Boomerang! (1947)

Review #2372: Boomerang! (1947)

Cast: 

Dana Andrews (State's Attorney Henry L. Harvey), Jane Wyatt (Madge Harvey), Lee J. Cobb (Chief Harold F. "Robby" Robinson), Cara Williams (Irene Nelson), Arthur Kennedy (John Waldron), Sam Levene (Dave Woods), Taylor Holmes (T. M. Wade), Robert Keith ("Mac" McCreery), Ed Begley (Paul Harris), and Karl Malden (Det. Lt. White) Directed by Elia Kazan (#104 - East of Eden, #109 - A Streetcar Named Desire, #110 - On the Waterfront, #1375 - Panic in the Streets, #1406 - Splendor in the Grass)

Review: 

"I really will be able to do this picture the way I think pictures should be made. It was our neo-realism."

Sure, it's easy to forget that some movies really can play fast and loose with facts. Here we have Elia Kazan's third feature film as a director, which came in the wake of his debut two years prior in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (1945). 1947 actually brough three different movies for Kazan as a director: The Sea of Grass (1947) was an MGM Western featuring Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn that for some reason managed to have Kazan express his dislike in later years. Gentleman's Agreement, released in November of 1947, wound up winning Kazan an Academy Award for directing. But Boomerang! (which as with Gentleman was released by Fox) was the second movie to come through for audiences, being released in March of 1947. The movie took its material from a 1945 article in The Reader's Digest called "The Perfect Case", which had been written by Fulton Oursler based on an actual crime that happened in 1924; Richard Murphy wrote the film script. In that year, in the city of Bridgeport in Connecticut, after eight days of anguish over the murder of Father Hubert Dahme, Harold Israel, a vagrant, was arrested and charged for the murder. Israel had given a confession and had been found with a revolver, but through the efforts of state attorney in Fairfield County Homer Stille Cummings, Israel was found innocent, and the indictment was dropped*. Cummings in general was a fascinating person: the Yale graduate actually had served as Mayor of Stamford, Connecticut for four years in the 1900s and he later served in committee work with the national Democratic Party. And, true to the end of the movie, Cummings actually did become U.S. Attorney General, serving six years from 1933 to 1939 (among the things he did in office was make bank robbery a federal crime). Israel essentially faded away into history, dying in the mid 1960s, although he was reported as having been married with children years after being freed, although the case was never solved. He wasn't particularly big on the first two movies he did when it came to their production style (done entirely on sound stages), but the chance to do shooting in Stamford, Connecticut interested him, since Kazan stated that at the time, he "shared the appetites" of neorealist filmmakers (such as Vittorio De Sica with Shoeshine, for example); a few non-professional actors are present in some shots. Kazan's next movie would be Pinky (1949); of his first five films, apparently, he was only big on A Tree Grows in Brooklyn.

Technically the movie is cited as being a "semi documentary", which is probably helped by the narration heard every so often from Reed Hadley, who had been used to narrate prior films such as The House on 92nd Street (1945) (the narrative touch was big with producer Louis de Rochemont, who was involved with documentary stuff). This is the kind of movie that probably would be interesting to compare with Kazan's subsequent Panic in the Streets (1950) in straight to the bone procedurals. Kazan wasn't as fond of Boomerang! in his later years, basically calling it "the same studio machine - brought outdoors", but he at least stated his learned certain little tricks and techniques because of making the movie (he also once stated he could do a film anywhere and didn't need sets or movie stars). Sure, maybe the actors are still "movie actors", but at least there is an interesting atmosphere of doubts and failings, where a murder investigation turns itself into a city-wide infection that leaves only the reporters with any sort of satisfaction at the end of things. The police** don't win in the end and even the people that knew the victim don't win any sense of peace in the end, suffice to say. Andrews is pretty reliable in uncomplicated feelings that arise in not rolling with just being a cog in the machine of others around them, which works out for the usual reliable presence you would hope for. Cobb probably sticks out just as much in what he gets from his routines, one who shows the weary nature that comes from pressure that probably works the best among the cast, although Kennedy makes for a useful near-sacrificial lamb in worried nature. Of course, the 88-minute runtime does mean there are moments spent with other people about stuff tangentially related to the murder, specifically with Begley and the conniving nature that comes in bits and parts before it literally shoots itself for the climax. Sure, it doesn't have as much power as it likely could have (Williams comes to mind in that regard), but the routines with the ins and outs of the world of people is interesting enough to hold the movie down to at least some fascination. Sure, Kazan may be a bit hard on himself with his own assessment, but it is at least a solid movie to recommend for those who like an old-fashioned yarn.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Strangely, I am reminded of another actual case involving coerced confessions and Connecticut with Peter Reilly, who in 1973 was convicted of murder at the age of 18 when cops essentially lied to and coerced him to confess by refusing to let him sleep in a long interrogation - this was a case that happened in the 1970s, mind you.

**Remember: don't fuck around if in the web of a cop, whether that means knowing your rights and asking for a lawyer. Peter Reilly became a reform advocate, particularly for a bill in his state named SB1071. This was a bill trying to curb on deceptive tactics by cops for people under the age of 18, and go figure, not every state has this on their books, but Connecticut now does. See, I don't hate cops, I just know they can give you bad juju if something is in the wrong place.

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.

Sweet Smell of Success.

Review #897: Sweet Smell of Success.

Cast: 
Burt Lancaster (J. J. Hunsecker), Tony Curtis (Sidney Falco), Susan Harrison (Susan Hunsecker), Martin Milner (Steve Dallas), Sam Levene (Frank D'Angelo), Barbara Nichols (Rita), Jeff Donnell (Sally), Joe Frisco (Herbie Temple), and Emile Meyer (Lt. Harry Kello) Directed by Alexander Mackendrick (#567 - The Ladykillers)

Review:
This is the kind of movie (often put under the category of film noir) that lures you and never seems to let go of your interest, even with character such as these and dialogue spoken in ways that are still as sharp as they were nearly 60 years after its release. Lancaster and Curtis are the perfect pair of leads that will make you recoil at their actions and how they convey them with the right sinister touch, where it's hard to tell who is more villainous and who is more pathetic. The way that the movie is shot is also another positive, where the lighting (particularly on Lancaster) really give the movie a certain feel that mike make one a bit squeamish, and for good reason. Harrison doesn't get much to do, but she certainly does a fine job at portraying a pawn in a movie all about schemes. Milner is also pretty decent at playing such a headstrong character that contrasts well enough with the rest of the characters. The supporting cast is also pretty good in making the atmosphere even more seedy. There is certainly a good degree of wit and pacing where you can be uncomfortable with the implications (read: actions) brought by the movie and still find the movie an achievement in film-making, with a good run time at 96 minutes as well. Mackendrick certainly manages to make a movie (based off a novelette by Ernest Lehman with the film written by Clifford Odets) worth watching, thick in its own layers of darkness within its cleverness. It's not a movie for anyone, but it is a movie worth watching, in part because of how well crafted it is, from the production values to the cast.

Countdown to #900: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3...

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Crossfire.

Review #715: Crossfire.

Cast
Robert Young (Captain Finlay), Robert Mitchum (Sgt. Peter Keeley), Robert Ryan (Montgomery), Gloria Grahame (Ginny Tremaine), Paul Kelly (Mr. Tremaine), Sam Levene (Joseph Samuels), Jacqueline White (Mary Mitchell), Steve Brodie (Floyd Bowers), and George Cooper (Cpl. Arthur Mitchell) Directed by Edward Dmytryk.

Review
For some of you reading this at home, a b-movie refers to a movie that was low-budget, or a movie that wasn't exactly promoted as the marquee for a studio's year, though b-movies could also be profitable, given that they were fast and cheap to make and screen to theaters, ranging from science fiction to westerns, while used as part of a double feature. Ah, a film noir. But it is not so much a film noir as it is a comment on perception of others and how hatred sometimes meshes with that perception, with deadly results like this film. It's a quick movie, but it's a movie that knows what it wants to do, and it succeeds at being an effective look into people and prejudice. Young and Mitchum are good at chemistry in regards to solving the case, and the time they have on screen together is riveting. For a movie that has few characters, Crossfire manages to be engaging and compelling enough to watch to the end, to the inevitable conclusion, though at least it's a movie that tries to deliver a message while being quick and enjoyable. Whether it succeeds at being engaging is up to the viewer, but it does in my book. And I avoided making references to the board game Crossfire for the entirety of the review, which I guess is surprising. As for the movie, I'd recommend it for anyone looking to watch late 40's cinema with a touch of noir.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Babe Ruth Story.

Review #432: The Babe Ruth Story.

Cast
William Bendix (George Herman "Babe" Ruth), Claire Trevor (Claire Hodgson Ruth), Charles Bickford (Brother Matthias), Sam Levene (Phil Conrad), William Frawley (Jack Dunn), Gertrude Niesen (Nightclub Singer), and Fred Lightner (Miller Huggins) Directed by Roy Del Ruth (#398 - The Maltese Falcon (1931)

Review
I've already reviewed a film based off Babe Ruth (#389 - The Babe), but this film managed to be released in Ruth's lifetime. How much of his lifetime? Long enough for him to see it before he died, as he would see the film three weeks before his death. In that respect, this film feels like it was rushed beyond oblivion with no care for the facts which stink more than a skunk. The Babe wasn't good because of awkwardness, its fallacy of history and a weak script.  But this? This is the anti-thesis of a sports film, this is a sugar coat of a film. How much of a sugar coat? Imagine a Twix candy bar deep fried in chocolate and then filled with sugar. It's so sickeningly sweet with its character that no amount of acting could help this film. And that's where the film keeps on dragging down, down, down. Part of the problem of The Babe Ruth Story is that while it has a sweet side, that's all it has. Bendix isn't even a good player when it comes to the baseball scenes, swinging very oddly and throwing very...weirdly, making John Goodman look great by comparison. Bendix portrays him very child-like, resembling Curly from the Three Stooges. The worst scene in the film is either the ending scene (where the child that he once met that apparently started walking after they met), that "Called Shot" scene (The myth being he called his shot before he hit a home run in the World Series - in the scene, his home run apparently saves a sick child), or when kids sing "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" outside his hospital window. It's a disgrace to sports biopics that manages to make even "The Babe" look average by comparison. In two attempts to make a biopic about Babe Ruth, both times the films failed to do just one single purpose: Have a good Babe Ruth. You might as well read "The Babe and I" by Claire Ruth, a biopic by his wife. But oh well.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.