Showing posts with label Robert Siodmak. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robert Siodmak. Show all posts

July 14, 2023

The Killers (1946).

Review #2041: The Killers (1946).

Cast: 
Burt Lancaster (Pete Lund/Ole "Swede" Anderson), Ava Gardner (Kitty Collins), Edmond O'Brien (Jim Reardon), Albert Dekker ("Big Jim" Colfax), Sam Levene (Lt. Sam Lubinsky), Vince Barnett (Charleston), Virginia Christine (Lilly Harmon Lubinsky), Jack Lambert ("Dum-Dum" Clarke), Charles D. Brown (Packy Robinson), Donald MacBride (R.S. Kenyon), Charles McGraw (Al), William Conrad (Max), Phil Brown (Nick Adams), and Jeff Corey ("Blinky" Franklin) Directed by Robert Siodmak (#468 - Son of Dracula, #797 - People on Sunday, and #1826 - The Suspect)

Review: 
In 1927, Ernest Hemingway's short story "The Killers" was published in literary form. Set in his home state of Illinois, it details two hitmen entering a restaurant with an owner and a cook alongside a patron named Nick Adams, which Hemingway wrote from his own experiences. The two hitmen suddenly take Adams and the cook into the kitchen to tie them up while telling the owner that they were hired to kill a prizefighter expected to enter the place soon. Of course, when the guy doesn't show up, the hitmen leave while Nick is sent to a boarding house to warn the man about the job, but Nick is told to do nothing because it is futile for there to be attempts to save him from his fate. Hemingway later stated, "That story probably had more left out of it than anything I ever wrote. I left out all Chicago, which is hard to do in 2951 words." The entirety of that story is told in the first twenty minutes of the 1946 film adaptation (the killing depicted isn't in the actual story, of course). This was the fourth adaptation of a Hemingway story, following in the wake of A Farewell to Arms (1932), For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943), and To Have and Have Not (1944). The screenplay is credited to Anthony Veiller, although it was said in later years that Richard Brooks and John Huston contributed to the script in uncredited form. At the helm as director was Robert Siodmak, who had directed films in his native Germany and France before being driven to America by the rise of Nazism each time. He had done his fair share of genres, although most know his film noirs or B-movies that made him a "actor's director". This would work wonders for Burt Lancaster, who was making his film debut. He actually had an early interest in theatre productions and the circus from a young age, but injuries had him give up the circus. After serving in the U.S. Army in World War II, he took up acting and made an impression on Broadway in a flash. Mark Hellinger, who produced The Killers, happened to need another unknown to make up the cast after getting Ava Gardner from doing pretty much nothing at MGM (Wayne Morris and Sonny Tufts were the initial choices in mind for the role played by Lancaster). He got a tip about Lancaster (near the age of 33 when this film was released), who had signed a contract with Hal Wallis but hadn't made anything for release until Hellinger tested him and decided to sign him on. The film was an audience hit and received four Academy Award nominations that year (directing, editing, score, and screenplay), for which it received none. In 1964, a second adaptation of the story was done in film (after being thought of as too much for television) with Don Siegel as director that had Lee Marvin, Ronald Reagan, and Angie Dickinson as stars.

The premise sure is an interesting one to setup a noir, particularly one built for 103 minutes where one of the key characters is dead right then and there. But it is the journey in the way that things are shot or lit that matters when the scenarios matter most with femme fatales, double crosses, and the good ol' setup for a bag of dough. It isn't often you get a cast filled with so many dependable actors (future or at the moment), whether as stars or not. O'Brien is the one observing all of the pieces moving across the board that has the air of inevitability that he does well with, maneuvering through the tension with good timing. Lancaster is a lean block of excellence, one who generates screen presence in a near instant that delivers well among the flashback sequences told (aside from the one of his death, which he handles pretty well to begin with) in a malleable force of nature. He will only end up in one path, but it is the choices that are made there that make it interesting to see the level of challenge it takes for anyone to try and escape their big desire. It's clear to see how his face became one to reckon such desires in further films. Gardner makes a solid femme fatale, one who has the allure required to drive tension into the heart of anyone, a devastating display of dashing duplicity. The rest of the cast follow along in worthy interest for the subject at hand, whether that involves the heavy or the key part of the crisscross of who is fixing who. The robbery sequence itself is executed quite skillfully, done with resounding timing without wasting a moment. By the time the film has maneuvered its way through all of the twists and turns that come with "the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry”, the final result is a lean and mean noir that shows the potential of its stars in a solid effort from Siodmak and company. The fatalistic nature of the whole affair makes for a solid entertaining ride that merited the highest praise from Hemingway, who once called it "the only good picture ever made of a story of mine." That pretty much says it all right then and there.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

April 8, 2022

The Suspect (1944).

Review #1826: The Suspect. 

Cast: 
Charles Laughton (Philip Marshall), Ella Raines (Mary Gray), Dean Harens (John Marshall), Stanley Ridges (Inspector Huxley), Henry Daniell (Gilbert Simmons), Rosalind Ivan (Cora Marshall), Molly Lamont (Mrs. Edith Simmons), and Raymond Severn (Merridew) Directed by Robert Siodmak (#468 - Son of Dracula and #797 - People on Sunday)

Review: 
Sure, perhaps there is something captivating about how obscure a movie is, because there certainly are a handful of thriller adaptations to come across when studying the 1940s, but surely there is a good reason why this one fell through the cracks. Maybe it was the title, because there are at least six other movies out there with that title. The film is an adaptation of the book This Way Out, which was written by James Ronald. As such, the screenplay was done by Bertram Millhauser and Arthur T. Horman. The film was directed by Robert Siodmak, probably best noted for his future effort in The Killers (1946) in a 39-year career, and he was given the task of handling an actor that apparently suffered from bouts of uncertainty. Of course, Laughton was an Academy Award winning actor that could play classical or modern parts, so who wouldn't take the risk if you are Universal Pictures? Besides, he had the name value that compared well when faced with a mix of American and British character actors with either some experience behind them (like Ridges or Daniell) or less (Raines).

It turns out one has a very mediocre thriller on their hands, one that is about as hypnotic as an old frog. The aspects that are interesting prove to be flourishes rather than anything particularly interesting, whether that involves a somewhat interesting chemistry between Laughton and Raines or the idea of some sort of actual suspense in the crime angle. The 85 minutes are brisk, but it probably isn't surprising that the film did not exactly become a known name since its premiere in 1944. The streets of 1902 seem nearly comatose when it comes to characters with complexity or challenge, if only because the main character's weakness is being too decent. So yes, it is probably the politest portrait of a murderer one could watch, which means that it is more of a Laughton showcase. To be fair, he does deliver an interesting performance here, since this is a middle-aged role that requires a bit of earthy presence (i.e., not just a smart-mouthed youth), one that needs patience and dignity, and you get the idea. There isn't a hammy performance with him on this one, since he calmly walks through the film with no trouble in displaying the quandaries presented here, maneuvering through the slowly building gears of turmoil while trying to stay as himself, which only seem to make him burrow down rather than up even after one is done seeing the chemistry-building scenes with Raines, since that is generally the most curious part of the movie in seeing the mismatch (well, whatever you want to call it). Besides, Ivan and Daniell are only mildly interesting as the heels to Laughton, ones who aren't exactly the kind of folks you frown to see go away - one knows crime doesn't pay (to the standards of the film board of the time) anyway. Ridges is stuck in the middle with no real distinguishing qualities that seems a problem when one is trying to see an investigation and trap take place. You would think the poison sequence would generate something other than mild bemusement, but not quite. There is an attempt of distinguished air here that doesn't seem fitting for a movie that begs for something more, as if you know what you are getting into before you really see it. One sort of struggles to say things about the movie beyond just Laughton, because if had included a lesser actor, one could have lapsed into a snooze. But, since here we are with this, I guess you won't be irritated too much. Honestly, this is a toss-up kind of movie, where one will either find it to be splendid enough despite its failings or just too unremarkable to be worth one's time. For me, I just can't see myself recommending it.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

May 18, 2016

People on Sunday.


Review #797: People on Sunday.

Cast
Erwin Splettstößer (Himself - taxi driver), Brigitte Borchert (Herself  - record seller), Wolfgang von Waltershausen (Himself - wine seller), Christl Ehlers (Herself - an extra in films), and Annie Schreyer (Herself - model) Directed by Robert Siodmak and Edgar G. Ulmer.

Review
People on Sunday (Menschen am Sonntag) is not only the first film from 1930 reviewed on Movie Night, but it's also the first German film reviewed here since Metropolis (#500) over two years ago, alongside being the first silent film and second world cinema film reviewed this year. The subtitle of the film is "a film without actors", in light of the fact that the people in this movie were amateurs who (according to the opening titles) returned to their normal jobs by the time the movie was released in February 1930. It's interesting to see a movie like this, with ordinary people being spotlighted on their day (Sunday) off in Berlin, with the emphasis on five individuals. This is a movie not made for a complex plot, nor standout performances to win awards, but a movie made as it is, with no real inflated sense of artificial stock, feeling very realistic for its time about Berlin.

Though the movie was released as the Great Depression was in swing, the movie was made in the previous year on a low budget, but the movie nevertheless has an aura of innocence to it, especially Berlin, with regards to the decade (and more) that followed. I do love this one scene in which a photographer photographs a bunch of people's faces, from old to young, and I love the scene because there is a certain sense of charm to seeing people enjoying leisure time that fits well with the movie. It should be noted that this movie was written not only by the Sidomak brothers (Robert and Curt), bu also Billy Wilder, who left Berlin for Hollywood in 1933, writing and directing several classics, such as Some Like It Hot (#106), Ace in the Hole (#194), The Fortune Cookie (#422), The Apartment (#641), and several other movies in an over 40 year span. Fittingly, the movie ends on this title card: "And then on Monday...it is back to work... back to the everyday... back to the daily grind... Four... million... wait for... the next Sunday. The end." Ultimately, the movie is both an interesting time capsule into the lives of people (who never acted again) in Berlin along with being a hallmark of realism that is interesting to watch even today.

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

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars,

October 16, 2013

Movie Night: Son of Dracula.


Review #468: Son of Dracula.

Cast
Lon Chaney, Jr. (Count Alucard), Robert Paige (Frank Stanley), Louise Allbritton (Katherine Caldwell), Evelyn Ankers (Claire Caldwell), Frank Craven (Dr. Harry Brewster), J. Edward Bromberg (Professor Lazlo), and Adeline De Walt Reynolds (Madame Queen Zimba) Directed by Robert Siodmak.

Review
Despite the misleading title (Dracula seriously needs to be more creative than just reversing his name, by the way.), Son of Dracula is a mostly satisfying film that keep the Dracula mythos going. In the third film of this "trilogy" of Dracula films (#071 - Dracula, #297 - Dracula's Daughter), this is definitely better than the last film, but the 1931 film is still the most impressive of the three. But all comparisons aside, Lon Chaney, Jr isn't that bad of a Dracula, and while he doesn't have the creepiness of Lugosi, he certainly isn't a bad replacement. The rest of the actors like Robert Paige and Louise Allbritton aren't that bad, mostly engaging in their performances. While the scare factor isn't that high, it at least doesn't stray from its approach, to continue one of their longest running monsters, and in a satisfying way, which the previous film didn't strive to do. This film has one notable moment, the transformation scene to a bat, the first time ever shown in the franchise. The locations are fairly decent, and while the film isn't as good as it could have been, this is a welcome addition nonetheless.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.