Showing posts with label Samuel S. Hinds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Samuel S. Hinds. Show all posts

October 26, 2024

The Raven (1935).

Review #2293: The Raven.

Cast: 
Béla Lugosi (Dr. Richard Vollin), Boris Karloff (Edmond Bateman), Lester Matthews (Dr. Jerry Halden), Irene Ware (Jean Thatcher), Samuel S. Hinds (Judge Thatcher), Spencer Charters (Colonel Bertram Grant), Inez Courtney (Mary Burns), Ian Wolfe (Geoffrey "Pinky" Burns), and Maidel Turner (Harriet Grant) Directed by Lew Landers (#2260 - The Return of the Vampire)

Review: 
You might remember that Universal had done a few horror films based on the works of Edgar Allan Poe. Murders in the Rue Morgue (1932) and The Black Cat (1934) had each featured Lugosi, and just like the latter, he co-stars with Karloff for a "adaptation" of The Raven. Apparently, several writers were brought in to try and bring treatments for writing, but only David Boehm would be given credit. The movie isn't really an adaptation of the 1845 poem of the same name by Poe because, well, if you read it, you would know all it involves is a man who sees and hears of a raven that goes "Nevermore" among other various rhymes (interestingly, there was a 1915 film that went by the same name as the poem that merely was a biographical film about Poe himself). It merely is a film where a man really seems to like the works of Poe instead, complete with seeing a solo dance set to a recitation of the story and a torture device straight from "The Pit and the Pendulum". This was the third appearance of Karloff and Lugosi together (eight by the end of the 1940s) after the aforementioned Cat film and Gift of Gab, a musical comedy that probably nobody interested would care about unless they like bit parts; the next film with the two was The Invisible Ray (1936). This was the kind of movie that probably unsurprisingly led to people being weird about horror movies, with one British paper wondering what was behind the movie that was "of "horror" for "horror's" sake", accusing it as nonsense for trying to hide under the Poe inspiration while saying it has no indication of "imaginative control" in story or treatment. This was among the first films directed by Landers, who actually was born Louis Friedlander before he elected to go by Landers for directing later on. Nearly thirty years later, Karloff appeared in the next "adaptation" of the Raven story as part of the Corman-Poe cycle for AIP.

It actually is a pretty neat movie when you get down to it, mostly because its obsessive glee is pretty infectious for such a carefully curated runtime of just 61 minutes. Lugosi gets to eye-ball his way through a movie that is more his show than Karloff's show in the best of ways imaginable for cut-rate spooks. Lugosi gets to have some fun moments involving a considerable ego (he says at one point that he is "a law unto myself") and getting to play a game of cat-and-mouse with Karloff, who gets packed in with some makeup because of the nature of the plan drawn up of obsessive love by way of extortion; the theory of ugly folks going around doing crimes because of said ugly is amusing here, suffice to say. It's funny to compare it with say, Supernatural when it comes to saying just how clearly better one is in doing a movie with enjoyment within a limited body-count potential (this one has one, technically) because it actually feels like there is commitment with one's lead stars to go with a story that runs bold-faced into devotion with no hacky limitations. I like how one can have such a delusion of being a god can go hand in hand with basically being a fan of literary works, particularly one that likes scary moving doors to use on people. Sure, the others besides our duo are merely "fine", but you get madcap enjoyment seeing Lugosi, even with an obvious ending involving beasts liking the sight of happy normal folks. As a whole, it isn't a great Universal horror film, but it does fine with those other Poe films they made and has a worthwhile duo to make a neat curiosity anyway.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

May 19, 2022

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.

March 19, 2020

Scarlet Street.

Review #1365: Scarlet Street.

Cast:
Edward G. Robinson (Christopher Cross), Joan Bennett (Katherine March), Dan Duryea (Johnny Prince), Margaret Lindsay (Millie Ray), Rosalind Ivan (Adele Cross), Jess Barker (David Janeway), Charles Kemper (Patch-eye Higgins), Anita Sharp-Bolster (Mrs. Michaels), Samuel S. Hinds (Charles Pringle), and Vladimir Sokoloff (Pop LeJon) Directed by Fritz Lang (#333 - M and #500 - Metropolis)

Review: 
"Each picture has some sort of rhythm which only the director can give it. He has to be like the captain of a ship."

One can't forget about Fritz Lang when it comes to his diverse career of films, both in Germany and abroad. Born and raised in Vienna, Lang had a lengthy career, starting as a writer for film in 1916 before debuting as a director with Halbblut (1919). He met writer Thea von Harbou the following year, and they later married in 1922. They worked together in film for over a decade, which include films such as Dr. Mabuse the Gambler (1922), Metropolis (1927), M (1931, his first talking picture), and The Testament of Dr. Mabuse (1933). However, the two divorced due to an affair by Lang that same year. He would soon leave Germany owing to the rise of the Nazis, going to France (where he made one film in Liliom) before going to America. He made his American debut with Fury (1936), with his last in the country being Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (1956) before he returned to Germany (after thinking about retiring due to tough conditions to make further Hollywood films and growing age), where he made three films between 1959 and 1960, with his last being The Thousand Eyes of Dr. Mabuse before his death in 1976 at the age of 85. He was noted for his Expressionism (more so for his German films) alongside his talent in doing numerous genres, particularly with film noir.

The film was adapted (written by Dudley Nichols) from the French novel La Chienne by Georges de La Fouchardiere, which had already been played on the stage and in film in 1931 under its title by Jean Renoir (who notably disliked this film). This was the second time that Lang utilized this trio of actors, as they had appeared together in The Woman in the Window a year earlier. Both films had Robinson play a lonely middle-aged man and Bennett and Duryea play a criminal duo, and they even had the same choreographer in Milton R. Krasner. Robinson for his part did not like his experiences with either film, finding this one to be monotonous to do, although Lang found it to be one of his favorites to do. To each his own, one suppose - both of course do tremendous jobs in making a capable noir tick well. It goes to show how one can make something that plays numerous hands of deception to the benefit of its audience through 109 minutes, a clever experience with some psychological depth to it. It shouldn't prove too surprising that local authorities in three cities for censor boards objected to the content of the film, calling it many things besides "obscene". After all, it isn't exactly a noir with a happy ending, nor is it one that requires so. Just the idea of a character getting away with a murder was in some minds enough to object to, beyond portraying some sort of sordid life or illicitness with love. In other words, one needs a bit of risk sometimes to make things work better than a conventional film would do, with the best noirs utilizing imagination to give the viewer something to look into without needing things spelled out for them. Robinson does well with making an ordinary presence come into focus that we can follow along with to a point as a meek man that doesn't seem cartoonish or underplayed. Bennett and Duryea make for a conniving duo, ones with some luring power alongside a rough nature with chemistry. One can follow the film along without too much trouble, wrapped with a few twists that keep the viewer wanting more without displeasing them with where it needs to get to with its daring ending, where one can certainly find a prison for themselves without needing a conviction to do so. Lang certainly made plenty of memorable films, and this is one that is good to highlight, particularly since it is readily available through the public domain for anyone to view for themselves, a worthwhile little gem for the decade.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.