.

Review #936: Sherlock Holmes Faces Death.

Cast:
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. John Watson), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Arthur Margetson (Dr. Bob Sexton), Hillary Brooke (Sally Musgrave), Halliwell Hobbes (Alfred Brunton), Minna Phillips (Mrs. Howells), Milburn Stone (Captain Vickary), Gavin Muir (Phillip Musgrave), and Gerald Hamer (Major Langford) Directed by Roy William Neill (#846 - Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, #873 - Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, and #925 - Sherlock Holmes in Washington)

Review:
I hope that I am not boring you folks with the reviews of these certain films; I do indeed have some interest in these detective films, which clearly have some sort of appeal for me. This is the sixth of the Rathbone series (#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, and #925), but this one is a mystery revolving around murder in a house (instead of something involving the war, though there are military characters present). After three films of wartime infused spy plots, this certainly comes off as refreshing (honestly, the title is a bit strange - doesn't he always face people dying?). One of my favorite scenes is when Holmes realizes one of the clues in a "ritual" involves a checkerboard floor on one of the rooms, and naturally Holmes decides to use the people in the house in order to act the ritual out. The film runs smoothly enough at 68 minutes, mixing capable characters alongside Rathbone and Bruce (with his character having a bit more competence than before) as expected. One of the more quirky scenes with Rathbone is him talking to a squawking raven. It isn't the best Holmes film with Rathbone (for me, nothing tops the first film), but it certainly is an improvement over the previous three movies, in part because of the way it operates itself. The villain (Margetson), while not strong or particular clever, is somewhat satisfying in that he is not merely one dimensional. Brooke is a somewhat fair supporting actress (the most quirky scene involving her is one where she is reciting a ritual and a bolt of lightning strikes through a window and hits a suit of armor near her). It ends with a dialogue between the two main actors about a "new spirit abroad the land" that isn't about greed (inspired by an act of selflessness by Brooke's character), which is interesting if not somewhat broad. The mystery is entertaining enough, and this is a fairly good way to spend an afternoon with a serviceable type of movie like this.

Overall, I give it 7 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.

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.

Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror.

Review #798: Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror.

Cast
Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Doctor John H. Watson), Evelyn Ankers (Kitty), Reginald Denny (Sir Evan Barham / Voice of Terror), Thomas Gómez (R.F. Meade), Henry Daniell (Sir Anthony Lloyd), Montagu Love (General Jerome Lawford), Olaf Hytten (Admiral Sir John Fabian Prentiss), and Leyland Hodgson (Captain Roland Shore) Directed by John Rawlins.

Review
Following two excellent Holmes films (#583 - The Hound of the Baskervilles, and #721 - The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes) were released by 20th Century Fox in 1939, Universal Studios bought the rights from the Doyle estate to make films about Holmes - updated to the present day. In fact, the opening title card talks about how Holmes (and Watson) is "ageless, invincible and unchanging", with this movie being about Holmes trying to take down a Nazi agent using propaganda through the radio (which did occur during the War). It is an interesting premise, but I can't resist to wonder if there were other movies dealing with plots like this. There is at some sort of mystery to the film, and the movie does move quickly enough, at 65 minutes (if you wonder why I always mention the length of a movie as positive/negative, it's merely a way to try and justify how the movie does with regards to pacing, or if a movie is too long or too short to try and enjoy, for my taste anyway. In this case, the movies does a fine job in terms of satisfying its goal of telling a story with a short length).

While it is a b-movie, it is at least a movie that tries its best to be entertaining while dealing a subject as serious as treason during wartime, not coming off as cheesy, nor too overblown (it's interesting to note that the movie ends with a title card stating to buy war bonds). Rathbone and Bruce are consistent as ever, making for a fine duo that play well off each other. Ankers is also pretty decent, making a good contribution to the plot. Denny (there really isn't spoilers if the movie is over 70 years old, so no complaints) is okay, coming off as so unassuming that you really don't think he's the villain, because...well, it is strange to presume that a member of the "Inner Council of British Intelligence" would be behind all of this - unless he was an impostor, because Holmes is a master at deducing that sort of thing, and it helps that I'll let it slide unopposed. It's a movie that is fairly passable for its time, even if it isn't as enjoyable as the previous films. Bottom line: Take it for what it is worth.

Countdown: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2...

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.