Andy Hardy gets a bit sick of Polly and wants to dump her – but she gets in first. No matter, Andy has fallen in love with a famous debutante (played by Diana Lewis, who didn't become famous but who did marry William Powell), a girl famous for looking pretty and wearing dresses, which gives the story some unexpectedly modern resonance. As if to compensate for this, the film pours on the sexism – when Andy says he wants a woman like Cleopatra, Judge pitches for the old fashioned type of girl and argues Cleopatra destroyed every man who fell in love with her. Ma Hardy likes Judy Garland because she’s not afraid to be a homemaker. And Ma, Marian and Milly are shunted to the side – all the action is on Andy and the Judge.
Ok that’s not entirely fair – Judy Garland is back. The family heads to New York, where Judge can help save an orphanage (the syrup factor was really high in the series by now), meaning the family and renew it’s acquaintance with Judy Garland. Garland is touching and frenetic as the girl with a yen for Andy and sings a few songs.
There’s a nice correlation of the stories in that both Judge and Andy encounter snobbery on the trip – Judge in the courtroom. Andy can’t handle it and whinges, causing Judge to take him for a walk to the Hall of Fame, and point out all the great men who made American a free place for men – Jackson, Lincoln, etc. (No mention of blacks or women. Andy isn’t inspired and Judge calls him stupid.)
For the first time in the series, Andy actually asks his mother for help in something, to help get an introduction to the girl – she dithers and she steers him in the direction of an etiquette book. She spends a lot of time worried she’s burnt the house down. Great advertisement for women’s rights, Ma Hardy. Surprisingly, Marian isn’t given a plot – you’d thought New York would have been a natural place for her to fall in love with someone inappropriate but maybe MGM were getting sick of that story.
Some of the material here is strong: Judy pining after Andy, Andy going to a fancy restaurant. (Andy is always getting into financial strife, but you know what – so was his dad.) There’s also a really sweet climax, where the debutante turns out to be quite nice and tries to help Judy get Andy, and a lovely scene in a horse-drawn cab where Andy kisses Judy and she cries. (She wouldn’t get any less neurotic over the rest of her life.)
There’s some enjoyable dodgy subtext when Judge produces an orphan in the court case, and the opposition lawyer takes a shine to him and takes him home. “I’ll have him home by sundown,” he says. What’s he going to do to that orphan?!
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Movie review – Hardy #8 – “Judge Hardy and Son” (1939) **1/2
In hindsight, it’s a wonder why it took eight films for there to be a plot where Andy undertook some investigative work for his father, it seems such a natural way to combine the two perennial story strands in Hardy family movies. Andy’s task is to locate the missing daughter of an old couple one of whom is Maria Ouspensaka. Aunt Milly, Ma and Marian head off on holiday so it’s really just the Judge and Andy for most of the running time. But it’s ok, Ma has arranged a cook to look after Andy and Judge.
This is the most sexist and syrupy of the Hardy films to date. In one scene Andy tells Polly that his father once claimed if a woman couldn’t cook her husband had the right to beat her up. In another Judge tells Andy that no woman is perfect but that a man can guide a woman into being the perfect helpmate. Is this why Ma Hardy is so fluttery and absent minded all the time? She’s particularly dithering in this film because she falls ill with pleurisy. It must be because of all the pain numbing drugs she’s presumably taken over the years have warped her brain. Even Aunt Milly looks at her with disdain.
Ma’s illness – which takes up the entire second act - leads to a lot of whispering and praying and blubbering from Andy and the Judge – Louis B Mayer must have loved it, especially the Andy bawling scenes. They really pour on the syrup with this one. Henry Hull, normally a bombastic actor, plays the family doctor in a relatively restrained manner. Marian and Andy have a nice touching scene together – Marian admits to being jealous of Andy because he’s a boy, which is interesting, but Andy simply replies that it’s harder to be a boy and that’s that.
It’s fun to see Andy on the investigative trail, talking to various women – a 14 year old who is really a lot older, an idiot, a Southern belle. Despite the syrup and sexism, it’s quite enjoyable, and the discovery of Ouspensaka’s long lost daughter is reasonably moving.
This is the most sexist and syrupy of the Hardy films to date. In one scene Andy tells Polly that his father once claimed if a woman couldn’t cook her husband had the right to beat her up. In another Judge tells Andy that no woman is perfect but that a man can guide a woman into being the perfect helpmate. Is this why Ma Hardy is so fluttery and absent minded all the time? She’s particularly dithering in this film because she falls ill with pleurisy. It must be because of all the pain numbing drugs she’s presumably taken over the years have warped her brain. Even Aunt Milly looks at her with disdain.
Ma’s illness – which takes up the entire second act - leads to a lot of whispering and praying and blubbering from Andy and the Judge – Louis B Mayer must have loved it, especially the Andy bawling scenes. They really pour on the syrup with this one. Henry Hull, normally a bombastic actor, plays the family doctor in a relatively restrained manner. Marian and Andy have a nice touching scene together – Marian admits to being jealous of Andy because he’s a boy, which is interesting, but Andy simply replies that it’s harder to be a boy and that’s that.
It’s fun to see Andy on the investigative trail, talking to various women – a 14 year old who is really a lot older, an idiot, a Southern belle. Despite the syrup and sexism, it’s quite enjoyable, and the discovery of Ouspensaka’s long lost daughter is reasonably moving.
Movie review – “Tarantula” (1955) ***
Very well made, enjoyable big bug film, quite logically worked out. A huge tarantula makes a different antagonist (or is it really the protagonist) and it was created for a decent reason - Leo G Carroll is developing technology to help feed the world’s population – as he says, in the year 2005, there may be as many as over three billion people on the planet. Only it makes tarantulas expand to a massive size.
It’s good to see John Agar as the hero, although he is a little smug at times, making a sexist joke about giving women the vote and asking the journalist not to say anything about the tarantula attacks at all until they know what’s going on. Isn’t it better they risk a little panic to people being gobbled up by a large spider? But at least Agar is a professional actor, unlike say Rex Reason, and he is well supported by Mara Corday and especially Carroll.
I loved the scientist’s assistant who keeps interrupting a scene between Agar and a scientist – “good night”, “that’s the last of the stuff you wanted”. There’s also a great climax where Agar arranges for the air force to napalm the crap out of the tarantula (Clint Eastwood is one of the pilots). In some creature movies you feel sympathy for the creature, but not for the nasty tarantula.
It’s good to see John Agar as the hero, although he is a little smug at times, making a sexist joke about giving women the vote and asking the journalist not to say anything about the tarantula attacks at all until they know what’s going on. Isn’t it better they risk a little panic to people being gobbled up by a large spider? But at least Agar is a professional actor, unlike say Rex Reason, and he is well supported by Mara Corday and especially Carroll.
I loved the scientist’s assistant who keeps interrupting a scene between Agar and a scientist – “good night”, “that’s the last of the stuff you wanted”. There’s also a great climax where Agar arranges for the air force to napalm the crap out of the tarantula (Clint Eastwood is one of the pilots). In some creature movies you feel sympathy for the creature, but not for the nasty tarantula.
Movie review – Falcon # 11 – “The Falcon in San Francisco” (1945) **
The Falcon and his comic sidekick get on a train to San Francisco when the run into a little rich girl whose nanny is killed. This is a brisk entry to the series, well handled by directed Joseph E Lewis, but not too memorable. I know this is just my Gen X cynicism but I was a bit uncomfortable with confirmed womanizer Falcon flirting with the eleven year old girl.
There’s a striking scene where the Falcon is beaten up quite badly by some hoodlums, a bit of down beat film noir for what was usually a bright and chirpy series.
The support cast benefits from the beauty of Rita Corday and the strength of Robert Armstrong, the original Carl Denham himself – although it’s a shame he doesn’t have a bigger role. Because it’s San Francisco there are some scenes set in Chinatown. The female villain is a strong presence.
There’s a striking scene where the Falcon is beaten up quite badly by some hoodlums, a bit of down beat film noir for what was usually a bright and chirpy series.
The support cast benefits from the beauty of Rita Corday and the strength of Robert Armstrong, the original Carl Denham himself – although it’s a shame he doesn’t have a bigger role. Because it’s San Francisco there are some scenes set in Chinatown. The female villain is a strong presence.
Movie review – Hardy #7 – “Andy Hardy Gets Spring Fever” (1939) ***1/2
The Hardys stay in Carvel for a change and the result is one of the best films in the series – relaxed, charming and fun. It’s spring time and Polly is flirting with a naval officer so Andy is down in the dumps… until he sees his new drama teacher. Hardy films were often used by MGM as a way of introducing its emerging stars (Lana Turner, Kathryn Grayson, Esther Williams) – the role of drama teacher is played by Helen Gilbert who didn’t go on to do much, and while pretty is quite affected. But all she’s required to be is an object of Andy’s affection and Mickey Rooney is very strong in this. It’s one of his best performances in the series.
There’s a sweet plot where Marian realises that she’s doing nothing with her life (she’s not given a boyfriend on this one), so dad arranges for her to work with her business partners. He says he’ll pay her salary, but not to tell – way to go dad. (No one seems to consider sending her to college.)
Many lovely moments: Andy acting multiple roles in front of the mirror, Judge Hardy unexpectedly reciting Shakespeare, Andy calling his teacher by her first name and surprising them both, Andy showing off his voice, Andy and the teacher alone in the dark, a little kid (Terry Kilburn) seems to have a crush on Andy.
Ma Hardy is of course useless for anything except cooking and worrying and saying we’ll be ok” when the Judge makes yet another bad financial decision. Judge Hardy is a bit of a fascist (the minute he suspects something is up between Andy and the teacher he pops around there, trying to stop it – he also says there’s nothing wrong with a difference between the ages if it’s in the man’s favour). But it’s generally handled well.
The script was written by Kay van Riper, the most regular writer of the series til that point (although this was her last one – it’s a good one for her to go out on). The director was a newcomer, though – WS Van Dyke (George Seitz normally directed them).
There’s a sweet plot where Marian realises that she’s doing nothing with her life (she’s not given a boyfriend on this one), so dad arranges for her to work with her business partners. He says he’ll pay her salary, but not to tell – way to go dad. (No one seems to consider sending her to college.)
Many lovely moments: Andy acting multiple roles in front of the mirror, Judge Hardy unexpectedly reciting Shakespeare, Andy calling his teacher by her first name and surprising them both, Andy showing off his voice, Andy and the teacher alone in the dark, a little kid (Terry Kilburn) seems to have a crush on Andy.
Ma Hardy is of course useless for anything except cooking and worrying and saying we’ll be ok” when the Judge makes yet another bad financial decision. Judge Hardy is a bit of a fascist (the minute he suspects something is up between Andy and the teacher he pops around there, trying to stop it – he also says there’s nothing wrong with a difference between the ages if it’s in the man’s favour). But it’s generally handled well.
The script was written by Kay van Riper, the most regular writer of the series til that point (although this was her last one – it’s a good one for her to go out on). The director was a newcomer, though – WS Van Dyke (George Seitz normally directed them).
Movie review – Hardy #6 – “The Hardy’s Ride High” (1939) **1/2
A better Hardy film. Yet again, they are off to an exotic locale – in this case Detroit! (When it was thriving and full of cash, not diseased and crime-ridden). Judge Hardy goes there because he apparently has inherited $2 million, which turns the whole family a bit greedy. One thing no one mentions when talking about the Hardy family series – the Hardys were lousy with a buck, with the Judge constantly threatening to bankrupt himself with some bad decision, so no wonder they are happy to hear about the windfall. Of course they discover that money does bad things to them. (To be honest I got confused about the money stuff towards the end.)
Marian, with her unerring eye for bad romance, sets her eye at the young man who was supposed to inherit the money. Andy starts living the high life. Even though the Hardys are shown to be quite avaricious this feels more real than the previous entry in the series. There’s a plot where Marian buys a far too expensive dress, and a scene where Andy is confronted by a sexy chorus girl (Virginia Grey) – when I first saw this years ago I laughed, but actually it comes across very believable (it’s also nice that Judge Hardy admits he had a similar experience when younger). Aunt Milly is given her first plot in the entire series, where she romances a man who turns out to be a real estate agent – it was good when the movies pushed the darker material.
Andy is tempted by cigarettes and alcohol, good solid basic stuff about growing up – and it leads to a very funny final scene where Andy gets Polly back by pretending to be a boozer.
Marian, with her unerring eye for bad romance, sets her eye at the young man who was supposed to inherit the money. Andy starts living the high life. Even though the Hardys are shown to be quite avaricious this feels more real than the previous entry in the series. There’s a plot where Marian buys a far too expensive dress, and a scene where Andy is confronted by a sexy chorus girl (Virginia Grey) – when I first saw this years ago I laughed, but actually it comes across very believable (it’s also nice that Judge Hardy admits he had a similar experience when younger). Aunt Milly is given her first plot in the entire series, where she romances a man who turns out to be a real estate agent – it was good when the movies pushed the darker material.
Andy is tempted by cigarettes and alcohol, good solid basic stuff about growing up – and it leads to a very funny final scene where Andy gets Polly back by pretending to be a boozer.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Movie review – “This Island Earth” (1955) **
Most of Universal’s famous science fiction films of the 50s were in black and white so it’s a surprise to see this one in colour. Rex Reason is sure one of the most deep voiced leading men of the 1950s – he’s a scientist who, after a fair bit of scientific mumbo jumbo, goes to work for Jeff Morrow, whose high forehead and puffy white hair is one of the most striking things about the film.
It turns out Morrow is from another planet and he arranges for Reason to be picked up by a pilotless plane (good scene) and whisked off to a secret lab to work for said planet. There he’s met by Faith Domergue, who was once a personal project of Howard Hughes and reveals herself to be a pretty awful actor, and Russell Johnson, a sort of fourth-lead sci fi fave during the decade. Eventually Domerge and Reason wind up on the planet and do battle.
This film really tries – the sets and effects are imaginative, and it treats its subject seriously. I enjoyed the mutant heads (surely the model for the Coneheads), flying saucers and alien. You are kept in some tension – just how benign is Morrow and his people? This film must have inspired many other filmmakers who saw it as kids. But to be honest I found it a bit boring. There’s no heart to it – you don’t particularly care about the human race, or the aliens. (It was a bit touching when Uncle Tom Morrow burns to a crisp at the end). The colour photography is well done but there wasn’t really any much point for it. Maybe it's different if you first saw this when you were a kid.
It turns out Morrow is from another planet and he arranges for Reason to be picked up by a pilotless plane (good scene) and whisked off to a secret lab to work for said planet. There he’s met by Faith Domergue, who was once a personal project of Howard Hughes and reveals herself to be a pretty awful actor, and Russell Johnson, a sort of fourth-lead sci fi fave during the decade. Eventually Domerge and Reason wind up on the planet and do battle.
This film really tries – the sets and effects are imaginative, and it treats its subject seriously. I enjoyed the mutant heads (surely the model for the Coneheads), flying saucers and alien. You are kept in some tension – just how benign is Morrow and his people? This film must have inspired many other filmmakers who saw it as kids. But to be honest I found it a bit boring. There’s no heart to it – you don’t particularly care about the human race, or the aliens. (It was a bit touching when Uncle Tom Morrow burns to a crisp at the end). The colour photography is well done but there wasn’t really any much point for it. Maybe it's different if you first saw this when you were a kid.
Movie review – “Vicky Christy Barcelona” (2008) ***1/2
Woody makes another decent film during his sunset years – who would have thunk it? Match Point wasn’t a fluke after all. As with that film, one can’t help feeling that he was invigorated by a change in locale – in this case Spain. Apparently the Spanish government paid for a whack of the budget (via their film fund), annoying many Spanish filmmakers, and while I can sympathise with them, to be fair they’ll probably get their money back on this one, and also it’s a fantastic ad for Spain. The photography is gorgeous and pretty much every scene has the characters in a stunning house or great restaurant, or looking at some scenery. Throw in some attractive movie stars and a breezy air and you don’t mind the long running time and flabby nature of the piece. Well, not that much.
Javier Baderm is perfect as the womanising painter – who else could have played this role if the actor had become unavailable – and Penelope Cruz is terrific as his crazy ex (she’s a 110% better actor in Spanish). Scarlett Johansson is beautiful and in good form, too, as a typical Allen younger character, i.e. a love hungry crazy up for any sort of adventure (eg Juliette Lewis in Husbands and Wives, Scarlett in Match Point, Rhada Mitchell in Melinda and Melinda). Rebecca Hall is beautiful too as her friend although her performance is a bit iffy. Maybe I was having a hard time adjusting to her speaking voice or something. She was a little flat. The guy who played her fiancée was really bad. This is a film that needed a star – Badern, Cruz and Johansson are, Hall isn’t. (It’s like a film for a young Mia Farrow and Diane Keaton, but while they got the young Mia they couldn’t find the young Diana).
This is the first Allen picture in ages too which young people, especially young women, could enjoy – it doesn’t talk down to them and Allen seems to have affection for his characters. It doesn’t strike the false notes that pop up in so many of his other recent films. It probably could have done with a comedy subplot with a young Woody working at the American consulate or something – but Woody is too old now and who can play a young version of him?
Javier Baderm is perfect as the womanising painter – who else could have played this role if the actor had become unavailable – and Penelope Cruz is terrific as his crazy ex (she’s a 110% better actor in Spanish). Scarlett Johansson is beautiful and in good form, too, as a typical Allen younger character, i.e. a love hungry crazy up for any sort of adventure (eg Juliette Lewis in Husbands and Wives, Scarlett in Match Point, Rhada Mitchell in Melinda and Melinda). Rebecca Hall is beautiful too as her friend although her performance is a bit iffy. Maybe I was having a hard time adjusting to her speaking voice or something. She was a little flat. The guy who played her fiancée was really bad. This is a film that needed a star – Badern, Cruz and Johansson are, Hall isn’t. (It’s like a film for a young Mia Farrow and Diane Keaton, but while they got the young Mia they couldn’t find the young Diana).
This is the first Allen picture in ages too which young people, especially young women, could enjoy – it doesn’t talk down to them and Allen seems to have affection for his characters. It doesn’t strike the false notes that pop up in so many of his other recent films. It probably could have done with a comedy subplot with a young Woody working at the American consulate or something – but Woody is too old now and who can play a young version of him?
Movie review – “Frost/Nixon” (2008) ****
Terrifically entertaining look at what at first sounds like a not particularly interesting topic, but actually turns out to be very interesting. Frank Langella is superb as Nixon, all growly voice, torment and humour and Michael Sheen is also good as the chirpy, seemingly-out-of-his-element Frost. I wonder if Ron Howard was attracted to the material partly because of the Frost character – a person best known for trivial stuff, who actually had genuine steel. Hans Zimmer’s score helps keep up the pace and it's a terrific fresh way of looking at Watergate. Wonderful stage actor voices whom it’s a pleasure to listen to – Langella, Sheen, Oliver Platt, etc
Movie review – “Australia” (2008) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
I remember hearing about the film during pre-production and being worried that it wasn’t based on a thoroughly tried and true story, like all of Luhrmann’s previous films – Strictly Ballroom was a play, Romeo and Juliet was Romeo and Juliet, Moulin Rogue was an opera. However, I was reassured reading that the plot would be about a toity-toity English miss who goes on a cattle drive with a tough drover type – that’s a great story. The Overlanders! Baz isn’t the first director you think to do The Overlanders, but he deserves the chance. Only one problem – it was going to end in Darwin 1942. Isn’t that going to be a defeat, a lot of Aussies being bombed? Ok… so maybe the cattle drive will end up there. No problems. Think positive.
It turns out I was half right. Australia is really two movies – the first half is The Overlanders, set in 1939, the second half set in 1941-42 is a spineless mess. If the film had stuck to one story, preferably the first bit, I think it would have been fine. Or else been tied together. I wonder why they didn’t set the whole thing in 1941-42? To make it easier for Nicole Kidman to travel out from England? To justify the ball at the end of that story? It wasn’t worth it.
I enjoyed the first half immensely. It starts a bit too Baz (wacky music, Nickers wearing funny glasses) but calms down a little and becomes engrossing. The story is a solid compendium of a heap of old Aussie melodrama and adventure films – Chauvel, Ealing, Ken G Hall. There’s a squatter’s daughter type (Nickers and the aboriginal females), the English silly ass (Nickers), the cattle drive, baddies trying to stop it, a drunken Irish type, romance on the trail. The aboriginal stuff fits in well and that kid Brandon Walters is a star (even if he doesn’t seem too upset when his mum dies). The cattle stampede on top of a cliff was genuinely thrilling and the ball looked terrific – good on Nickers pointing out the fathers of many of the half-castes were at the ball. Romance, action, melodrama, social comment all skilfully put together. Yes, it’s a bit camp (lots of Hugh Jackman torso, Hugh Jackman pretending to be a tough drover, homages to Wizard of Oz) but let’s face it most Aussie films are.
The second half is less strong. There are ten minutes or so of tap dancing where everything is fine and dandy and they get rid of Bryan Brown and you’re waiting for some story, any story… then the film becomes about Walters being whisked off to the mission. Which has a point but structurally it drags because Hugh Jackman and Nickers aren’t aware where Walters has gone for a long time. Baz seems to really like the word “creamy” to describe Walters because characters say it like ten times or something (don’t get me wrong, it’s an appropriate word, but how about varying the insults a little) – then it all becomes a mess. Brown is killed and replaced as king villain by Wenham. Essie Davis’ is given close ups and you think she’s going to be important but she isn’t really – also one minute she’s shown evacuating Darwin, then she’s back there. Jackman’s Aboriginal friend suddenly becomes important in the last ten minutes. And there is ending after ending – escape from Mission Island, Nickers and Hugh reunited, then Wenham rocks up (“don’t forget about me”!), then Walters goes on Walkabout.
I mean, it looks stunning, Nickers is ideally cast even if she’s starting to get a bit old (she looks better when she’s roughed up a bit), Jackman is no Russell Crowe or Heath Ledger but he does his best and looks handsome (it’s a shame they didn’t give him more of a dance number). I just wish they’d centered the whole thing around the cattle drive. Keep it simple to allow the other stuff to hang off.
It turns out I was half right. Australia is really two movies – the first half is The Overlanders, set in 1939, the second half set in 1941-42 is a spineless mess. If the film had stuck to one story, preferably the first bit, I think it would have been fine. Or else been tied together. I wonder why they didn’t set the whole thing in 1941-42? To make it easier for Nicole Kidman to travel out from England? To justify the ball at the end of that story? It wasn’t worth it.
I enjoyed the first half immensely. It starts a bit too Baz (wacky music, Nickers wearing funny glasses) but calms down a little and becomes engrossing. The story is a solid compendium of a heap of old Aussie melodrama and adventure films – Chauvel, Ealing, Ken G Hall. There’s a squatter’s daughter type (Nickers and the aboriginal females), the English silly ass (Nickers), the cattle drive, baddies trying to stop it, a drunken Irish type, romance on the trail. The aboriginal stuff fits in well and that kid Brandon Walters is a star (even if he doesn’t seem too upset when his mum dies). The cattle stampede on top of a cliff was genuinely thrilling and the ball looked terrific – good on Nickers pointing out the fathers of many of the half-castes were at the ball. Romance, action, melodrama, social comment all skilfully put together. Yes, it’s a bit camp (lots of Hugh Jackman torso, Hugh Jackman pretending to be a tough drover, homages to Wizard of Oz) but let’s face it most Aussie films are.
The second half is less strong. There are ten minutes or so of tap dancing where everything is fine and dandy and they get rid of Bryan Brown and you’re waiting for some story, any story… then the film becomes about Walters being whisked off to the mission. Which has a point but structurally it drags because Hugh Jackman and Nickers aren’t aware where Walters has gone for a long time. Baz seems to really like the word “creamy” to describe Walters because characters say it like ten times or something (don’t get me wrong, it’s an appropriate word, but how about varying the insults a little) – then it all becomes a mess. Brown is killed and replaced as king villain by Wenham. Essie Davis’ is given close ups and you think she’s going to be important but she isn’t really – also one minute she’s shown evacuating Darwin, then she’s back there. Jackman’s Aboriginal friend suddenly becomes important in the last ten minutes. And there is ending after ending – escape from Mission Island, Nickers and Hugh reunited, then Wenham rocks up (“don’t forget about me”!), then Walters goes on Walkabout.
I mean, it looks stunning, Nickers is ideally cast even if she’s starting to get a bit old (she looks better when she’s roughed up a bit), Jackman is no Russell Crowe or Heath Ledger but he does his best and looks handsome (it’s a shame they didn’t give him more of a dance number). I just wish they’d centered the whole thing around the cattle drive. Keep it simple to allow the other stuff to hang off.
Movie review – Hardy #5 – “Out West with the Hardy’s” (1938) **
The least entertaining Hardy film to date rehashes the same story of You’re Only Young Once and Judge Hardy’s Children – the family head out to an exotic location (the West, where a friend of the Hardy’s run a ranch), Judge gets into a financial pickle and risks his entire fortune (again), Andy learns humility (again), Marian falls in love with an inappropriate man (again), mother doesn’t do much other than be supportive and say it’ll all turn out alright (again).
Lots of unpleasant scenes: mother cries after doing some bad household duties and says she feels like killing herself (have some more prozac mother), despite having a boyfriend Marian falls for a widowed cowboy and wants to marry him but Judge Hardy talks her out of it by getting her to do – ha ha – housework for him, Andy almost kills a horse and cries like a girl, a little girl (daughter of widowed cowboy) says girls shouldn’t take credit for things even if they’re better than men, Andy says “who-hoo another Indian bites the dust”.
Andy isn’t given a romantic subplot apart from Polly Benedict shenanigans at the beginning and end. Ann Rutherford’s Polly is a breath of fresh air at the end – it’s a shame she couldn’t have been in the film more. Don Castle also reappears as Marian's boyfriend, who she just met at the end of Love Finds Andy Hardy - he's like the engineer she went out with in the first few films, just popping in at the end on the tail of some romance she'd had.
Lots of unpleasant scenes: mother cries after doing some bad household duties and says she feels like killing herself (have some more prozac mother), despite having a boyfriend Marian falls for a widowed cowboy and wants to marry him but Judge Hardy talks her out of it by getting her to do – ha ha – housework for him, Andy almost kills a horse and cries like a girl, a little girl (daughter of widowed cowboy) says girls shouldn’t take credit for things even if they’re better than men, Andy says “who-hoo another Indian bites the dust”.
Andy isn’t given a romantic subplot apart from Polly Benedict shenanigans at the beginning and end. Ann Rutherford’s Polly is a breath of fresh air at the end – it’s a shame she couldn’t have been in the film more. Don Castle also reappears as Marian's boyfriend, who she just met at the end of Love Finds Andy Hardy - he's like the engineer she went out with in the first few films, just popping in at the end on the tail of some romance she'd had.
TV review – “Office – Christmas Special” (2003) *****
Wonderful end to an excellent series – of course the regular characters are all funny but what sets this apart is the Dawn-Tim romance. This is strong enough for a feature and is one of the sweetest romantic comedies in the past ten years. David Brent’s character is softened a little, a forerunner of the character Ricky Gervais would play in Extras.
Script review – “The Sea Kings” by William Goldman (warning: spoilers)
This was one of two screenplays Goldman wrote for Joe Levine after A Bridge Too Far (the other being Year of the Comet) the saga of which he talks about in Which Lie Did I Tell? It wasn’t made, mostly due to cost, which you can understand because it’s an 18th century pirate movie for two stars and presumably would have cost a bomb. It’s a shame it was never made though – I particularly loved Levine’s idea of casting Sean Connery and Roger Moore, both would have been perfect (Roger Moore and Dudley Moore would have been awful). It’s much better than pirate movies made in the 70s and 80s – Scallywag, Swashbuckler, etc.
Some of it sags a bit – Bonnet’s desire to become a pirate feels a little clunk. Blackbeard’s initial appearance, with a tough guy backing away from fighting him the moment he realises who it is, is similar to Sundance’s introduction in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. But its very enjoyable. The part of Blackbeard is particularly excellent – tough, humorous, melancholic, prone to self doubt, regretful. Connery would have been great – also Lee Marvin, even Charles Bronson, one of the tough guys with sad eyes.
The climax doesn’t quite work, though – Blackbeard double-crosses Bonnet, who goes looking for revenge. There is a big fight, Bonnett and Blackbeard duel… then they decide to be friends again and flee from some Virginians. It’s like it needed another villain or something. You don’t feel too roused because you know they will both die shortly after. (I thought Goldman would get around this by having someone take one of their places eg Bonnett actually standing in for Blackbeard, like a franchise).
Some of it sags a bit – Bonnet’s desire to become a pirate feels a little clunk. Blackbeard’s initial appearance, with a tough guy backing away from fighting him the moment he realises who it is, is similar to Sundance’s introduction in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. But its very enjoyable. The part of Blackbeard is particularly excellent – tough, humorous, melancholic, prone to self doubt, regretful. Connery would have been great – also Lee Marvin, even Charles Bronson, one of the tough guys with sad eyes.
The climax doesn’t quite work, though – Blackbeard double-crosses Bonnet, who goes looking for revenge. There is a big fight, Bonnett and Blackbeard duel… then they decide to be friends again and flee from some Virginians. It’s like it needed another villain or something. You don’t feel too roused because you know they will both die shortly after. (I thought Goldman would get around this by having someone take one of their places eg Bonnett actually standing in for Blackbeard, like a franchise).
Movie review – “It Came From Outer Space” (1953) **
A space ship crashes in the desert, but everyone thinks it a meteor except for astronomer Richard Carlson. The space creature looks like an eye attached to a jelly fish and possesses people – cue some monster POV shots for 3D. Carlson has a girlfriend (Barbara Rush) who is also loved by the sheriff (Charles Drake) – and she winds up abducted, which is a little reminiscent of the Creature from the Black Lagoon.
Despite the famous title and decent premise this isn’t very interesting story – a lot of running around and humans looking like zombies, without every the feeling of menace of something like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. And there’s no personality monster like Creature. The aliens turn out to be quite benign – they’re only taking over human bodies so they can do work (they’re worried if they appear in their true form humans will be revolted, which is very considerate).
Fairly bland cast full of names familiar to B picture lovers – Carlson, Barbara Rush (who, for whatever reason, presented a whole bunch of Oscars), Charles Drake, Russell Johnson. I loved Russell Johnson’s trashy girlfriend. Decently directed by Jack Arnold, but just bland.
Despite the famous title and decent premise this isn’t very interesting story – a lot of running around and humans looking like zombies, without every the feeling of menace of something like Invasion of the Body Snatchers. And there’s no personality monster like Creature. The aliens turn out to be quite benign – they’re only taking over human bodies so they can do work (they’re worried if they appear in their true form humans will be revolted, which is very considerate).
Fairly bland cast full of names familiar to B picture lovers – Carlson, Barbara Rush (who, for whatever reason, presented a whole bunch of Oscars), Charles Drake, Russell Johnson. I loved Russell Johnson’s trashy girlfriend. Decently directed by Jack Arnold, but just bland.
Movie review – “The Ghost Ship” (1943) **
One of the lesser known Val Lewton films, partly because it was out of circulation for so long because of a plagiarism dispute. A third officer joins a ship captained by Richard Dix, who is soft spoken and seems kind (he stops the officer from killing a moth) and to have a crush on the officer. But it soon becomes apparent the captain is a bit of a nutter – to a homicidal degree.
This features several of the Lewton staples – lots of wind blowing on the soundtrack, literary allusions, one of the characters quotes Latin, Sir Lancelot plays a crew member and sings a song.
But it’s not very interesting. All the soft speaking gets irritating after a while; it’s also annoying how none of the other crew think Dix is weird. Dix’s character isn’t particularly interesting (he’s no Captain Queeg) and neither is the theme of “we must look out for each other” or whatever it is – something to do with no one believing the officer.
There is however an exciting fight at the end between Dix and a mute character.
Movie review – “Twilight” (2008) ***
Half good version of the popular novel. No wonder it’s popular, at least with girls – move to a new town and all the boys will like you and girls will be your friend, even if you are anti-social; the hottest boy in school will fall in love with you – and yes he’s a vampire but that means he’s braver, stronger, smarter and sexier than all of the rest, and besides he only lives off animals, and he’s been around for eighty years looking for you and he’s prepared to risk it all. And he has a loving vampire family who even though one of them is a bit mean the others are prepared to risk their lives to defend you. Oh and her mother and father love her too even if they are divorced.
Ok I’m making fun but it’s a good story, set in a beautiful locations, with pretty stars who can’t really act, being prone to Party of Five ticks (lots of pauses and hesitation). They aren’t that convincing at grand passion but they do look cute together and there is pace. This isn’t particularly well directed – some of the scenes are laughable, the inexperienced actors could have been better protected, the stabs at naturalism simply don’t work in what clearly has to be an expressionistic piece – but it looks handsome and there’s clearly enough here for a sequel.
Ok I’m making fun but it’s a good story, set in a beautiful locations, with pretty stars who can’t really act, being prone to Party of Five ticks (lots of pauses and hesitation). They aren’t that convincing at grand passion but they do look cute together and there is pace. This isn’t particularly well directed – some of the scenes are laughable, the inexperienced actors could have been better protected, the stabs at naturalism simply don’t work in what clearly has to be an expressionistic piece – but it looks handsome and there’s clearly enough here for a sequel.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Movie review – Hardy #4 – “Love Finds Andy Hardy” (1938) ***1/2
The first Hardy family movie to focus solely around Mickey Rooney, who was by now established as the break out star. This is sometimes called the best of the series and it remains warm and charming, with Rooney in good form – though sometimes he does mug a bit. The simple but highly effective plot involves him wanting to take Polly Benedict (Ann Rutherford, very good) to a Christmas dance – but she’s going away, so instead he takes another girl (Lana Turner, already a woman) as a favour to a mate. Lana looks great in a swimming costume and likes kissing, which you’d think would turn Andy on, but as in You’re Only Young Once, this actually turns off Andy. (His impotence in the face of sexually aggressive women would be a constant theme of the series).
The ace in the hole of this film is the appearance of Judy Garland, as the daughter of a music comedy star who comes to stay next door and develops a crush on Andy. She’s very cute, even if you can (with the benefit of hindsight), glimpse the madness in her eyes.
Marian only really appears at the beginning and end of film – her engineer boyfriend has gone on the town with some floozy, leaving Marian free to flirt with Judy’s cousin at the end (then he’s disposed of early on in the next Hardy movie). They get rid of the mother for most of the movie too, which is a good thing.
The ace in the hole of this film is the appearance of Judy Garland, as the daughter of a music comedy star who comes to stay next door and develops a crush on Andy. She’s very cute, even if you can (with the benefit of hindsight), glimpse the madness in her eyes.
Marian only really appears at the beginning and end of film – her engineer boyfriend has gone on the town with some floozy, leaving Marian free to flirt with Judy’s cousin at the end (then he’s disposed of early on in the next Hardy movie). They get rid of the mother for most of the movie too, which is a good thing.
Movie review – Hardy #3 – “Judge Hardy’s Children” (1938) **1/2
A similar structure to the previous Hardy film: the Hardies go on a trip (in this case to Washington, where Judge has to do some work on a committee), and Andy and Marian get involved in adventures, Andy’s are of a comic amorous nature which involve a scene where he can jitterbug and Marian’s more serious which involves in her heart being broken. Again, Judge Hardy almost gets in major financial strife but gets out of it at the end. Mickey Rooney’s wooing of a French girl is fun, and it’s intriguing to see Marian essentially get a crush on a girl, the glamorous Ruth Hussey (who is only using her). The guy who plays Hussey’s friend (not husband) is Leo Penn, dad of Sean.
One of the fun things about the series was it paid attention to continuity – we see a reappearance of Marian’s engineer boyfriend/fiancee at the end. A new actor plays Aunt Milly, as she would for the next movie before Sara Haden returned, but Aunt Milly does hardly anything in either movie. Judge Hardy has a scene where he’s disappointed in Andy and takes Andy to the Washington monument, and it’s clear the poor old Judge has a major hard on for the first president.
One of the fun things about the series was it paid attention to continuity – we see a reappearance of Marian’s engineer boyfriend/fiancee at the end. A new actor plays Aunt Milly, as she would for the next movie before Sara Haden returned, but Aunt Milly does hardly anything in either movie. Judge Hardy has a scene where he’s disappointed in Andy and takes Andy to the Washington monument, and it’s clear the poor old Judge has a major hard on for the first president.
Movie review – Holmes #14 – “Dressed to Kill” (1946) **1/2
The death of director Roy William Neill meant that this was the last of the Rathbone-Bruce Holmes films, although the two actors continued to play the roles on radio and later reprised them on stage. The standard of the series had slipped, but this is an okay entry. Like so many others in the series, it is a chase for a macguffin, in this case three music boxes. In good old bloodthirsty Holmes style, an old mate of Watson’s is murdered over one of the boxes, leading to Holmes getting on the case. The villains are pretty smart, though not no smart as to still leave Holmes hanging awaiting his death and assuming he’s dead instead of simply killing him. Watson quacks like a duck to cheer up a little girl and Aussie views will enjoy the fact that the music box plays “an old Australian waltz” (which I thought was going to be ‘Waltzing Matilda’ but I couldn’t recognise the tune).
Movie review – “Happy Go Lucky” (2008) **
The Mike Leigh method in a brighter mode, about a happy go lucky teacher called Poppy (Sally Hawkins) who is always smiling and laughing. I’ve met lots of girls like her – they always go out with dipshits and presumably that’s in Poppy’s back story somewhere which Leigh developed over a year or whatever he did. Despite all this work that he puts in some times the performances are a bit off.
No real story, just a collection of incidents – Poppy learns how to drive (the excellent Eddie Marsden, the best thing about the movie, unless you’re captivated by Sally Hawkins), runs into a homeless man, takes flamenco lessons, gets a boyfriend. Some of it is well done, but after a while I admit I got a bit bored.
Movie review – “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” (2008) ***
There are a bunch of movies about a girl who loses her boyfriend, job and flat all in the same day, so why shouldn’t the guys have one? Only the excellent Jason Seger hangs on to his job and flat – but his girlfriend is a TV star who runs off with a British pop star, so his humiliation is rubbed in his face that little bit extra. They both wind up on vacation at the same place, a slightly contrived notion but you go with it because the actors are excellent company, as in most Judd Apatow films (he produced). Also in common with many Apatow films, the supporting actors really get a chance to shine – it’s a film about making friends as much as anything (eg 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up). It could have done with a bit more of a story and at the time really feels like dragging.
The film is a combination of the authentic-seeming (the funny sex sequences, photo of the new love interest flashing her boobs on a bathroom wall), and wish fulfilment (the hot girl at the hotel desk will like you). But it’s entertaining.
The film is a combination of the authentic-seeming (the funny sex sequences, photo of the new love interest flashing her boobs on a bathroom wall), and wish fulfilment (the hot girl at the hotel desk will like you). But it’s entertaining.
Movie review – “Quantum of Solace” (2008) **** (warning spoilers)
One of the reasons I really like the Bond producers is they’re always making smart decisions which confuse idiots eg “why would you cast Daniel Craig instead of Pierce Brosnan?”, “why call a film Quantum of Solace?” Variety gave a half-hearted review of this and I think part of it was due to the anti-Americanism of the script (this would be the most anti-American Bond of them all, despite the nice Felix Leiter, with the CIA complicit in the plot of the baddies in order to get oil rights in Bolivia). It’s even a bit environmental too with the baddies out to control…the world’s water supply.
Daniel Craig is in good bruised form as Bond – every time he’s in an action sequence it seems to hurt him. He’s not bad with a dry quip, I wish they’d given him a few more. It’s a shame also they killed off his mate and the nice British girl he beds (in a homage to Goldfinger). (Having said that the death of his friend is the one really emotionally affecting scene in the movie... because it's about revenge for the death of a character in a previous movie.)
The cast is very strong, with a very good Bond girl and villain. Occasionally some of the chase scenes are a bit too reminiscent of the Bourne films (even the music is familiar) but they are still thrilling. (NB isn’t that a bit insensitive of me – all that work and skill for the sequence and I just wind up saying “a bit too reminiscent of the Bourne films”? Well it’s true).
Some great action sequences – good fights, car chase on a windy cliffside road (there’s always something especially exciting about car chases set in Europe, they seem so much more cramped for space there), some pleasingly exotic locations like Italy, Haiti and Bolivia, a striking Zabriskie Point-like climax with a hotel in the middle of the desert.
Daniel Craig is in good bruised form as Bond – every time he’s in an action sequence it seems to hurt him. He’s not bad with a dry quip, I wish they’d given him a few more. It’s a shame also they killed off his mate and the nice British girl he beds (in a homage to Goldfinger). (Having said that the death of his friend is the one really emotionally affecting scene in the movie... because it's about revenge for the death of a character in a previous movie.)
The cast is very strong, with a very good Bond girl and villain. Occasionally some of the chase scenes are a bit too reminiscent of the Bourne films (even the music is familiar) but they are still thrilling. (NB isn’t that a bit insensitive of me – all that work and skill for the sequence and I just wind up saying “a bit too reminiscent of the Bourne films”? Well it’s true).
Some great action sequences – good fights, car chase on a windy cliffside road (there’s always something especially exciting about car chases set in Europe, they seem so much more cramped for space there), some pleasingly exotic locations like Italy, Haiti and Bolivia, a striking Zabriskie Point-like climax with a hotel in the middle of the desert.
Movie review – Thin Man #1 – “The Thin Man” (1934) ***1/2
Married couples aren’t normally found as movie heroes – filmmakers prefer their leads to come together. There are exceptions, of perhaps which Nick and Nora Charles are among the most famous. They are a marvellous couple, excellently played by William Powell and Myrna Loy, whose enjoyment of their parts are infectious.
Nick Charles is a permanently drunk ex-detective married to rich Myrna Loy, who is the perfect match for him – capable of matching him drink for drink, enjoying his low life friends and swapping quips. She doesn’t even mind when he punches her out (to ensure she doesn’t get shot). Presumably she’ll miss him when he dies of cirrhosis of the liver – he drinks an awful lot, I mean he even gets up in the middle of the night to have a drink. (I wonder if this cute depiction of alcoholism inspired people to take up heavy drinking.)
This is made with MGM polish but has Warner Bros pace, if that makes sense – the director was Woody “keep it movin’” Van Dyke. The support cast is impressive, including Maureen O’Sullivan as the missing man’s daughter and Cesar Romero as (surprise) a gigolo, plus of course Asta the dog. The story is strong, the climax is a classic with Powell inviting all the suspects around for dinner.
Nick Charles is a permanently drunk ex-detective married to rich Myrna Loy, who is the perfect match for him – capable of matching him drink for drink, enjoying his low life friends and swapping quips. She doesn’t even mind when he punches her out (to ensure she doesn’t get shot). Presumably she’ll miss him when he dies of cirrhosis of the liver – he drinks an awful lot, I mean he even gets up in the middle of the night to have a drink. (I wonder if this cute depiction of alcoholism inspired people to take up heavy drinking.)
This is made with MGM polish but has Warner Bros pace, if that makes sense – the director was Woody “keep it movin’” Van Dyke. The support cast is impressive, including Maureen O’Sullivan as the missing man’s daughter and Cesar Romero as (surprise) a gigolo, plus of course Asta the dog. The story is strong, the climax is a classic with Powell inviting all the suspects around for dinner.
Book review – “Voyage Around John Mortimer” by Valerie Groves
Excellent bio on England’s national treasure was beaten to the punch by Graham Lord, who dug lots of the dirt – Mortimer’s countless love affairs and taste for kinky sex, his script for Brideshead Revisited was basically discarded, he didn’t stick up for the producer of the original Rumpole when she was let go, his selfishness, and – the big one – his illegitimate son to Wendy Craig. Indeed, Lord casts a shadow over this – Groves refers to the revelations of his book as a big moment in the lives of the Mortimers, especially Penny.
Although this is authorised, and Groves is a lot more affectionate towards Mortimer than Lord, she doesn’t spare him criticism – it’s clear Mortimer wants to be loved, is loveable, but also exasperating and selfish. You can’t have his output and not be selfish to be honest. She has the benefit of Mortimer’s co operation, and that of his family – they don’t hesitate getting stuck in to him. She talks about Mortimer’s writings in less detail than Lord (especially his early novels) – probably because Lord had to refer to them to flesh out the picture of the man, whereas Groves had access to Penelope Mortimer’s diary and interviews with Penny Mortimer, etc. She comes up with a great score too in revealing that Mortimer was sent down from Oxford for a sex scandal… with a man! (He had an intense amorous friendship with another male student).
Both books are a must for Mortimer fans – ok, well, Mortimer fans interested in finding out a little bit more about Mortimer. They complement each other wonderfully.
Although this is authorised, and Groves is a lot more affectionate towards Mortimer than Lord, she doesn’t spare him criticism – it’s clear Mortimer wants to be loved, is loveable, but also exasperating and selfish. You can’t have his output and not be selfish to be honest. She has the benefit of Mortimer’s co operation, and that of his family – they don’t hesitate getting stuck in to him. She talks about Mortimer’s writings in less detail than Lord (especially his early novels) – probably because Lord had to refer to them to flesh out the picture of the man, whereas Groves had access to Penelope Mortimer’s diary and interviews with Penny Mortimer, etc. She comes up with a great score too in revealing that Mortimer was sent down from Oxford for a sex scandal… with a man! (He had an intense amorous friendship with another male student).
Both books are a must for Mortimer fans – ok, well, Mortimer fans interested in finding out a little bit more about Mortimer. They complement each other wonderfully.
Movie review – Falcon #10 – “The Falcon in Hollywood” (1944) **1/2
The Falcon is a lot more at home in Hollywood than out west and this is a really bright, fast paced mystery, helped with Gordon Douglas’s quick handling. The Falcon is on holiday in the movie capital when he runs into a crim he once put away and gets involved in a mystery. Much of the action takes place on a studio backlot, adding to the fun, and there is an energetic collection of supporting characters: mad European director, Shakespeare-quoting producer, wise cracking female taxi driver (Veda Ann Borg, lots of fun - it's great to see a girl as the Falcon's sidekick), flaky actresses into numerology. Barbara Hale returns to the Falcon series but in a different role; there’s also Jean Brooks in her third Falcon – she plays a designer here. One of the best of the series.
Movie review – Holmes #13 – “Terror By Night” (1946) **1/2
The Rathbone Holmes series was on the slide by this stage – they had started rehashing plots, with the Macguffin again a Koh-i-Noor style diamond, in this case called The Star of Rhodesia. Pursuit to Algiers was set mostly on a boat; this one takes place mostly on a train. The shadow of The Lady Vanishes is apparent, right down to a cabinet with a secret compartment. This is especially interesting in light of the fact that Roy William Neill, who directed both this and the bulk of the series, was originally meant to direct the 1938 Hitchcock film.
Dennis Hoey as Inspector Lestrade makes his first appearance in a while. The actor who plays the son of the owner of the diamond is hilariously wet but it’s okay, he gets killed very soon and Holmes has to find the killer (and the diamond, which has gone missing).
There is a sexy femme fetale on the train but the most obvious suspect is Watson’s old army friend – who turns out to be Col Moran. This is the best thing about the film, the appearance of a decent villain – they really should have revealed him earlier to get more out of him instead of waiting 45 minutes. But Moran’s sidekick isn’t bad, like most films set on trains it is fast paced, and there is a fun scene where Watson tries to interrogate someone on the train.
Plot wise the film probably over-uses the “switch” factor – the diamond’s missing… but it’s not the real diamond, police appear… but they’re not real police, etc. Still, enjoyable.
Movie review – Holmes #12 - “Pursuit to Algiers” (1945) **
Holmes is asked to escort the prince of a tiny European nation to his homeland – in the end-of-war spirit, the ruler’s presence is essential for democracy. While Holmes goes in a plane, Watson is sent off on a boat. Around 20 minutes in come reports that Holmes has died in a plane crash – do you think he’s really dead? Of course he isn’t, and we find out fairly soon that he isn’t, but they already did this in The Spider Woman and it’s even more irritating here.
Most of the film takes place on a ship which you think is an interesting setting, but it quickly gets tired. There’s a lot of walking around, and murder attempts. Some of the actors playing assassins are ok but the prince is bland as cardboard and there’s all this time spent on a not particularly interesting singing character. The twist at the end isn’t bad (that the bloke you think is the prince is actually a stand in) but by then it’s too late – and it’s been used as a twist too often (eg The Narrow Margin).
Bruce’s Watson is particularly dim in this one, being of little help to Holmes (although he does regale passengers with the story of the Rat of Sumatra, and sings “Danny Boy”). They play up the Watson-and-Holmes-as-an-old-married-couple angle in this one – watch the bit towards the end where Holmes is practically sitting in Watson’s lap.
Most of the film takes place on a ship which you think is an interesting setting, but it quickly gets tired. There’s a lot of walking around, and murder attempts. Some of the actors playing assassins are ok but the prince is bland as cardboard and there’s all this time spent on a not particularly interesting singing character. The twist at the end isn’t bad (that the bloke you think is the prince is actually a stand in) but by then it’s too late – and it’s been used as a twist too often (eg The Narrow Margin).
Bruce’s Watson is particularly dim in this one, being of little help to Holmes (although he does regale passengers with the story of the Rat of Sumatra, and sings “Danny Boy”). They play up the Watson-and-Holmes-as-an-old-married-couple angle in this one – watch the bit towards the end where Holmes is practically sitting in Watson’s lap.
Play review – “Seven Keys to Baldpate” by George M Cohan (warning: spoilers)
A play I always wanted to read simply because RKO made so many versions of it (and it was available for one two dollars). What was the appeal? Well, it’s got a decent central idea, one location, a bunch of decent roles, and a twist ending. A novelist makes a bet he can write an entirely novel in twenty four hours at Baldplate Inn, for which he is given what is meant to be the only key. The Inn is a summer resort at winter time – was Steven King inspired by this for The Shining? As the title indicates there are six other keys, each one owned by a different person – a hermit, female reporter, gangster, corrupt mayor, etc. The macguffin is a safe full of cash relating to a corrupt railway transaction.
The writer character is a little irritating and he gets the drop on the others a bit too easily, but it’s very fast paced and the sheer number of characters alone mean that something is always happening. The twist ending surely must have inspired the Michael Douglas starrer, The Game – it’s very similar, from the reveal that everyone is an actor to the main guy still falling in love with the girl.
Book review – “Oscar Micheaux” by Patrick McGilligan
McGilligan is the best movie biographer working consistently today so every new work of his is worth consideration. I bought this without knowing anything about Micheaux and found it a fascinating, rewarding work, done with McGilligan’s typical thoroughness and skill. Michaeux was a black film director in the first half of the twentieth century, which is remarkable enough – he was also a best selling author, made over forty films, from the silent to the post WW2 era, made highly personal works. Although his reputation has increased greatly over the years he’s still not that well known, at least outside black historical circles – partly because he rarely worked with anyone who became well known. There were exceptions, the leading one of which was Paul Robeson, who starred in Michaeux’s Body and Soul. You also may have heard of Lorenzo Tucker, the “black Valentino” who was Michaeux’s leading man.
Michaeux’s career began oddly – he was a Pullman porter, then became a farmer, and did okay at it for a couple of years too despite living out in the middle of nowhere (the only black person in his region), then losing a lot of his money in land speculation; he turned his experiences into a novel, the rights to which were sought by black filmmakers and he turned director himself. At first I thought McGilligan spent too much time on Michaeux’s farming career but the period proved invaluable to his career – it provided him with material for which he returned to again and again in his films and books, but also taught him a lesson… never ever give up. (Was Michaeux the first farmer turned director? As in proper farmer, not hobbyist?)
Michaeux never enjoyed a consistent stream of luck - when he had a hit film he struggled getting money back, when he found a wealthy backer he ended up in court with them, when he made money via some best selling novels towards the end of his life he blew it on one more film and died poor. He didn't even enjoy consistent support from the black press. But he kept going at it - good on him.
Michaeux’s career began oddly – he was a Pullman porter, then became a farmer, and did okay at it for a couple of years too despite living out in the middle of nowhere (the only black person in his region), then losing a lot of his money in land speculation; he turned his experiences into a novel, the rights to which were sought by black filmmakers and he turned director himself. At first I thought McGilligan spent too much time on Michaeux’s farming career but the period proved invaluable to his career – it provided him with material for which he returned to again and again in his films and books, but also taught him a lesson… never ever give up. (Was Michaeux the first farmer turned director? As in proper farmer, not hobbyist?)
Michaeux never enjoyed a consistent stream of luck - when he had a hit film he struggled getting money back, when he found a wealthy backer he ended up in court with them, when he made money via some best selling novels towards the end of his life he blew it on one more film and died poor. He didn't even enjoy consistent support from the black press. But he kept going at it - good on him.
Movie review – Falcon #8 – “The Falcon Out West” (1944) **
At one stage the Falcon was engaged to a trashy Texan heiress but that character doesn’t appear in this Western-flavoured adventure, which starts with a Texan tycoon dying in a city nightclub … of a rattlesnake bite. The man’s fiancée is suspect number one and the Falcon tries to save the day, resulting in them staying at a ranch out west. One of the gals who works there is played by a pre-Perry Mason Barbara Hale, giving the support cast a bit of zing.
The series was a well-oiled machine by this stage – it feels confident and sure of itself. Having said that, it doesn’t quite work to have the Falcon operating on a ranch – he seems to suit the city and the night, not the great outdoors (its jarring to see him on a horse.) There’s a little bit of Hollywood liberalism at play here – it’s pointed out that the ranch is on land stolen by the Indians and the Indians are annoyed by it. Also a good scene where Barbara Hale’s father realises everyone think he’s guilty.
The series was a well-oiled machine by this stage – it feels confident and sure of itself. Having said that, it doesn’t quite work to have the Falcon operating on a ranch – he seems to suit the city and the night, not the great outdoors (its jarring to see him on a horse.) There’s a little bit of Hollywood liberalism at play here – it’s pointed out that the ranch is on land stolen by the Indians and the Indians are annoyed by it. Also a good scene where Barbara Hale’s father realises everyone think he’s guilty.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Movie review - "Uncivilised" (1936) **1/2
This would be the least regarded of Charles Chauvel's sound movies but its far from being his worst made -clearly Chauvel's attempt at making something "commercial", it's a fascinating mess, which is nonetheless surprisingly watchable.
Beautiful Margot Rhys is a female novelist persuaded to venture into Australia's unexplored north west where rumours say a white man has been raised among the locals, whom he rules. Rhys ventures north as part of a caravan, but is kidnapped by an Afghan trader and shipped to the white man (Dennis Hoey), who remarks that he's heard of the white lubra. Rhy has to deal with Hoey's burning passion (he slaps her around at one stage) and singing, not to mention the jealousy of a half-caste woman - who apparently cannot be with Hoey because she is half caste (and we're meant to believe that Hoey hasn't touched local women for fear of miscegination). There's also some opium smugglers plus a missing detective called Peter Radcliffe, whose name is mentioned a lot and who turns out to be as much as hero as Hoey, some rubies, a renegade aboriginal warrior and a drug (with historical basis - see this article).
As George MacDonald Fraser once said about Hamlet, to say this is racist is like describing Hamlet as a family row: although raised by local aboriginals, Hoey is shown to be superior basically because of his white skin and the film is obssessed with miscegination. None of the aboriginal characters are given any dimension, indeed they are lucky to get lines outside of chanting, and in terms of accuracy the thing is a mish mash - the aboriginals depicted were from Palm Island, not the Kimberly, and many will find the villainous witchdoctor characters and so on offensive. Actually many will find the whole thing offenive.
Having said that at least they are real aboriginals not white actors in blackface - Chauvel's documentary background ensures that, and it is always visually striking, with these great faces on the actors. There is plenty of plot and action, with a tremendous climatic battle, and it is all fast paced. Also Rhys goes for a quite sexy nude swim.
Dennis Hoey's physique isn't bad but he's too old and is no Johnny Weismuller - apart from his fine singing voice and white skin it's hard to see what Rhys sees in him. (He's not even that brave). Rhys is pretty and its fun to hear Aussie accents mouthing all the ripe dialogue - it's as if Chauvel was told he could direct the next Tarzan film by MGM and cast all his Aussie mates.
The film is available in the public domain and can be downloaded on the net.
Beautiful Margot Rhys is a female novelist persuaded to venture into Australia's unexplored north west where rumours say a white man has been raised among the locals, whom he rules. Rhys ventures north as part of a caravan, but is kidnapped by an Afghan trader and shipped to the white man (Dennis Hoey), who remarks that he's heard of the white lubra. Rhy has to deal with Hoey's burning passion (he slaps her around at one stage) and singing, not to mention the jealousy of a half-caste woman - who apparently cannot be with Hoey because she is half caste (and we're meant to believe that Hoey hasn't touched local women for fear of miscegination). There's also some opium smugglers plus a missing detective called Peter Radcliffe, whose name is mentioned a lot and who turns out to be as much as hero as Hoey, some rubies, a renegade aboriginal warrior and a drug (with historical basis - see this article).
As George MacDonald Fraser once said about Hamlet, to say this is racist is like describing Hamlet as a family row: although raised by local aboriginals, Hoey is shown to be superior basically because of his white skin and the film is obssessed with miscegination. None of the aboriginal characters are given any dimension, indeed they are lucky to get lines outside of chanting, and in terms of accuracy the thing is a mish mash - the aboriginals depicted were from Palm Island, not the Kimberly, and many will find the villainous witchdoctor characters and so on offensive. Actually many will find the whole thing offenive.
Having said that at least they are real aboriginals not white actors in blackface - Chauvel's documentary background ensures that, and it is always visually striking, with these great faces on the actors. There is plenty of plot and action, with a tremendous climatic battle, and it is all fast paced. Also Rhys goes for a quite sexy nude swim.
Dennis Hoey's physique isn't bad but he's too old and is no Johnny Weismuller - apart from his fine singing voice and white skin it's hard to see what Rhys sees in him. (He's not even that brave). Rhys is pretty and its fun to hear Aussie accents mouthing all the ripe dialogue - it's as if Chauvel was told he could direct the next Tarzan film by MGM and cast all his Aussie mates.
The film is available in the public domain and can be downloaded on the net.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Movie review – Holmes #11 – The Woman in Green” (1945) ***
The Rathbone Sherlock Holmes series were very violent – this one is about a serial killer bumping off young women a la Jack the Ripper and severing their finger. It starts with a more downbeat, film noir tone, with narration from a police inspector (not Lestrade – some other guy, Gregson, Matthew Boulton, not comic but he seems to be no more competent) – and there is lots of smoking.
This one has the benefit of Henry Daniell as Moriarty – after appearing in the series as a henchman and a red herring, it’s great to see him centre stage. Unfortunately after a great beginning, this doesn’t quite hit the top mark. There’s not enough duelling between Holmes and Moriarty (there’s only one scene together); indeed there’s not enough Moriarty full stop. Also, after they set up this killer plot it then gets bogged down into all this stuff about blackmail and hypnotism (there are two long hypnotism scenes). It’s awfully complicated of Moriarty to go around killing people in order to blackmail them – couldn’t he do something less violent? The finale isn’t that exciting because it’s obvious Holmes would never be hypnotised. With the benefit of hindsight, this can perhaps be seen to be the start of the series’ decline.
The support cast isn’t bad, with an okay femme fetale (Hillary Brooke) and an excellent creepy sidekick of Holmes who is the one who cuts off fingers. Moriarty plunges to his death for the fourth time in the series – I’m not kidding, the fourth time!
There’s a touching moment where Moriarty tells Holmes he’s kidnapped Watson and Holmes gets worried. Holmes aficionados will also love the bit where a woman offers to inject Holmes with a drug to help him sleep and he reacts badly to the idea of drugs.
This one has the benefit of Henry Daniell as Moriarty – after appearing in the series as a henchman and a red herring, it’s great to see him centre stage. Unfortunately after a great beginning, this doesn’t quite hit the top mark. There’s not enough duelling between Holmes and Moriarty (there’s only one scene together); indeed there’s not enough Moriarty full stop. Also, after they set up this killer plot it then gets bogged down into all this stuff about blackmail and hypnotism (there are two long hypnotism scenes). It’s awfully complicated of Moriarty to go around killing people in order to blackmail them – couldn’t he do something less violent? The finale isn’t that exciting because it’s obvious Holmes would never be hypnotised. With the benefit of hindsight, this can perhaps be seen to be the start of the series’ decline.
The support cast isn’t bad, with an okay femme fetale (Hillary Brooke) and an excellent creepy sidekick of Holmes who is the one who cuts off fingers. Moriarty plunges to his death for the fourth time in the series – I’m not kidding, the fourth time!
There’s a touching moment where Moriarty tells Holmes he’s kidnapped Watson and Holmes gets worried. Holmes aficionados will also love the bit where a woman offers to inject Holmes with a drug to help him sleep and he reacts badly to the idea of drugs.
Movie review – Holmes #9 – “The Pearl of Death” (1945) ***1/2
Evelyn Ankers was best known for playing really likeable screaming damsels of distress in horror movies, so it’s fun to see her as a femme fetale, a jewel thief in cahoots with crime genius Miles Mander. This must have been a fun role for Ankers to do, as both she and Mander undertake a variety of disguises.
They are after an expensive pearl with a dark history, rather similar to the Koh-in-Noor diamond. Mander gets away with the pearl due to stuff up by Holmes, which is a fresh twist – he has to track it down. A lot of the film is scene from the point of view of Mander and Ankers – Holmes is playing catch up a lot of the time.
There’s a joker in a pack – a ruthless killer, the Creeper, who goes around breaking people’s backs. (The next time you hear some old soul go on about violence in the movies today, tell them about the Rathbone Holmes series – bodies chopped up and put in suitcases, a killer who breaks his victims backs, throats ripped out.)
This one has more gadgets – a book with a dagger that lunges out of it, secret messages on plates. There’s also a bigger role for Lestrade and a clever bit where Holmes listens in on a conversation between Ankers and Mander, then impersonates Mander.
Mander is a smart crook (he steals a pearl from under Holmes’ noses, gets a gun off Holmes due to Holmes’s monologuing) but even though he admits to Holmes he gets a lot of ideas from him, Holmes says he doesn’t like crooks like Mander because they have the stench of cruelty. Personally I think he’s just a poor loser. (Though it is contrived that Mander doesn’t shoot Holmes at the end when he has the chance – and lets him chat away turning the Creeper against Mander).
Rondo Hatton is a surprise in this one, as the Creeper with the crush on Evelyn Ankers, who is used by Ankers and Mander for evil ends. He’s not very smart though, being easily conned by Holmes then charging at him. Still, an effective villain, and his appearance packs a wallop.
This is very strong Holmes entry, a lot of fun. No real war talk at the end, just Holmes going on about people being greedy over pearls and wouldn’t it be nice if we weren’t like that.
They are after an expensive pearl with a dark history, rather similar to the Koh-in-Noor diamond. Mander gets away with the pearl due to stuff up by Holmes, which is a fresh twist – he has to track it down. A lot of the film is scene from the point of view of Mander and Ankers – Holmes is playing catch up a lot of the time.
There’s a joker in a pack – a ruthless killer, the Creeper, who goes around breaking people’s backs. (The next time you hear some old soul go on about violence in the movies today, tell them about the Rathbone Holmes series – bodies chopped up and put in suitcases, a killer who breaks his victims backs, throats ripped out.)
This one has more gadgets – a book with a dagger that lunges out of it, secret messages on plates. There’s also a bigger role for Lestrade and a clever bit where Holmes listens in on a conversation between Ankers and Mander, then impersonates Mander.
Mander is a smart crook (he steals a pearl from under Holmes’ noses, gets a gun off Holmes due to Holmes’s monologuing) but even though he admits to Holmes he gets a lot of ideas from him, Holmes says he doesn’t like crooks like Mander because they have the stench of cruelty. Personally I think he’s just a poor loser. (Though it is contrived that Mander doesn’t shoot Holmes at the end when he has the chance – and lets him chat away turning the Creeper against Mander).
Rondo Hatton is a surprise in this one, as the Creeper with the crush on Evelyn Ankers, who is used by Ankers and Mander for evil ends. He’s not very smart though, being easily conned by Holmes then charging at him. Still, an effective villain, and his appearance packs a wallop.
This is very strong Holmes entry, a lot of fun. No real war talk at the end, just Holmes going on about people being greedy over pearls and wouldn’t it be nice if we weren’t like that.
Book review – “Around the World in 80 Days” by Jules Verne
Maybe creaks a bit but so many marvellous ideas – the central conceit, the character of Phileas Fogg, Passperteaut in trouble for not wearing the right shoes, cutting up a ship in order to make fuel, a duel on a train. There’s also a lovely sweet moment where Auoda (who is Indian – but Verne reassures us that she’s practically white) proposes to Fogg at his lowest ebb – this is really sweet.
Book review – “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” by Ken Kesey
Enjoyed it but preferred the movie – Jack Nicholson was so well cast. I struggled imagining Kirk Douglas in the part – he would have been too strong and mean somehow. The theme of striving to be an individual – “I tried at least, I tried” – hasn’t dated a jot, but its irritating how all the women are bitches or whores.
Movie review – Holmes #8 – “The Scarlet Claw” (1944) ****
French Canada always seems to have this glamour lacking in English-speaking Canada, and it provides a wonderfully spooky setting for this gruesome Holmes tale. A lady has been killed – her throat was ripped out, just like recent killings of sheep. Rumours blame it on a local legend, a la Hound of the Baskervilles (which Watson refers to) but when Holmes receives a letter from the deceased asking to help, he investigates.
There’s mysterious inn keepers, not one but two beautiful tormented girls, lots of lurking around the moors, a bit of special effects (a glowing creature running loose – which Holmes shoots at without first saying “stop” or anything), a scared judge in a wheelchair, a cosy pub where the fifty worders sing songs.
The story is very strong, one of the best in the series. Holmes has to work really hard to figure out what’s going on. The villain is strong, a crazy actor who is a master of disguise and very smart. He’s a different sort of villain to the normal Moriarty’s because we never know who he is… yet we’re aware of his presence for the last half hour (we see him in shadows, using false voices, etc). In one scary scene he kills a judge by taking over the judge’s maid’s identity (it’s a big shock – like Anthony Perkins in a dress in Psycho) – then basically ripping the judge’s throat out with a trowel!
So you can forgive the fact that there’s a monologing confession scene where he’s pointing a gun at Holmes and says to him “I can see no reason why I shouldn’t tell you” and delivers a batch of exposition. This is a lazy moment in an otherwise first-rate script.
There’s also a full on scene where they discover a young girl has been killed – this has special impact because Holmes is really affected by it, by more than any death in the series to date. (Watson takes it in stride.) The Spider Woman is more fun, but this is the darkest of the Rathbone Holmes – with Holmes quite happily letting the murdered be killed. It gets better and better as it goes on, although to be honest you can pick the main disguise the killer uses because the moustache is a bit too obvious. Miles Matheson is excellent as a paranoid judge,
There is no war stuff except for Holmes quoting Churchill on Canada at the end – maybe because to compensate for it not being a particularly positive depiction of that country (with moors and killers).
There’s mysterious inn keepers, not one but two beautiful tormented girls, lots of lurking around the moors, a bit of special effects (a glowing creature running loose – which Holmes shoots at without first saying “stop” or anything), a scared judge in a wheelchair, a cosy pub where the fifty worders sing songs.
The story is very strong, one of the best in the series. Holmes has to work really hard to figure out what’s going on. The villain is strong, a crazy actor who is a master of disguise and very smart. He’s a different sort of villain to the normal Moriarty’s because we never know who he is… yet we’re aware of his presence for the last half hour (we see him in shadows, using false voices, etc). In one scary scene he kills a judge by taking over the judge’s maid’s identity (it’s a big shock – like Anthony Perkins in a dress in Psycho) – then basically ripping the judge’s throat out with a trowel!
So you can forgive the fact that there’s a monologing confession scene where he’s pointing a gun at Holmes and says to him “I can see no reason why I shouldn’t tell you” and delivers a batch of exposition. This is a lazy moment in an otherwise first-rate script.
There’s also a full on scene where they discover a young girl has been killed – this has special impact because Holmes is really affected by it, by more than any death in the series to date. (Watson takes it in stride.) The Spider Woman is more fun, but this is the darkest of the Rathbone Holmes – with Holmes quite happily letting the murdered be killed. It gets better and better as it goes on, although to be honest you can pick the main disguise the killer uses because the moustache is a bit too obvious. Miles Matheson is excellent as a paranoid judge,
There is no war stuff except for Holmes quoting Churchill on Canada at the end – maybe because to compensate for it not being a particularly positive depiction of that country (with moors and killers).
Movie review – “Gypsy Wildcat” (1944) **1/2
After the Middle East and the South Seas, Maria Montez and Jon Hall found themselves in Europe, playing gypsies. The Technicolor photography was a big attraction for their earlier films, but not so much in this one – it’s a very black and white seeming movie, if that makes sense. Many of the support cast are normally found in black and white films – Gale Sondegaard, Nigel Bruce, Leo Carillo, Douglas Dumbrille – and the director, Roy William Neill, usually worked in black and white (including Sherlock Holmes and Frankenstein movies). Indeed, he directs like a black and white director. There’s a gypsy number towards the end that’s just like the one in Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man.
Maria plays a gypsy girl (cue some dodgy dancing) who catches the attention of nobleman Hall. The gypsies are persecuted by an evil Baron (Douglas Dumbrille) and his henchman – something which has extra resonance considering the persecution real life gypsies were suffering at the time.
There are some more traditional swashbuckling moments – Hall represents the king, the baddies are rogue nobles (Hall is investigating the death of a good noble which Dumbrille is blaming on the gypsies), there are escapes from castles with moat, shenanigans with bows and arrows.
There’s also a Western influence, with Hall chasing down a stagecoach at the end and the gypsy cavalry coming to the rescue. If you think it’s odd Maria would be playing someone as low-ranked as a gypsy, don’t worry – she’s actually the long lost daughter of a noble. (NB and even though the gypsies ride off at the end, as if they’re not going to be hanging around in future scabbing off her)
Some guy called Peter Coe is billed above the title with Montez and Hall – presumably he stepped into a role meant for Sabu (who had enlisted). He’s this lunkish sort of actor, not bad looking but the type of guy who normally played suspects in the Saint movies, or members of gangs. It’s a shame this role isn’t played by Turhan Bey – I never thought I’d write those words, but Bey carried a sense of menace even in his sympathetic performances which would have added an extra dimension to this part. He does get a death scene at the end, but it would have meant a bit more had he been given a bit more character to play with.
If you found it odd that Richard Brooks worked on the script for White Savage and Cobra Woman, this one was co-written by James Cain. There is a clever bit where the gypsies get Hall away from the authorities by conking him on the head and dressing him as a clown.
Maria has a good moment when Dumbrille threatens to brand her and she reveals her bare shoulder and looks at him defiant as if to go, “get stuck in, then”. Dumbrille is a strong villain, smart and human (he loves Maria’s beauty) and he gets a neat death scene, impaling himself on an arrow by walking backwards while Hall watches. (NB Hall rarely got to kill the baddie in these films, either they walked backwards and impaled themselves or the work was done by an exploding volcano or a friend of Hall’s).
This is okay, but it lacks that special zing of madness, camp and colour that marked the first four Hall-Montez films. Those early movies really belonged to Hall and Montez, this one feels as though they could easily star Cornel Wilde and Patricia Medina, or some other combination.
Movie review – “Cobra Woman” (1944) ***1/2
The third and final collaboration between Maria Montez, Jon Hall and Sabu saw their talents complemented by one of Universal’s biggest names, Lon Chaney, and two filmmakers who would achieve great distinction, Richard Brooks (co-screenplay) and Robert Siodmark. If you had to pay your dues, why not on enjoyable tosh like this?
This one starts with Maria and Jon already going out – they’re engaged to be married, plans which are thrown when Maria is abducted by her people and taken to Cobra Island. It turns out that Maria is actually descended from a nasty tribe, and Jon heads off to fetch her with Sabu.
This film feels very Tarzan, complete with a lost civilisation ruled by an evil princess, plenty of action, and a comic chimpanzee. It is more fantastical than their other movies, with outrageous head gear and a strong element of magic. Maria has been brought back in order to help her people against her evil twin sister, also played by Maria… causing Jon Hall to innocently go the pash (one time rather awkwardly under water), and getting into all sorts of strife. Unlike the baddie in Arabian Nights we know evil Maria is evil because she’s really into human sacrifices.
The best thing about the film, apart from the beautiful Technicolour photography, are the sets. The image of evil Montez sitting in her cobra throne with cobra headdress has become deservedly famous (it’s the image of Montez that is best known). Some of it is a bit ludicrous.
The camp highlight is Montez doing a cobra dance around a cobra then pointing at various young women who are to be sacrificed – she looks like she’s having a fit at Studio 54 or something. Also funny is when evil Montez dies by walking backwards out a window (still with ten minutes to go). This set a template – Douglas Dumbrille would kill himself by walking backwards in Gypsy Wildcat.
But the story is perfectly serviceable, it’s got a woman coming to the rescue of a man at the end instead of the other way around (although it’s not too feminist – she gives up her crown for him at the end), Lon Chaney plays a dumb ally of Hall and Sabu, there is a fun climax with fighting, swinging on ropes and a volcano exploding.
Movie review – “White Savage” (1943) ***1/2
Audiences lapped up Maria Montez, Jon Hall and Sabu in Arabian Nights so Universal whisked them over another location ideal of technicolour escapism, the South Seas. This was the region that made Hall famous, back in 1937’s Hurricane, and was enjoying a resurgence of popularity around this time – Dorothy Lamour being the most notable star.
Maria Montez was an awkward actor but she’s very pretty and has fun as an imperious island princess. Her island contains some valuable natural resources – some jewels and sharks. Nasty Thomas Gomez wants the former, fisherman Jon Hall is only interested in hunting the latter (so he says).
Montez and Hall have better chemistry here than they did in Arabian Nights and Ali Baba – partly because their relationship doesn’t have the suspicion hanging over it in the other two films that Montez wants to marry Hall because he’s royalty; here he’s just a fisherman, so she genuinely likes him. It also helps that they joke around a bit and go for a swim together – both seem to be into each other.
Turhan Bey is very good in a role for which he is excellently suited, as Montez’s wastrel brother. Sidney Toler’s oriental lawyer suffers under too much make up but Sabu adds youth, energy and charm in his side kick part. Gorgeous technicolour photography and great sets – Universal didn’t stint on the budget for this one.
Richard Brooks is given sole credit for the screenplay (someone else is credited for the story) and he has nothing to be ashamed about; the card playing sequence involving Hall, Bey and Thomas Gomez feels a bit rougher-edged than many in these sort of movies – perhaps this was Brooks’ influence.
There are some spectacular special effects during the volcano climax, even if it does mean our heroes mostly stand around trying to avoid having things fall on them instead of doing something really heroic. Good fun.
Movie review – Falcon #7 – “Falcon and the Co-eds” (1943) **1/2
Falcon films ended with a damsel in distress asking for the Falcon’s help, but usually didn’t actually flow on to the next one. But at the end of The Falcon in Danger a woman told Falcon there had been a murder at her school – which is the plot of this one. Not that there’s too much continuity – this starts from scratch, with a girl (played by Amelita Ward, who plays the Falcon’s Texan fiancée in The Falcon in Danger) kissing the Falcon then asking him to help investigate a murder of one of the staff at a seminary. (Though the official line is that the person died of natural causes.)
There is a creepy element of all girls schools and this is alluded to in the shape of the psychic student (Rita Corday) and some mysterious staff who are clearly hiding something. Indeed, towards the end with the psychic freaking out and wind billowing through the trees and a woman about to kill herself by jumping off a cliff, with waves crashing below, it becomes very Val Lewton. Actually, if they’d gone along more this line, this would have been a classic. But they could never quite get the tone right.
The film is also comic, with laughs based on the Falcon running loose at an all-girl school, and a few songs performed by the girls.
Good performances – Jean Brooks, who plays the school teacher, was a good actor (like Ward and Corday she was in other Falcons).
Movie review – Holmes #7 – “The Spider Woman” (1944) ****
There’s a mysterious spate of suicides – but Holmes says he’s too ill to investigate it because of dizzy spells. He falls in the river and everyone thinks he’s drowned – which is a pretty full on way of starting the movie, even though of course he’s faking, because Watson, Lestrade and Mrs Hudson genuinely think he’s dead and are really upset. Watson is going through scrapbooks of their old cases (including The Giant Rat of Sumatra) when Holmes turns up. Apart from this rather nasty trick of Holmes, this is the best Rathbone Holmes movie – just over an hour, without an ounce of fat on it, everyone in top form.
Holmes is convinced that the crimes are committed by a woman because they are particularly malicious and cruel. In this he’s right – it’s Gale Sondegaard, a terrific antagonist for Holmes. So Holmes blacks up and goes undercover as an Indian royal… but it’s not long before Sondegaard figures out who he is.
The duels between Rathbone and Sondegaard are wonderful – lots of flirting and intelligence. It’s wonderful when Sondegaard visits Holmes place and each one knows what the other one has been up to, and are clearly enjoying the fact. But then, just to remind everyone that they’re not mates – she almost kills Holmes with a deadly gas. It’s a great shame she was never brought back again as a character in the series.
There’s also plenty of spook factor, with the baddies killing people using a combination of deadly spiders and a pygmy – even creepier is the scene with the little kid who catches imaginary fliers. Actually there’s lots of memorable scenes: Watson thinks Holmes has visited him in disguise – but it’s actually a real person; Watson does something genuinely useful, recognising a skeleton as one belonging to an adult, not a child; Holmes and Watson visiting a spider expert; Sondegaard luring Holmes to danger by appealing to his sense of drama (setting up at a sideshow); and a brilliant climax where Sondegaard tries to kill Holmes via a shooting gallery (Watson is a good shot but fortunately a bit slow).
War propaganda is limited to Holmes going to a sideshow alley and shooting at targets including Mussolini and Hirohito. No war speech at the end, although Holmes comments on how it was clever on Sondegaard to try and kill people in a crowd – perhaps a criticism of our selfish ways or something. Actually, nah., I’m just reading things into it.
Holmes is convinced that the crimes are committed by a woman because they are particularly malicious and cruel. In this he’s right – it’s Gale Sondegaard, a terrific antagonist for Holmes. So Holmes blacks up and goes undercover as an Indian royal… but it’s not long before Sondegaard figures out who he is.
The duels between Rathbone and Sondegaard are wonderful – lots of flirting and intelligence. It’s wonderful when Sondegaard visits Holmes place and each one knows what the other one has been up to, and are clearly enjoying the fact. But then, just to remind everyone that they’re not mates – she almost kills Holmes with a deadly gas. It’s a great shame she was never brought back again as a character in the series.
There’s also plenty of spook factor, with the baddies killing people using a combination of deadly spiders and a pygmy – even creepier is the scene with the little kid who catches imaginary fliers. Actually there’s lots of memorable scenes: Watson thinks Holmes has visited him in disguise – but it’s actually a real person; Watson does something genuinely useful, recognising a skeleton as one belonging to an adult, not a child; Holmes and Watson visiting a spider expert; Sondegaard luring Holmes to danger by appealing to his sense of drama (setting up at a sideshow); and a brilliant climax where Sondegaard tries to kill Holmes via a shooting gallery (Watson is a good shot but fortunately a bit slow).
War propaganda is limited to Holmes going to a sideshow alley and shooting at targets including Mussolini and Hirohito. No war speech at the end, although Holmes comments on how it was clever on Sondegaard to try and kill people in a crowd – perhaps a criticism of our selfish ways or something. Actually, nah., I’m just reading things into it.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Movie review - "Sudan" (1945) **1/2
After five films together with Jon Hall it's almost like watching infidelity when you see Maria Montez cosy up to Turhan Bey, despite the fact that Hall is still in the movie (and what's more is billed about Bey). Universal must have thought it was time to vary the formula a little. They also must have been building Bey into a star, although that didn't last long.
Bey is an odd sort of dashing leading man - he plays the part in his usual smooth-tongued gigolo style (only without a moustache). He's the leader of a band of ex-slaves turned rebels in Ancient Egypt. Maria Montez is an Egyptian princess who likes to pretend to be one of the people - she thinks Bey killed her dad and goes undercover to get him.
This saw Montez, Bey and Hall reunited with the writer and director of Arabian Nights, and the plot is similar to that film, with Montez instead of Hall as the royalty who who falls in with a rough crowd (Hall and And Devine as horse thieves) and a rebel, and there is palace intrigue involving a villainous adviser (here played by George Zucco). There's even a climax where the male romantic hero (here, Bey) fights the baddy (Zucco) - but the baddy is killed by someone else (Hall).
The best things about the film are, once again, the sets and colour - the ancient Egyptian setting is a real novelty. Maria Montez looks really lovely, but Bey is a bit out of his depth and he and Hall look a bit silly to be honest with their head gear and tight shorts. Some pretty shots of horses galloping across the desert (singing on the soundtrack but we don't see them sing). Not enough action.
Movie review - Holmes #10 - "Sherlock Holmes and the House of Fear" (1945) ***
Another very strong Holmes entry, even if it doesn't quite reach the top rank. Based on Doyle's story the "Adenture of the Five Orange Pips" this has Watson and Holmes investigate the deaths of members of a secret society in Scotland. This is pleasingly creepy, mostly set in a cliff top castle with lots of lightning and thunderstorms, with Aubrey Mathers fun as a batty member of the society (although the support cast isn't as strong as in previous entries). There is a solid twist at the end. No war propaganda.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Movie review – Hardy #2 – “You’re Only Young Once” (1937) **1/2
The film that kicked off the Hardy film series properly, with the cast, director and theme song who would become regulars. Mickey Rooney and Cecilia Parker are back as the two kids, ditto Sara Haden as the spinster aunt, they dump the eldest daughter, Lewis Stone and Fay Holden take over the parent roles and Ann Rutherford. Rutherford is a terrific addition to the series (although in defence of the girl who first played the role she didn’t get much of a chance to do anything). Lewis Stone is a bit more serious and solemn than Lionel Barrymore, who always had the whiff of fire and brimstone about him (albeit tempered with humour); he’s not quite as imposing as Barrymore, which means he doesn’t quite dominate his scenes in the same way. Fay Holden seems a little bored and lacking warmth; certainly she’s not as good as Spring Byington.
There is story continuity – a newspaper editor has gone broke through buying land in the hope the aqueduct went through but Judge Hardy blocked it, there’s a return of the shonky businessman involved in the same project, Marian is writing love letters to the engineer she romanced, and Andy’s relationship with Polly Benedict is developing. But the main plot involves the Hardies going on holiday to Catalina Island. Both Andy and Marian have romances, despite their attachments elsewhere – Andy with a fast-living jitterbugger (daughter of a divorcee), Miriam with a lifeguard (separated from his wife). The jitterbugger helps Andy learn how to pash but who is high maintenance; she wants to have been everywhere and done everything by the time she’s eighteen, which means a guaranteed root for Andy, but not for the last time in the series he begs off. (However, his pashing does improve – thus pleasing Polly Benedict).
There’s a kind of creepy scene where Judge Hardy strikes up a conversation with the girlfriend and then tells Andy the girl is no good – because she’s a bit fast and immoral. I also didn’t like it when Hardy talks Marian out of marrying a man who’s separated because “you can’t beat society… codes of convention that have been forged over hundreds of years”. Then he gets the family to cross examine the guy about his love for her – which makes him break up with her. Keen to stuff up his kid’s sex lives, this judge! (Although Marian refers to having “lost her wings” one night – did he root her? And to be fair the guy turns out to be a cad.)
(On that point - the lifeguard proposes to Marian in order to romance her - that's an awful lot of trouble to go to.)
It should be pointed out that for all Dad dispensing romantic advice, he’s still dim enough to get himself into financial strife by going guarantor for some idiot businessman. He only gets out of trouble with the old grandad-actually-owns-this-from-the-civil-war deux ex machina, used in Darling Buds of May.
Apart from this little plot, which only features at the very beginning and end, Mum and Dad mostly serve as sounding boards for the kids. Dad does go fishing, but Mum and Aunt Milly seem to spend the holidays cooking and washing up. Watching this I couldn’t help thinking – did Aunt Milly and Judge Hardy have something going on? Maybe they were secret polygamists, a la Big Love, with Milly as a secret number two wife. The Hardies apparently lived in Idaho - not tha far from Utah.
Mickey Rooney is excellent as always; I also enjoyed Cecilia Parker a lot. Watching these films again I’m struck how much her character to the success of the series – sweet, pretty (though she had a bit of a gut – check out her in the swimsuit scene), always getting her heart broken, snapping at Andy.
Structure wise I think they should have kept all the action in Catalina – it feels awkward to have all this stuff about Hardy guaranteeing a debt shoved in at the end. At the end of the film Lewis Stone appears announcing more adventures.
There is story continuity – a newspaper editor has gone broke through buying land in the hope the aqueduct went through but Judge Hardy blocked it, there’s a return of the shonky businessman involved in the same project, Marian is writing love letters to the engineer she romanced, and Andy’s relationship with Polly Benedict is developing. But the main plot involves the Hardies going on holiday to Catalina Island. Both Andy and Marian have romances, despite their attachments elsewhere – Andy with a fast-living jitterbugger (daughter of a divorcee), Miriam with a lifeguard (separated from his wife). The jitterbugger helps Andy learn how to pash but who is high maintenance; she wants to have been everywhere and done everything by the time she’s eighteen, which means a guaranteed root for Andy, but not for the last time in the series he begs off. (However, his pashing does improve – thus pleasing Polly Benedict).
There’s a kind of creepy scene where Judge Hardy strikes up a conversation with the girlfriend and then tells Andy the girl is no good – because she’s a bit fast and immoral. I also didn’t like it when Hardy talks Marian out of marrying a man who’s separated because “you can’t beat society… codes of convention that have been forged over hundreds of years”. Then he gets the family to cross examine the guy about his love for her – which makes him break up with her. Keen to stuff up his kid’s sex lives, this judge! (Although Marian refers to having “lost her wings” one night – did he root her? And to be fair the guy turns out to be a cad.)
(On that point - the lifeguard proposes to Marian in order to romance her - that's an awful lot of trouble to go to.)
It should be pointed out that for all Dad dispensing romantic advice, he’s still dim enough to get himself into financial strife by going guarantor for some idiot businessman. He only gets out of trouble with the old grandad-actually-owns-this-from-the-civil-war deux ex machina, used in Darling Buds of May.
Apart from this little plot, which only features at the very beginning and end, Mum and Dad mostly serve as sounding boards for the kids. Dad does go fishing, but Mum and Aunt Milly seem to spend the holidays cooking and washing up. Watching this I couldn’t help thinking – did Aunt Milly and Judge Hardy have something going on? Maybe they were secret polygamists, a la Big Love, with Milly as a secret number two wife. The Hardies apparently lived in Idaho - not tha far from Utah.
Mickey Rooney is excellent as always; I also enjoyed Cecilia Parker a lot. Watching these films again I’m struck how much her character to the success of the series – sweet, pretty (though she had a bit of a gut – check out her in the swimsuit scene), always getting her heart broken, snapping at Andy.
Structure wise I think they should have kept all the action in Catalina – it feels awkward to have all this stuff about Hardy guaranteeing a debt shoved in at the end. At the end of the film Lewis Stone appears announcing more adventures.
Movie review – “Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves” (1944) ***
Much better script than Arabian Nights, with many of the problems sorted out. But surprisingly enough, not as much fun. Jon Hall’s dad, the Caliph, is overthrown by Mongols and betrayed by a treacherous second in command. His young son runs off into the desert and finds a cave which can open by saying “open sesame” where he hooks up with a bunch is thieves. How cool is that! What little boy at some stage hasn’t wished they could run off to the desert and wound up leading a gang of thieves living in a cave, fighting a tyrannical ruler?
The kid grows up to be Jon Hall and we cut to a scene with him and the thieves riding along singing a la The Desert Song. They decide to kidnap the Khan’s fiancée, who is of course Maria Montez. But instead Hall instead up being caught himself – and is tied up in the square awaiting for execution, only to be rescued by his men… a sequence that is an exact copy of the opening of Arabian Nights, only centering around the hero instead of the baddie.
A surprising amount of screen time is devoted to Turhan Bey, who plays one of Maria Montez’s servants who helps out Hall. Presumably this role was written for Sabu, but Bey’s casting makes it entirely different. Sabu was a big kid but Bey is more mature, suave, grown up, with careful pro-noun-ci-ation – Sabu was never a sexual rival to Hall but Bey he could be (indeed, he played Montez’s love interest in Sudan). Bey gets all these close ups of him looking dreamy – it’s like they were building him to be a star, which I found odd, mainly because I guess I’d just seen a bunch of movies where he played suspicious support characters and gigolos, billed ninth (if that) in the cast list.
Hall is a bit awkward and all-American to play a dashing hero but is okay, helped by a pencil moustache; again, he is actually beaten during the final duel with the baddie but fortunately his mate comes along to stab the baddie just in time.
Montez is pretty, imperious and wears a neat turban; she goes for two swims, one in a lagoon, one in a bath, but she’s not much of an actor – she can’t even look upset when her father is killed in front of her eyes, and during the final fight she can’t look scared or excited (at one stage Turhan Bey asks her to open castle doors to let in goodies – but she doesn’t even move). Andy Devine plays one of the thieves, an enjoyable anachronistic piece of casting (“I haven’t killed a Mongol all day,” he whines at one stage).
There is some hokey dialogue (moons reflecting in eyes, you will prey for death, that sort of thing.) Despite all the strong things about the film – a better script, colourful sets – this did feel a bit flat in places. Maybe it was the absence of Sabu, with his youthful zest; Bey’s character is a bit creepy – why would he be so in favour of Ali Baba? Is he in love with Montez? Hall? It doesn’t work.
Neither does the fact that Hall wants to lead a revolt to take his throne back mainly to stop Montez getting married. It’s like he’s sitting on his arse in a cave, happily being a robber while his people are suffering – and only acts when someone tries to pinch his girlfriend. There’s also a lack of action, although the finale, involving the jars, is quite enjoyable.
Movie review – Falcon #6 - “The Falcon in Danger” (1943) **1/2
A plane crash lands in Washington (cue some poor model work) – only it turns out no one is on board. Great beginning – Marie Celeste for planes. One of the cops ask if it’s gremlins, which will please fans of the 1984 film. Cut to the Falcon gambling at an illegal casino with his new fiancée, a Texan (Amelita Ward) – which at least is interesting and offers a bit of variety. The cops ask him to investigate, and he refuses, until a girl (Elaine Shepherd) asks help looking for her father. The girl is a stunner, much better looking for than his fiancée – her father has been kidnapped. It turns out there were kidnappers.
This is quite brisk and well done. Some more unusual characters than you often got in this film – not just the noisy fiancée but also the bitter daughter (a very good performance from Jean Brooks, who went on to feature in a number of movies in the series).
There are some pleasing surprises, like a scene in a factory full of female welders, and a scene where the Falcon is shot at the 35 minute mark (not seriously), and a finale involving a killer Doberman and where, if I’m not mistaken, the Falcon kills the baddie in cold blood. But we don’t see the baddie during this bit (the actor who plays him mustn’t have been available on the day or something). After that then the Falcon gets dumped for a change.
This is quite brisk and well done. Some more unusual characters than you often got in this film – not just the noisy fiancée but also the bitter daughter (a very good performance from Jean Brooks, who went on to feature in a number of movies in the series).
There are some pleasing surprises, like a scene in a factory full of female welders, and a scene where the Falcon is shot at the 35 minute mark (not seriously), and a finale involving a killer Doberman and where, if I’m not mistaken, the Falcon kills the baddie in cold blood. But we don’t see the baddie during this bit (the actor who plays him mustn’t have been available on the day or something). After that then the Falcon gets dumped for a change.
Movie review – Holmes #6 – “Sherlock Holmes Faces Death” (1943) ***
After three war films, Universal came up with a good old-fashioned nasty family story for Holmes (although it does have a war link, being set at a house that’s been converted into a home for convalescent soldiers). The horrible Musgraves live in isolated Musgrave Manor, complete with an eavesdropping alcoholic butler, windswept grounds, secret passageways, crypts, a family curse and a clock that strikes thirteen times (“the last time that happened was the night X died”) –and a house guest, Watson, who is looking after the soldiers. Someone is stabbed in the neck, so Holmes is called in.
Rathbone is in particularly fine form in this one, all darkened expressions and quick movement - nothing escapes him. I love how he takes on those vowels – words like “room” and “lured”. Watson talks about narrowly escaping marriage – loved that confirmed bachelorism – and Lestrade has become an idiot – when he says he’s lost and all turned around, Holmes comments that he has been for years and asks one of the servants to give him a saucer of milk.
It’s very bright and entertaining; the house is marvellous fun, with a terrific Musgrave curse turning into a chess board – though they perhaps could have got more spook factor out of it. The support cast is a bit mild, with the exception of the guy who plays the shell-shocked soldier. A young Peter Lawford appears at the beginning, saying “blimey”.
In Holmes final speech is downright socialist - he talks about how England is changing, less guilty – how people won’t think of themselves while others are starving, etc. That’s the sort of thing that could get you blacklisted in the 50s. (One of the great things about this series – Holmes’ homilies at the end were always a bit different.)
Rathbone is in particularly fine form in this one, all darkened expressions and quick movement - nothing escapes him. I love how he takes on those vowels – words like “room” and “lured”. Watson talks about narrowly escaping marriage – loved that confirmed bachelorism – and Lestrade has become an idiot – when he says he’s lost and all turned around, Holmes comments that he has been for years and asks one of the servants to give him a saucer of milk.
It’s very bright and entertaining; the house is marvellous fun, with a terrific Musgrave curse turning into a chess board – though they perhaps could have got more spook factor out of it. The support cast is a bit mild, with the exception of the guy who plays the shell-shocked soldier. A young Peter Lawford appears at the beginning, saying “blimey”.
In Holmes final speech is downright socialist - he talks about how England is changing, less guilty – how people won’t think of themselves while others are starving, etc. That’s the sort of thing that could get you blacklisted in the 50s. (One of the great things about this series – Holmes’ homilies at the end were always a bit different.)
Movie review – Holmes #5 – “Sherlock Holmes in Washington” (1943) **
Holmes doesn’t appear in this until around 12 minutes or so. Before then a British agent is abducted in the US by some foreign agents, led by Henry Daniell (back in villainy harness after his red herring role in Voice of Terror). So Holmes and Watson hot foot it over to Washington and go chasing for some microfilm. (The agent soon wounds up dead, delivered to Holmes in a trunk – bloodthirsty bunch, these Golden Years of Hollywood filmmakers).
Watson chews gum and enjoys Flash Gordon, which is fun – more could have been made of this, the culture clash. (He also chats about cricket.) It’s certainly more fun than the bland woman (Marjorie Lloyd) who unknowingly has the microfilm – although she does get knocked out and rolled up in a carpet, which is cool. Holmes doesn’t wear any disguises but he pretends to be a prissy antiques collector. Again, Holmes is about to be killed when someone comes to the rescue.
Although Daniel is a baddy he’s got a superior – none other than George Zucco. But Daniell is wasted as a henchman and Zucco’s villain is a bit of a whimp, to be honest – he’s a bit squeamish and not very smart. They also make this big deal about how he’s been in America for ages and is a pillar of the community but he isn’t very American (now if the blustery southern senator had turned out to be a baddy, that would have been a surprise). This is the weakest Rathbone Holmes film – just a lot of running around and undeveloped villains. Holmes quotes Winston Churchill about America at the end.
Watson chews gum and enjoys Flash Gordon, which is fun – more could have been made of this, the culture clash. (He also chats about cricket.) It’s certainly more fun than the bland woman (Marjorie Lloyd) who unknowingly has the microfilm – although she does get knocked out and rolled up in a carpet, which is cool. Holmes doesn’t wear any disguises but he pretends to be a prissy antiques collector. Again, Holmes is about to be killed when someone comes to the rescue.
Although Daniel is a baddy he’s got a superior – none other than George Zucco. But Daniell is wasted as a henchman and Zucco’s villain is a bit of a whimp, to be honest – he’s a bit squeamish and not very smart. They also make this big deal about how he’s been in America for ages and is a pillar of the community but he isn’t very American (now if the blustery southern senator had turned out to be a baddy, that would have been a surprise). This is the weakest Rathbone Holmes film – just a lot of running around and undeveloped villains. Holmes quotes Winston Churchill about America at the end.
Book review - “Seagalology” by Vern
Brilliantly funny look at the films of Steven Seagal, the sort of book that threatens to give fan boy writing a good name. Vern looks at all the films in Seagal’s career – not just his early 80s classics, or more mainstream actioners in the 90s, but also all – all – his direct to videos. Inevitably the quality of the films in the latter section of the book makes that less interesting to read, but Vern doesn’t a consistently bright and entertaining job, and there’s always a random Seagal twist – an album, an energy drink, the appearance of Imelda Staunton in the support cast (!) – to keep things interesting. And it actually ends on a feel good note, with an unexpected rise in the quality of Segal’s films, an excellent summing up, and a sweet coda where Vern goes to see a Seagal concert.
Vern says at the outset he wasn’t doing a traditional biography, but he has done research. Not just watched all the films, he’s watched some several times, read a few articles and copies of scripts, listened to commentaries. At times I wished he went the extra yard and did more of a bio – I have a feeling the more he found out about Seagal the better this book would have been. But its terrific fun and a great read.
Vern says at the outset he wasn’t doing a traditional biography, but he has done research. Not just watched all the films, he’s watched some several times, read a few articles and copies of scripts, listened to commentaries. At times I wished he went the extra yard and did more of a bio – I have a feeling the more he found out about Seagal the better this book would have been. But its terrific fun and a great read.
Movie review – Falcon #5 – “The Falcon Strikes Back” (1943) **1/2
Tom Conway’s first solo Falcon film was greeted with enthusiasm by audiences and ensured the survival of the series. Conway wasn’t quite as good as his brother – the voice was the same, but Sanders had a little bit more effortless aplomb; he also looked a bit more unique than Conway. But he still played with style and class.
Helping with continuity we see the return of Falcon’s Brooklyn sidekick, Oriental houseboy and female journo who he spars with – although some of these are played by different actors (eg Richard Loo instead of Keye Luke). There’s also a police chief who, again, thinks the Falcon has committed a crime, which the Falcon then has to solve – plus an ending where the Falcon is approached by a damsel in distress with a request to solve a crime. This one involves the theft of government war bonds that leads the Falcon to a resort.
The best scene has Conway interrogating a woman while she’s swimming laps – and then she is shot. There’s also some fun stuff involving a puppeteer (Edgar Kennedy) and when the houseboy turns up as a visiting dignitary, and a genuinely clever piece of business to enable the Falcon to escape (he pretends to throw the car keys out the window – but they’re a different set of keys).
On the down side there’s a scene where the Falcon distracts the female journo (Jane Randolph from Cat People) by kissing her – she’s supposed to be swept up in it but its done in by Randolph’s poor performance, she’s not convincing at all. This was directed by Edward Dmytryk, who gives it gloss and pace. Rita Corday, one of the supporting actors, went on to appear in several Falcon films as different characters.
Helping with continuity we see the return of Falcon’s Brooklyn sidekick, Oriental houseboy and female journo who he spars with – although some of these are played by different actors (eg Richard Loo instead of Keye Luke). There’s also a police chief who, again, thinks the Falcon has committed a crime, which the Falcon then has to solve – plus an ending where the Falcon is approached by a damsel in distress with a request to solve a crime. This one involves the theft of government war bonds that leads the Falcon to a resort.
The best scene has Conway interrogating a woman while she’s swimming laps – and then she is shot. There’s also some fun stuff involving a puppeteer (Edgar Kennedy) and when the houseboy turns up as a visiting dignitary, and a genuinely clever piece of business to enable the Falcon to escape (he pretends to throw the car keys out the window – but they’re a different set of keys).
On the down side there’s a scene where the Falcon distracts the female journo (Jane Randolph from Cat People) by kissing her – she’s supposed to be swept up in it but its done in by Randolph’s poor performance, she’s not convincing at all. This was directed by Edward Dmytryk, who gives it gloss and pace. Rita Corday, one of the supporting actors, went on to appear in several Falcon films as different characters.
Movie review – Kettle #10 - “The Kettles on Old MacDonald’s Farm” (1956) *
The last Kettle movie sees them replace the theme music with ‘Old MacDonald Had a Farm’ and replace Arthur Hunnicutt with Parker Fennelly. Fennelly actually plays Pa, but although he tries it doesn’t work. It is good to see Ma romancing, but it’s like she’s cheating on Pa. They should have just killed off Pa and have Ma get a new boyfriend. Ma being wooed – now that’s a great idea for a Kettle film.
There’s some romance, between poor John Smith (who acts with the awkwardness of a body builder) and boss’s daughter Gloria Talbott. Why didn’t they make the poor kid one of the Kettles? They want to get married so they hide out at the Kettles old farm. The girl’s father tracks them down. He actually likes the poor kid but is worried that his spoilt daughter won’t be able to last as his wife. So Ma suggests she rough it on the farm for a few weeks so she learns how to be a good little housewife.
Now that’s not a bad fish out of water type concept, a little sexist, but solid – a princess roughs it on the farm. Only they totally mess up the execution. The concept only works if the girl is a real princess, but Talbot can’t act, and they don’t give her character any princess factor. They should have made her a fashion model or a movie star or something. And her rationale for living on the farm is a bit weak – to pass a test so she can get married. She should have been a pampered movie star researching a role or a city journalist doing it for a bet or something.
This drags on and on with far too much time on the dull lead couple. The biggest strength of this was Marjorie Main – why not make it a Ma Kettle story? Have her inherit a city store or run for Congress or something? Or have her wooed? Why not make one of the kids a Kettle? This film shows a total lack of understanding of comedy construction. There aren’t even any Indians – just a dopey mate of Pa’s called George. (Why not have him as a Kettle kid?) The only decent bit is when Ma stares down a bear.
A sign of the times – one of Ma’s little kids is called Elvis who plays on a banjo.
There’s some romance, between poor John Smith (who acts with the awkwardness of a body builder) and boss’s daughter Gloria Talbott. Why didn’t they make the poor kid one of the Kettles? They want to get married so they hide out at the Kettles old farm. The girl’s father tracks them down. He actually likes the poor kid but is worried that his spoilt daughter won’t be able to last as his wife. So Ma suggests she rough it on the farm for a few weeks so she learns how to be a good little housewife.
Now that’s not a bad fish out of water type concept, a little sexist, but solid – a princess roughs it on the farm. Only they totally mess up the execution. The concept only works if the girl is a real princess, but Talbot can’t act, and they don’t give her character any princess factor. They should have made her a fashion model or a movie star or something. And her rationale for living on the farm is a bit weak – to pass a test so she can get married. She should have been a pampered movie star researching a role or a city journalist doing it for a bet or something.
This drags on and on with far too much time on the dull lead couple. The biggest strength of this was Marjorie Main – why not make it a Ma Kettle story? Have her inherit a city store or run for Congress or something? Or have her wooed? Why not make one of the kids a Kettle? This film shows a total lack of understanding of comedy construction. There aren’t even any Indians – just a dopey mate of Pa’s called George. (Why not have him as a Kettle kid?) The only decent bit is when Ma stares down a bear.
A sign of the times – one of Ma’s little kids is called Elvis who plays on a banjo.
Movie review - Holmes #4 – “Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon” (1942) ***
This starts in Switzerland, where Holmes spirits away a scientist who has developed a – surprise – secret weapon, a really good bomb. But he winds up abducted by Moriarty, played here by Lionel Atwill (who also appeared in Hound of the Baskervilles).
It’s interesting to compare Atwill’s Moriarty with George Zucco – both actors had many similarities during their careers (stage background, best known for villains, often co-starred, teamed together in a book by Gregory William Mank), but they were different sort of actors. Zucco gave off an air of kindly, scholarly bewilderment – you genuine believed his Moriarty would want to retire to his studies. Atwill’s villainy was more overt and full blooded, a bit more sensual if that makes sense. He seems to enjoy himself when he tortures the scientist and his Moriarty is keen on money – you can imagine him wanting to retire to his mistress and bundles of cash.
This is an entirely decent Holmes entry, with the rivalry between Holmes and Moriarty emphasized, both men enjoying the challenge. Rathbone fans will enjoy seeing him get into not one, not two but three disguises. There’s also a terrific scene at the end where Holmes allows himself to be captured by Moriarty, and Holmes suggests how Moriarty should kill him (by draining his blood – “the needle to the last, hey, Holmes” says Moriarty).
I have to say it’s a bloody risky plan of Holmes to put himself in a position where he relies on Watson and Lestrade to track him down. I know Holmes arranges for the pain dripping device on the car to be set up so they can track him – but so many things could go wrong, especially with those two idiots. Actually to be fair Lestrade isn’t as dumb here as he would later become – not only does he save Holmes at the end, his quick thinking stops Holmes from being carted off in a coffin during the middle bit.
The Conan Doyle story ‘The Dancing Men’ provides a key chunk of the story. Two newcomers join the series who would stay til the end – director Roy William Neil and actor Dennis Hoey (who played Inspector Lestrade). Despite Holmes quoting Shakespeare’s ‘This England’ speech at the end and the war flavour of the macguffin, the war propaganda is toned down a little – no inspirational speeches during the middle like the one Evelyn Ankers gave in Voice of Terror.
I love the way Mrs Hudson comes home to find Watson pointing a gun at Holmes in disguise and a scientist, and is shocked, then Holmes says its okay its only me, and she relaxes. She’s probably used to it.
It’s interesting to compare Atwill’s Moriarty with George Zucco – both actors had many similarities during their careers (stage background, best known for villains, often co-starred, teamed together in a book by Gregory William Mank), but they were different sort of actors. Zucco gave off an air of kindly, scholarly bewilderment – you genuine believed his Moriarty would want to retire to his studies. Atwill’s villainy was more overt and full blooded, a bit more sensual if that makes sense. He seems to enjoy himself when he tortures the scientist and his Moriarty is keen on money – you can imagine him wanting to retire to his mistress and bundles of cash.
This is an entirely decent Holmes entry, with the rivalry between Holmes and Moriarty emphasized, both men enjoying the challenge. Rathbone fans will enjoy seeing him get into not one, not two but three disguises. There’s also a terrific scene at the end where Holmes allows himself to be captured by Moriarty, and Holmes suggests how Moriarty should kill him (by draining his blood – “the needle to the last, hey, Holmes” says Moriarty).
I have to say it’s a bloody risky plan of Holmes to put himself in a position where he relies on Watson and Lestrade to track him down. I know Holmes arranges for the pain dripping device on the car to be set up so they can track him – but so many things could go wrong, especially with those two idiots. Actually to be fair Lestrade isn’t as dumb here as he would later become – not only does he save Holmes at the end, his quick thinking stops Holmes from being carted off in a coffin during the middle bit.
The Conan Doyle story ‘The Dancing Men’ provides a key chunk of the story. Two newcomers join the series who would stay til the end – director Roy William Neil and actor Dennis Hoey (who played Inspector Lestrade). Despite Holmes quoting Shakespeare’s ‘This England’ speech at the end and the war flavour of the macguffin, the war propaganda is toned down a little – no inspirational speeches during the middle like the one Evelyn Ankers gave in Voice of Terror.
I love the way Mrs Hudson comes home to find Watson pointing a gun at Holmes in disguise and a scientist, and is shocked, then Holmes says its okay its only me, and she relaxes. She’s probably used to it.
Movie review – “Easy Virtue” (1927) **1/2
Why bother adapting Noel Coward as a silent movie? I guess they needed material. It starts with Isabel Jeans on trial- her drunken husband accused her of having an affair with an artist she was posing for. (The QC is Ian Hunter from The Ring). The artist was in love with her so the husband attacks him, the faints. The highly strung artist then shoots himself and the woman is found guilty of misconduct. So she flees to the Riviera where she has a romance with a younger man. After marrying him, he takes her home to meet the parents, including a creepy mother with a moustache – the first in what would be a long line of emasculating Hitchcock mamas unwilling to tie the apron strings. The family don’t like her and they figure out her past and are shocked. (I don’t know why they’re shocked – I mean he did pick her up on the Riviera.) Ian Hunter turns up again and he’s one of the few people to be nice to her. So she divorces her second hubby.
Jeans is very pretty and her character is quite sympathetically depicted. It’s clear her first husband was an idiot and the artist a whimp, and her second husband’s family, except for the dad, are horrible. So at the end when she goes “shoot there’s nothing left to kill” (after her second divorce) – it’s not really tragic, because I don’t think she really loved her second husband and she’s better off without her. And you get the feeling she won’t be single long.
It is very well directed with the added benefit of some location filming on the Riviera and in impressive country homes. It’s full of visual flourishes – POV of a judge’s magnifying glass, there’s a great scene with a switchboard operator listening in over a romantic conversation and really getting into it (this is very clever silent filmmaking). Hitch seems particularly interested in exploring match cuts in this one there are heaps of them: a letter held up in court going to flashback, a kiss on the wrist, a suitcase arriving near a cat to indicate France and then a dog to indicate England. The story concept of a woman marrying a rich man and meeting his family, some of whom would be hostile, would pop up in Rebecca and Marnie.
Jeans is very pretty and her character is quite sympathetically depicted. It’s clear her first husband was an idiot and the artist a whimp, and her second husband’s family, except for the dad, are horrible. So at the end when she goes “shoot there’s nothing left to kill” (after her second divorce) – it’s not really tragic, because I don’t think she really loved her second husband and she’s better off without her. And you get the feeling she won’t be single long.
It is very well directed with the added benefit of some location filming on the Riviera and in impressive country homes. It’s full of visual flourishes – POV of a judge’s magnifying glass, there’s a great scene with a switchboard operator listening in over a romantic conversation and really getting into it (this is very clever silent filmmaking). Hitch seems particularly interested in exploring match cuts in this one there are heaps of them: a letter held up in court going to flashback, a kiss on the wrist, a suitcase arriving near a cat to indicate France and then a dog to indicate England. The story concept of a woman marrying a rich man and meeting his family, some of whom would be hostile, would pop up in Rebecca and Marnie.
Movie review – Hardy #1 – “A Family Affair” (1937) ***1/2
The credits say this was based on a play by Aurania Rouverol, but it was the success of MGM’s 1936 version of Ah, Wilderness that prompted the studio to initiate this slice of small town Americana. Many of the same cast re-appeared and the studio were rewarded with a big success, so much so it lead to a rash of sequels.
Lionel Barrymore, a favourite of Louis B Mayer, plays the all wise Judge Hardy. He has a wife (Spring Byington), a spinster sister-in-law and two daughters. But the film is stolen by Mickey Rooney as his teenage son, Andy. Rooney fairly bounces off the scene, his energy and verve was perfect for the role – wisecracking, leaping up stairs two at a time. He starts the movie not liking girls, although that soon changes when he meets Polly Benedict (not played by Anne Rutherford).
It deals with a serious issue – the judge is under massive pressure to not grant an injunction preventing construction of an aqueduct. So much so that the people who want the aqueduct are threatening to run against him. It matter-of-factly describes the corruption of the time – newspapers changing their tune at the whim of their owner, political machines arranging to oppose Hardy, commercial pressure on judges, the man who applies for the original injunction is bribed and tries to bribe Judge Hardy, political powers try to blackmail him with perjured witnesses.
There’s a subplot about the Hardy’s married eldest daughter Joan, who has had an affair (Production Code style – she had dinner in a private room and was kissed). Joan is whiny and melodramatic, with a mannish voice who indicates all of the place. She never appeared in any other films and good riddance. (The Chuck Cunningham of the Hardy family series) More fun is bright and bubbling Marian, who has a sweet romance with an engineer. Mother Hardy is always worried about dinner and bursting into tears. Sara Haden hangs around like a lesbian.
But the most effective moments are the little everyday ones – meeting your girlfriend’s parents, going out on a date, sweet romancing. Hardy is surprisingly tolerant of his kids – when his eldest daughter tells him about her marriage troubles he doesn’t blow his top, he doesn’t seem to mind when his other daughter kisses her beau on the front steps. He can even talk to his eldest daughter about suicide. He’s a lot nicer than the townspeople of Carvel, who are really mean and nasty to the Judge when their crappy little aqueduct doesn’t go ahead. I wouldn’t blame the Judge for wanting to leave. The judge agrees his eldest daughter’s realisation that “a marriage depends on a woman” – but at least he adds that it’s unfair. He also comments that “all parents want for their children is some peace and security and as much happiness as the traffic will bear” – that’s not a silly thing at all.
The film even explores some religious differences - the Hardies are Congregationalists and Mum is a little worried Marians boyfriend is a Presbyterian. (Normally Hollywood steered away from this sort of stuff). There is also a fine, barnstorming Capra-esque finale with Judge Hardy taking on a mob at a political hearing. I enjoyed this a lot.
Lionel Barrymore, a favourite of Louis B Mayer, plays the all wise Judge Hardy. He has a wife (Spring Byington), a spinster sister-in-law and two daughters. But the film is stolen by Mickey Rooney as his teenage son, Andy. Rooney fairly bounces off the scene, his energy and verve was perfect for the role – wisecracking, leaping up stairs two at a time. He starts the movie not liking girls, although that soon changes when he meets Polly Benedict (not played by Anne Rutherford).
It deals with a serious issue – the judge is under massive pressure to not grant an injunction preventing construction of an aqueduct. So much so that the people who want the aqueduct are threatening to run against him. It matter-of-factly describes the corruption of the time – newspapers changing their tune at the whim of their owner, political machines arranging to oppose Hardy, commercial pressure on judges, the man who applies for the original injunction is bribed and tries to bribe Judge Hardy, political powers try to blackmail him with perjured witnesses.
There’s a subplot about the Hardy’s married eldest daughter Joan, who has had an affair (Production Code style – she had dinner in a private room and was kissed). Joan is whiny and melodramatic, with a mannish voice who indicates all of the place. She never appeared in any other films and good riddance. (The Chuck Cunningham of the Hardy family series) More fun is bright and bubbling Marian, who has a sweet romance with an engineer. Mother Hardy is always worried about dinner and bursting into tears. Sara Haden hangs around like a lesbian.
But the most effective moments are the little everyday ones – meeting your girlfriend’s parents, going out on a date, sweet romancing. Hardy is surprisingly tolerant of his kids – when his eldest daughter tells him about her marriage troubles he doesn’t blow his top, he doesn’t seem to mind when his other daughter kisses her beau on the front steps. He can even talk to his eldest daughter about suicide. He’s a lot nicer than the townspeople of Carvel, who are really mean and nasty to the Judge when their crappy little aqueduct doesn’t go ahead. I wouldn’t blame the Judge for wanting to leave. The judge agrees his eldest daughter’s realisation that “a marriage depends on a woman” – but at least he adds that it’s unfair. He also comments that “all parents want for their children is some peace and security and as much happiness as the traffic will bear” – that’s not a silly thing at all.
The film even explores some religious differences - the Hardies are Congregationalists and Mum is a little worried Marians boyfriend is a Presbyterian. (Normally Hollywood steered away from this sort of stuff). There is also a fine, barnstorming Capra-esque finale with Judge Hardy taking on a mob at a political hearing. I enjoyed this a lot.
Movie review – “Battle of Dien Bien Phu” (1979) ***
British documentary about the famous 1954 battle. Some irritating errors in the narration - “the Vietnamese didn’t give the French too much trouble” prior to World War Two. Yeah, right. But worth it for some tremendous vision: troops arriving in Vietnam in 1945, Ho Chi Minh chairing meetings, paratroops arriving, Giap planning battles (next to him is a self-conscious officer who keeps smiling), Russian footage of coolies creating supply lines for Vietminh, Giap and his model of Dien Bien Phu, the first attack, the destroyed air strip. They have to rely on photos for vision of the French camp during the battle, but there is vision of the surrender.
It sticks it to the French for clinging on to their colonies and bad military strategy, which was based on “come and get me”. Be careful what you wish for, Frenchies. Even when they knew it was a bad idea they stuck around as it was too expensive to withdraw. Assuming the Vietnamese would not be able to get their hands on heavy guns. They had 24 hours of the attack but it didn’t seem to do any good). The French seem to have lost the battle on the first day of the attack when they lost an outpost and the airfield was attacked. Within the first five days they lost all the outposts and soon they were cut off.
Two thirds of the French forces were not French, one fifth of the French side deserted (the majority sat it out within the entrenched camp, asking for food from their former comrades). Dulles wanted the Yanks to bomb the Vietnamese but Eisenhower refused. Half the French who surrendered die in imprisonment.
No vision of the two brothels they shipped in, unfortunately. (That would make a great story – POV of this battle from the hookers.) But an interesting doco all the same.
It sticks it to the French for clinging on to their colonies and bad military strategy, which was based on “come and get me”. Be careful what you wish for, Frenchies. Even when they knew it was a bad idea they stuck around as it was too expensive to withdraw. Assuming the Vietnamese would not be able to get their hands on heavy guns. They had 24 hours of the attack but it didn’t seem to do any good). The French seem to have lost the battle on the first day of the attack when they lost an outpost and the airfield was attacked. Within the first five days they lost all the outposts and soon they were cut off.
Two thirds of the French forces were not French, one fifth of the French side deserted (the majority sat it out within the entrenched camp, asking for food from their former comrades). Dulles wanted the Yanks to bomb the Vietnamese but Eisenhower refused. Half the French who surrendered die in imprisonment.
No vision of the two brothels they shipped in, unfortunately. (That would make a great story – POV of this battle from the hookers.) But an interesting doco all the same.
Movie review – Holmes #3 – “Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror” (1942) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
After a number of years, Universal lured Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce over to their studio and ushered in a series of popular Sherlock Holmes movies. They were set in the present day, and often had Holmes and Watson fighting Axis agents, and would end with Holmes making some pro-Allied speech.
In this one, Holmes tracks down a Lord Haw Haw type broadcaster who has links to fifth columnists. Fifth columnists were highly popular topic for filmmakers during America’s early years in the war, but it died down when fifth columnism turned out to be not that serious a problem in Britain and America.
This has the benefit of a strong support cast, including Henry Daniell, Montagu Love, Thomas Gomez and Evelyn Ankers. Ankers is very beautiful (lots of close ups with key light – a big feature of this movie) but perhaps not quite realistic as a working class cockney, an implied hooker; she agrees to become a mistress to the agent in order to nab him. Of course, this means she must die. It’s quite clever to have Daniell as a government minister because you automatically assume that he’s going to be the traitor – but it turns out to be someone else.
For most of the film Holmes’ detecting doesn’t seem to be that crash hot. He fails to catch a Nazi agent despite being right there, is almost killed and has to be rescued, and most of the hard work is done by Ankers and her fellow criminal cronies. However, in good Holmes form he knew what was happening all along.
I love how a person turns up to their apartment with a knife in their back and collapses. Holmes asks Watson if he’s dead and Watson says yes. Great doctoring there, Watson! The final speech is taken from ‘The Last Bow’, a Sherlock Holmes World War One story, about a wind blowing that’s going to result in a better England. (Not really true in the case of World War One – maybe World War Two though).
In this one, Holmes tracks down a Lord Haw Haw type broadcaster who has links to fifth columnists. Fifth columnists were highly popular topic for filmmakers during America’s early years in the war, but it died down when fifth columnism turned out to be not that serious a problem in Britain and America.
This has the benefit of a strong support cast, including Henry Daniell, Montagu Love, Thomas Gomez and Evelyn Ankers. Ankers is very beautiful (lots of close ups with key light – a big feature of this movie) but perhaps not quite realistic as a working class cockney, an implied hooker; she agrees to become a mistress to the agent in order to nab him. Of course, this means she must die. It’s quite clever to have Daniell as a government minister because you automatically assume that he’s going to be the traitor – but it turns out to be someone else.
For most of the film Holmes’ detecting doesn’t seem to be that crash hot. He fails to catch a Nazi agent despite being right there, is almost killed and has to be rescued, and most of the hard work is done by Ankers and her fellow criminal cronies. However, in good Holmes form he knew what was happening all along.
I love how a person turns up to their apartment with a knife in their back and collapses. Holmes asks Watson if he’s dead and Watson says yes. Great doctoring there, Watson! The final speech is taken from ‘The Last Bow’, a Sherlock Holmes World War One story, about a wind blowing that’s going to result in a better England. (Not really true in the case of World War One – maybe World War Two though).
Movie review – Falcon #4 – “The Falcon’s Brother” (1942) **1/2
After a number of Saints and three Falcons, George Sanders was anxious to leave B movies and graduate to As, so he asked to be killed off. Fortunately for RKO, they had Sanders’ real life brother, Tom Conway, to step in.
Neither Allen Jenkins nor James Gleason return but there are similar characters (i.e. wacky sidekick and frustrated police officers) played by other actors. The Falcon goes to pick up his brother on a boat, the Falcon cracks on to a woman but not letting her past which is a bit off. Then he discovers that someone claiming to be his brother has killed himself – but Falcon figures out he was actually murdered by poisoned cigar, and goes looking for his brother.
Conway is given a star’s entrance, lighting a cigarette in a darkened corridor. And it’s wonderful to see the two brothers together. Because they’re similar type of actors – cultured, smooth – Conway easily takes over (one of the few occasions where an actor can directly step into another actor’s role). Sanders gets run over so Conway goes looking to solve the murder. This means Sanders is out of action for most of the film but gets better at the end, just in time to take a bullet for some politician at the climax. It’s a shame there wasn’t more Conway-Sanders stuff, this could have been a minor classic with that. But they only have a few scenes together – they don’t even give Sanders a death bed scene with Conway, which is a shame.
There’s another female journo (Jane Rudolph) who comes along who gets jealous of Conway’s flirting. She has a good line – “Ladies aren’t permitted without escorts" “Who said I was a lady?” For the first time in a Falcon movie the baddies are Nazis – it was going to happen sooner or later. On that level this is enjoyable; it’s just a bit frustrating because it could have been better.
(NB Incidentally no mention is made of Sanders having a fiancée, despite a great hoo-ha being made of this in the first three films.)
Movie review – Kettle #9 – “The Kettles in the Ozarks” (1956) *1/2
After eight films as Pa Kettle Percy Kilbridge decided to call it a day but Marjorie Main slugged it out for two more Kettle films on her own. Or rather, with new male co-stars. This one has her with Arthur Hunnicutt, playing Pa’s brother Sedgwick. Ma goes to visit him with 13 kids in order to help him stay the farm while Pa stays at home. (Tom, Rosie and Elwin – who are referred to – don’t come along.)
So they hop on the train and are genuine pains with their animals and food going everywhere – which is annoying rather than funny. They arrive at the farm to see that Sedgwick has unwittingly hired out the farm to gangsters bootleggers and hijinks ensue.
In order to ease the transition for the audience, Sedgwick is established as a lazy no-good who has Indian helpers and has a woman (in this case his fiancée) do a lot of work for him. But it’s almost always a mistake to replace a beloved character with a direct copy and it certainly is so here. Kilbridge had this wonderful, laid back dry delivery – Hunnicutt tries but he’s just not up to it. And also the fact that he’s Ma’s brother in law, not husband, leaves a hole at the heart of the film – no matter how lazy Pa was, Ma loved him, and they had enough of a sex life to produce sixteen kids.
And I’m sorry for Sedgwick not to marry his fiancée for twenty years – that’s really not funny. It’s just mean (she’s missed the chance of having children). At least Pa gave Ma sex, kids and romance. Although there is a pretty elder Kettle teenage girl, they don’t do anything with her – the film could have used a bit of romance, instead of trying to get Sedg to marry his fiancée, which is sad.
There’s a bit more slapstick in this one – lots of falling down wells, shenanigans involving animals, including a funny sequence where they get drunk (drunk pigs are gold). But generally this is very hard going.
So they hop on the train and are genuine pains with their animals and food going everywhere – which is annoying rather than funny. They arrive at the farm to see that Sedgwick has unwittingly hired out the farm to gangsters bootleggers and hijinks ensue.
In order to ease the transition for the audience, Sedgwick is established as a lazy no-good who has Indian helpers and has a woman (in this case his fiancée) do a lot of work for him. But it’s almost always a mistake to replace a beloved character with a direct copy and it certainly is so here. Kilbridge had this wonderful, laid back dry delivery – Hunnicutt tries but he’s just not up to it. And also the fact that he’s Ma’s brother in law, not husband, leaves a hole at the heart of the film – no matter how lazy Pa was, Ma loved him, and they had enough of a sex life to produce sixteen kids.
And I’m sorry for Sedgwick not to marry his fiancée for twenty years – that’s really not funny. It’s just mean (she’s missed the chance of having children). At least Pa gave Ma sex, kids and romance. Although there is a pretty elder Kettle teenage girl, they don’t do anything with her – the film could have used a bit of romance, instead of trying to get Sedg to marry his fiancée, which is sad.
There’s a bit more slapstick in this one – lots of falling down wells, shenanigans involving animals, including a funny sequence where they get drunk (drunk pigs are gold). But generally this is very hard going.
Movie review – Holmes #2 – “The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes” (1939) ***1/2
Basil Rathbone’s second outing as Sherlock Holmes was his last for 20th Century Fox. You wonder why that studio didn’t decide to made a B picture series out of the character – maybe they were worried about the cost - but Universal stepped into the breach a few years later. This is not based on a Conan Doyle story but on a play.
It has Holmes battling Moriarty, played by ever reliable George Zucco – Zucco didn’t belong to the top rank of screen villains (he was no Rathbone, George Sanders, Claude Rains or Henry Daniell, he lacked their spark, perhaps a bit too gentle), but he comfortably sat on the second tier and is still pretty good. It starts with Moriarty getting off a murder charge and telling Holmes that he will break him through committing a big crime. And I’ve got to say it’s a really clever plan – he pulls a double bluff, killing someone and setting up a fake family curse, and doing a dodgy robbery, both to hide his real goal.
Rathbone is front and centre in this one so we see him do a lot more detecting – poking around at footprints in mud, that sort of thing. Ida Lupino specialised in playing tough, driven dames so she’s not very convincingly scared as a damsel in distress, worried that her brother is going to be killed. However, she is very pretty. Her drip boyfriend, who doesn’t believe there’s anything to it, is played by Alan Marshall. Actually, Marshall’s drippiness works well since part of the plot hinges on Lupino thinking that he wants to kill her.
There are forerunners to the later Universal movies: Nigel Bruce’s Watson, who was quite useful in Hound of the Baskervilles, is more of a buffoon here (eg he doesn’t recognise Moriarty at a key moment); there is a dopey inspector (E E Clive) similar to the later Inspector Lestrade; Terry Kilburn as Billy is a fore-runner to the Baker Street Boys.
There’s a great scene where Moriarty gets up his butler for not watering his flowers and Holmes plucking on his violin. But the best is with Holmes, in disguise, sings ‘I Do Like to Be Beside the Seaside’. (You’re not meant to know this until later in the film, but trust me it’s more fun knowing that it’s really Rathbone in the straw hat hamming it up dreadfully like no one’s business.)
There’s also an effective sequence with Lupino being chased through the fog by a Gaucho assassin, who could be straight out of the Doyle stories (which featured pygmy assassins). I remember years ago not liking this as much as Hound of the Baskervilles but on watching it again, it’s just as much fun.
It mightn’t be as spooky and Baskervilles has the slightly stronger cast (though this one has Henry Stephenson), but this is still pretty good. It has more Rathbone (very much in action man mode, shooting guns and brawling), and an exciting climax with Zucco plunging to his death off the top of the tower (although we don't see him actually die).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)