The Cat and the Canary (1927)

Review #1914: The Cat and the Canary.

Cast: 

Laura La Plante (Annabelle West), Creighton Hale (Paul Jones), Forrest Stanley (Charles Wilder), Tully Marshall (Roger Crosby), Gertrude Astor (Cecily), Flora Finch (Susan), Arthur Edmund Carewe (Harry), Martha Mattox (Mammy Pleasant, housekeeper), George Siegmann (the Guard), and Lucien Littlefield (Dr. Ira Lazar) Directed by Paul Leni (#863 - Waxworks and #999 - The Man Who Laughs)

Review: 

When it comes to the haunted house movie, you can't go wrong with The Cat and the Canary, even if it wasn't the first to really come out. There were quite a few films with a killer going around a house, such as Cecil B. Demille & Oscar Apfel's The Ghost Breaker (1914), its 1922 remake by Alfred E. Green, D. W. Griffith's One Exciting Night (1922), along with Roland West's The Monster (1925) and The Bat (1926), for example. It would continue in further years, with West remaking his film in 1930 as The Bat Whispers, and James Whale directed The Old Dark House (1932). But some films last longer in the public consciousness than others, as is the case with a film like this. The movie was adapted from the 1922 play of the same name that had been written by John Willard to noted success on Broadway. The screenplay was written by Alfred A. Cohn and Walter Anthony, while the story was done by Alfred A. Cohn and Robert F. Hill. This was the first of five adaptations: Universal did both an English and Spanish version in 1930 (The Cat Creeps and La Voluntad del muerto, respectively), which are both lost. A 1939 film was done with more comedy involving Bob Hope and Paulette Goddard, while the next (and last) adaptation was done in 1979 for British audiences. It was the first of four American films directed by German director Paul Leni, the German Expressionist director that went from avant-garde painting to set designer to work in film by the 1910s. He moved to America at the invitation of Carl Laemmle at Universal Studios, as part of a wave of people from Europe coming to America for films (like Fritz Lang, for example). The Last Warning (1928), his final film, was presented as a companion film to The Cat and the Canary, as it also stars La Plante (it was released in both part-sound and silent, but the latter survives), albeit more as a mystery than comedy-horror. Leni would not live long to direct many films in America, dying of a sepsis from a tooth infection in 1929 at the age of 44.

So yes, we have a story about a creepy house filled with folks hearing about a will from a man 20 years dead. The only thing standing in the way of riches for one is to just not be declared insane but sliding panels and a fiend called "The Cat" threaten the whole affair. So yes, the suspense is balanced with comic relief, because this was the time for that kind of movie where horror can't be given to you full throttle, and the final twist is about what you might expect. However, it is the presentation that matters most, and that is where Leni shines. He utilized all of the tricks one would hope for in terms of establishing quality atmosphere, whether that involves shadows, superimpositions, gliding camera shots, or its lively title cards. The scene with a person walking in the hallway with a candle in hard while curtains blow is certainly a highlight when it comes to striking effect, alongside the opening sequence when it comes to saying "a man is trapped like a canary". So yes, the movie is a causal ride of spooky terror that fits far better than a movie without as much subtlety, because, well, things in 1927 can still play well in 2022. La Plante was a key presence for a number of Universal Pictures in the pre-sound era, and she does pretty well for not having too much to really do besides having things happen to them rather than with them. So yes, it's not too hard to be on her side when it comes the towering threat of spooked either by weirdo eccentrics or visitors. The other castmates are mostly there for relief without pandering to bad jokes, which works in favor for Hale in goofy charm that compliments La Plante pretty well or with the familiar face in Marshall. The others bumble in all the right ways without leaving an obvious clue to what could happen next. Yes, you have a good idea where things could go in its 82-minute runtime by about the halfway point, but it still is weird and engaging enough regardless of that fact. As a whole, it is a solidly dignified bit of horror worth a look for its era, being unsettling while having a solid atmosphere that makes everything work out just right.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Well, we have had a quality month of horror. But you know the turn to November means it ain't over yet. As with the case with 2019, 2020, and 2021...it is time for Halloween: The Week After 4.0. That is correct, a number of horror reviews from November 1 to November 7, basically comprised of movies that deserved to be covered in October but are now present in November for all to enjoy. This time, I will be generous and tell you what is coming next because I like you very much.

Next film up is Exorcist II: The Heretic. Shit.

Thunderbolt (1929).

Review #1837: Thunderbolt.

Cast: 

George Bancroft (Thunderbolt Jim Lang), Fay Wray (Ritzy), Richard Arlen (Bob Moran), Tully Marshall (Warden), Eugenie Besserer (Mrs. Moran), James Spottswood ('Snapper' O'Shea), Robert Elliott (Prison Chaplain), Fred Kohler ('Bad Al' Frieberg), E. H. Calvert (Dist. Atty. McKay), and George Irving (Mr. Corwin) Directed by Josef von Sternberg (#1325 - Underworld and #1337 - Shanghai Express)

Review: 

It is interesting to consider what the turn of a decade or the turn of new technology can do to (or for) a director. In the case of Josef von Sternberg, going from silent films to sound would only keep him right where he needed to be to express his vision of filmmaking. This is his ninth feature film (three are lost, with two of them not even having a full release), one that started in 1925 that would span three decades over various studios; he had a distinct style that did not always lead to box office success, but most of his films generally still seem ripe for further research and curiosity, with the level of that depending on just what film of his you see, whether that was his debut with The Salvation Hunters (1925) or Underworld (1927) or The Last Command (1928, where he directed his lead actor to an Oscar) or The Docks of New York (1928). If you remember, Bancroft was the star in Underworld, and this film was the fourth and final collaboration between him and von Sternberg, with all of them featuring him getting swept up in crime (two as gangsters, one as a brawler, and one as a police captain) with two of them involving him trying to cope with the loss of his girl. He went from serving on merchant ships and a stint in the Navy to becoming an actor on Broadway and film, having a career in the latter for seventeen years, but it was the early parts of his career that saw him as a name star (complete with a nomination for an Academy Award for Best Actor with this film) before moving into supporting roles before moving into ranching full-time in 1942, which he did until his death at the age of 74 in 1956.

One can say that the transition into sound did not hinder the qualities shown by von Sternberg when it comes to making curious features of entertainment (there was a silent version of this film made for theaters without sound). He doesn't seem stilted by the addition of a microphone for sound, if only because he utilizes his sets and actors for interesting arrangements and dialogue that makes its 85-minute run-time go by fairly smoothly. The screenplay was written by Jules Furthman and Herman Mankiewicz while the story was done by Charles and Jules Furthman. So yes, the movie is about a guy named "Thunderbolt" and his attempts at trying to get what he wants from his girl and the law before a fateful climatic decision; the movie spends a good chunk of its time in a prison set with a small assortment of characters that used for a bit of humor, since a musical group does play in certain scenes, for example. As such, it is Bancroft who dominates the film with the way that he commands attention with his ego that makes him a curious figure to view in the lines of crime, because there are layers that come out in a rough exterior without falling into easy sentiments (granted, there is a dog that he has a soft spot for, but this isn't too distracting). Wray got into acting as a sixteen-year-old Canadian in 1923, which can't be forgotten in a six-decade career that saw her known for being a "scream queen". She does fine with what is needed here in terms of calm allure, one who seems perfectly fine with "normalness" without being wrapped in hokum. Arlen makes an ideal square without falling into mockery, looking just fine when paired with Wray for their scenes together (Besserer being paired as his on-screen mother is a bit amusing, if only because one doesn't usually see mother figures...for non-criminals in these kind of movies). Marshall proves a worthy foil for Bancroft in generating a bit of amusement as bumbling authority, such as letting a prisoner get out of their cell to subdue a prisoner who grabbed a gun...which results in a punch-out. No matter how much the climax could be thought of as inevitable, the movie does handle its final moments well without springing for maudlin overkill. As a gangster film, it proves okay when compared to his previous work Underworld was in terms of overall excitement, but even being a minor work in von Sternberg's lineup is still a nice compliment to hand it for recommendation, proving a useful curiosity with a suitable lead presence that makes for a relatively charming time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

He Who Gets Slapped.

Review #1771: He Who Gets Slapped.

Cast: 
Lon Chaney (Paul Beaumont, aka HE), Norma Shearer (Consuelo), John Gilbert (Bezano), Tully Marshall (Count Mancini), Marc McDermott (Baron Regnard), Ford Sterling (Tricaud), Harvey Clark (Briquet), Paulette Duval (Zinida), Ruth King (Maria Beaumont), Clyde Cook (A Clown), Brandon Hurst (A Clown), and George Davis (A Clown) Directed by Victor Sjöström (#1327 - The Wind and #1731 - The Phantom Carriage)

Review: 

It should only figure that having a prime presence in Lon Chaney and a noted directing figure in Victor Sjostrom would result in an interesting movie. Sjostrom had moved to the United States when he was hired to direct Name the Man (1924), and he modified his name to "Seastrom". He would direct a handful of films in America in the silent era, and this was the first one to be produced by Metro Goldwyn Mayer (MGM) in its history (albeit not the first released, since it was released in November for the holiday season), which if you remember had Louis B. Mayer as studio chief and Irving Thalberg as supervisor of productions, and the latter knew Chaney well enough from Universal Pictures to bring him to contract with the new studio. Sjostrom and Chaney would each benefit from the overall success that the film brought (one that made double its budget while being shot in the span of nearly two months). The film is adapted from the 1915 Russian play of the same name by Leonid Andreyev, with Sjostrom and Carey Wilson adapting it to the screen.

The film runs at 71 minutes (at least for versions in the public domain and on television, owing to an increased frame per second rate), and it manages to do quite well in making grisly entertainment. Well, at least for a film that involves a man who experiences humiliation so great that he becomes a clown only referred to as "HE" that gets a chance at romance but also revenge. Folks familiar with the actor referred to as "The Man with a Thousand Faces" will find a worthy treat in Chaney's lead performance as a dutiful clown, which technically means he is doing a dual performance: the normal mild-mannered man in the opening and a clown that prefers to laugh at people within pain (of course, there is also exploitation too). In that sense, he does exactly what is needed in a resourceful performance of pathos that we are generally sympathetic to, as in the tradition most would know from his previous highlights like The Penalty (1920), and it probably made sense that he would portray a clown again with Laugh, Clown, Laugh just four years later (which also had a love triangle). In fact, he nearly overshadows the other two folks in this love triangle story. Thalberg took an interest in Shearer, and this worked out pretty well for each side (they married in 1927), and one can see why. She has the bright charm required for what is needed here, and she seems quite suited in matching with Gilbert. He was in the midst of turning into a leading man around this period, and even with a segmented role like this he rolls with it pretty well (i.e. he doesn't get lost as just a nice face to romance another nice face). It might qualify as a thriller feature, if you think about it, since one definitely gets curious over just what will happen with the (unstable) lead presence, particularly when Marshall and McDermott enter the picture. McDermott makes a useful adversary as a bully that doesn't need much screen-time to make it work out, while Marshall makes a worthy exploiting figure. As one of MGM's early standout features, one should certainly not hesitate to pick this feature out, particularly since it happens to now be in the public domain. As a whole, the film is breezy and always interesting when it needs to be when it comes to showing a look into the circus along with being a fairly built thriller that still holds well within the standards of its time. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Big Trail.

Review #1333: The Big Trail.

Cast: 
John Wayne (Breck Coleman), Marguerite Churchill (Ruth Cameron), El Brendel (Gus), Tully Marshall (Zeke), Tyrone Power, Sr. (Red Flack), Frederick Burton (Pa Bascom), Ian Keith (Bill Thorpe), Charles Stevens (Lopez), Louise Carver (Gus's mother-in-law), John Big Tree (Indian Chief), DeWitt Jennings (Boat Captain Hollister), and Ward Bond (Sid Bascom) Directed by Raoul Walsh (#399 - The Thief of Bagdad (1924), and #907 - White Heat)

Review: 
The 1930s were an evolving and experimental time for film. The decade had already started with the Great Depression that affected the entire world on an economical level (which would doom Fox Film founder William Fox in 1930). As such, escapist or big spectacle fare was quite prevalent during this time, with this decade being a prominent one for the Golden Age of Hollywood, particularly with a prevalent studio system (domination of film production and distribution by a small group of major studios). Sound films were a phenomenon during this time, and certain movies even were done in color. One film with its own attempt at innovation is The Big Trail - which was shot in Grandeur, a 70mm film process. It was the last film released by Fox Film with this short-lived process nor the first done with the intent of making a widescreen movie. The Corbett-Fitzsimmons Fight (1897), film's first feature film, was shot on a widescreen ratio of 1.65:1. Warner Bros released films with their widescreen process Vitascope, and MGM had the Fanthom Screen for a brief time, while The Bat (1930) was filmed in the 2:1 Magnifilm 65mm aspect ratio. Converting theaters to show in widescreen would prove futile, since they already had to deal the costs with adapting to sound, with the next push by a major studio to make films in widescreen not occurring again for two decades. One has to remember that this film was shot numerous times - not only was it done with the Grandeur cameras, it was also done with the conventional 35mm film alongside making versions for world audiences, with four versions in French, German, Italian, and Spanish done (this was before dubbing became more popular). Nowadays one can view the film in widescreen as originally intended - most theaters could not show it in this process, and the original 70mm negative was only preserved through a special printer over a year long process in the 1980s. On top of all that, the 35mm version was shorter at 108 minutes than the 70mm 122 minute run-time, so both films have scenes that aren't in the other version. This was a big spectacle piece, with over 90 actors and 700 natives from five different Native American tribes, hundreds of wagons and thousands of animals from cows to horses brought in. It only seems fitting that Raoul Walsh was behind the direction, seeing how this was the beginning his third decade of directing films, having spent the past fifteen years acting and directing before going on to direct further films in the next 34 years.

Of course the film also has a young talent with John Wayne at head. Wayne, who had went to the University of Southern California for football before an injury, had been hired as a prop boy/extra to actor Tom Mix (one of cinema's first Western stars, who also happened to good friends with Wyatt Earp) and director John Ford as a favor for his coach. He recorded bit parts in films such as Bardelys the Magnificent (1926), but it was Walsh who would notice the actor and think of him to headline this film While the film was not a major success at the time of its release (owing to its big budget), it is now noted as a prime Western for the era, one with sweeping spectacle and a well-earned first turn from its star and an engaging supporting cast to go with it. It takes its time to tell its story with an episodic nature on its take of the development of the West (which sounds a bit like The Covered Wagon (1923) - which also depicted a trip to Oregon), and it proves just as engaging with depicting the drive to make a living for oneself in a place of their own regardless of the struggle it would take to do so, whether involving the elements of weather or trying to get a wagon across the lands (along with some frontier justice). The film looks wonderful to view, where even the backgrounds can prove interesting to view besides the main conversation pairings. When it comes to Wayne, he really must have been born to play an Old West hero. Beyond his persona and the way he speaks and struts (which he took inspiration from Wyatt Earp) is a man who just has that raw presence this film desires in an everyman hero. While the film wasn't a major success, Wayne did continue to find work, albeit with B-movie Westerns before Stagecoach (1939) gave him another chance at prime status, which he worked handily. Churchill lines up fine when the film requires so, having some chemistry with him. Brendel, the vaudeville comedian turned film star does fine with delivering some comic relief alongside Carver when the film needs a fair chuckle. Power Sr, in his last role before his death the following year (along with his only talkie role), proves to be a worthy and sharp adversary, one who seeps right in as someone lurking in plain sight without needing to go for overblown theatrics. Marshall rounds out the cast in terms of being a fun highlight - warm, crusty and right-at-home kind presence (much like how he was the last time I saw him on film - which happened to be The Covered Wagon). In the end, the scenery is lush enough to be captured right on the screen, with Walsh handling a fairly well-made story (done by Hal G. Evarts, with un-credited help by Marie Boyle, Jack Peabody, Florence Postal, and Fred Sersen) together with craftsmanship and a game cast that stands tall as a gem that shines now more than ever after nine decades.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Covered Wagon.

Review #1320: The Covered Wagon.

Cast: 
J. Warren Kerrigan (Will Banion), Lois Wilson (Molly Wingate), Alan Hale (Sam Woodhull), Ernest Torrence (William Jackson), Tully Marshall (Jim Bridger), Ethel Wales (Mrs. Wingate), Charles Ogle (Jesse Wingate), Guy Oliver (Kit Carson), and Johnny Fox (Jed Wingate) Directed by James Cruze (#1263 - The Roaring Road)

Review: 
What is it about the Western that inspires such curiosity? What inspired so many directors and studios to make their own tales (or adapt works) about cowboys, gunslingers, and other various subjects that dominated the film landscape for over half of the 20th century, doing so from the very get go with the first one shot in the United States (and second overall) in The Great Train Robbery (1903), which captivated audiences with its action in such quick time at 12 minutes. The evolution of film production in the two decades that followed meant that at some point one would strive to make a big budget Western epic to hang their cowboy hat on, at least until someone made one that looked better. The honor of being known as the first big-budget Western epic (made for roughly over $700,000 from Paramount Pictures) falls to this feature, which is adapted from the novel of the same name by Emerson Hough. Expense was not spared when it came to research to get costumes and locations scoped out, particularly when it came to finding a herd of wild bison (alongside other animals like oxen and horses) to roam the plains, complete with authentic wagons. If that sounds daunting enough, try being an actor having to spend months in the desert of Utah, dealing with various weather elements alongside being fairly distant from railroads, with one sequence involving wagons fording a torrent being a risky one to film in part because they had to actually swim for it alongside the accompanying horses and oxen. Simply put, one can trace Western epics and the level of craftsmanship one must take in executing ambition from costumes to characters to this film, which manages to hold itself fairly well without becoming too much a thing of the past.

It is an honest spectacle, welcome of curiosity for those who seek out fair pleasures. It has exactly the kind of things you would expect from a Western, with a clear hero, romantic lead and heavy to follow, and one can take a guess as to how these pioneers will do in their journey from Kansas to Oregon for 98 minutes - as long as one does not find themselves checking their watch from time to time or peeking at what comes next, you should do fine. It is the journey that counts when it comes to films, and how one enjoys the ride or trip with these actors and views that counts most, and this one does fine with that in mind - you could probably see this and at have some sort of interest in wondering about the plight of the pioneer, whether that means trouble with just getting to where they need to go or in-fights and so on. The highlight proves to be Torrence and Marshall, giving a bit of amusement as the comic relief, while Kerrigan and Wilson prove adequate if not too memorable people to look at through the lens of a routine romantic Western. Regardless, it proved an audience hit, making roughly seven million dollars, exceeding films now regarded as classics for that year such as The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Safety Last!, which now can all be found in the public domain for one to eye with curiosity. This film may not stand too highly with some of the Westerns that would come to pass over the next decade and beyond, but it still holds ground as a resilient charmer when it comes to entertainment, and that surely will prove enough for those who want to seek it most.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1923).

Review #850: The Hunchback of Notre Dame.

Cast
Lon Chaney (Quasimodo), Patsy Ruth Miller (Esmeralda), Norman Kerry (Phoebus de Chateaupers), Kate Lester (Madame de Gondelaurier), Winifred Bryson (Fleur de Lys), Nigel De Brulier (Don Claudio), Brandon Hurst (Jehan), Ernest Torrence (Clopin), and Tully Marshall (King Louis XI) Directed by Wallace Worsley.

Review
While this does not necessarily fall into the horror genre (being more of a romance/drama), it is often considered the first film in the "Universal Monsters" series, with a few of the films from that line already reviewed on this show (such as The Phantom of the Opera (#774), the Dracula films, the Frankenstein films, The Invisible Man (#069), The Old Dark House (#465), Murders in the Rue Morgue (#531), The Mummy (#632)...), adapted from the 1831 novel of the same name by Victor Hugo, with certain liberties taken. I figured it was time to get to this film, which I had considered doing for quite some time, though I always seemed to push it back for other movies, until now. It is clear to see why Chaney was often called "The Man of a Thousand Faces", as he is spectacularly unrecognizable as the Hunchback, with the makeup being exquisitely grotesque, looking great for the time and even now. Miller and Kerry do fine in their romance scenes, having some sort of chemistry amidst the ultimate heartbreak. Hurst plays a decent villain, but the real star of the show is the grand scale of everything. There is a good deal of depth in the sets and costumes that create such a magnificent and true atmosphere, with different color hues in certain scenes that really stick out nicely. There isn't too much use of inter-titles, but the film manages to convey itself neatly without dialogue, like most great silent films do. The version I watched includes music compiled by Donald Hunsberger (with adaption and conduction by Robert Israel and his orchestra), which accompanies the movie excellently in capturing the movie's scale. The length of the movie depends on what copy you are seeing, ranging from 95 minutes to over two hours, with the version I watched being nearly around 110 minutes, and it paces itself well. Clearly I recommend this movie, and you can find it almost anywhere in part due to it being in the public domain.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Grim Game.

Review #749: The Grim Game.

Cast
Harry Houdini  (Harvey Hanford), Thomas Jefferson (Dudley Cameron), Ann Forrest (Mary Cameron), Augustus Phillips (Clifton Allison), Tully Marshall (Richard Raver), Arthur Hoyt (Dr. Harvey Tyson), and Mae Busch (Ethel Delmead) Directed by Irvin Willat.

Review
Ah 1919, where the word spendthrift can be used, and cities (like mine) can be formed (and named) after a land company. Before I get to the film, let me talk a little about the history of the film in the next paragraph.

The Grim Game was Harry Houdini's first feature-length film (though the serial The Master Mystery was released in early 1919) and Houdini would star in films until 1923. Houdini (an expert magician who also debunked spiritualists) died on Halloween Night in 1926, though his legend still shines through today. As for the movie, it also has an interesting story of its own. This film had been considered lost for over 90 years. As it turned out, Larry Weeks, who considered himself Houdini's biggest fan, had a copy of the film in his collection after claiming it from the Houdini estate in 1947. Through the help of film scholars, TCM and the owners of the Houdini Museum and some negotiating, the film was acquired by TCM. A restoration and a new score were done, and TCM showed it as part of their Film Festival on March 29, 2015, with the world television premiere being just this Sunday night.

After all that history, how is the film? Not too bad. For an adventure-drama, it does have its shares of thrills, especially due to Houdini. You get to see him escape from chains and even a straight-jacket, and at one point he even manages to make a gun come out of his sleeves, which surprised me. The "Grim Game" turns out to be a plan hatched by Houdini's character to get his paper that he reports from to survive...by framing himself for the disappearance of his uncle, all by circumstantial evidence. He actually enlists the help of five people (including his fiance) to get this plan done, which includes taking the uncle out for a while to make it seem like he has disappeared. But it goes wrong (naturally), as the uncle is actually killed...by someone. It turns out to be the one person I didn't expect, mainly because I assumed that the one that would get to marry the heiress to the uncle's fortune did it...that, and because he wants to put Houdini in the asylum. But it's not, which I guess makes it less predictable...either way, the movie is at least entertaining, though it does take a while to get to the aforementioned grim game. The climax of the movie is entertaining...because you get to see a mid-air plane collision! Naturally, everyone (real life and plot life) is okay, but getting to see the climax in the air is very well-done. The movie (running at 71 minutes) is well paced, while also showing off some of Houdini's talents.

Countdown to #750: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.