Margaret Lockwood returned to movies after an 18 month absence to make the sort of film where she first got an international reputation - the comedy thriller, so well essayed in The Lady Vanishes and Night Train to Munich. She surrounded herself with good talent - American leading man Dane Clark, writer Eric Ambler, director Roy Ward Baker and Naunton Wayne who was in the first two movies.
And it's a solid story with a strong female role - she's an insect scientist asked by British intelligence to do a mission for them in an unnamed Eastern European country (this was very popular around this time - State Secret, Crisis), where she crosses swords with the local copper (Marius Goring) and is helped by an American journo (Dane Clare).
But the film never quite works because the tone is all over the shop. Baker/Ambler/Lockwood play the whole thing straight, which starts off okay with various assassinations and machinations. But then part way through the film Goring gives Lockwood some truth serum and she gets confused with a radio spy drama and thinks she's an actual spy (which is a comic conceit similar to the one used later in Jo Beth Williams' American Dreamer) - only they still seem to play it straight even though it's outlandish.
The biggest problem with this film is it's just not fun. Lady Vanishes and Night Train to Munich were fun - characters were in peril but you had Charters and Caldicott, interesting subplots and entertaining banter involving the two leads. There are no light comic relief characters here, it badly lacks a subplot and the two leads lack chemistry. Lockwood, so fun in those two movies I listed, feels all wrong here - too old, her hair's too short, she doesn't have a fixed character, something. She lacks spirit and pizzazz. Dane Clark tries his best but he's a bit weird.
The film is solidly constructed - it has a beginning middle an end, conflict, all that stuff - but you're likely to simply not care, and it's not that mysterious why it failed to revive Lockwood's career.
Saturday, April 09, 2016
Movie review - "Madness of the Heart" (1949) **1/2 (warning: spoilers)
Just because Gainsborough stopped making melodramas, didn't mean other producers would stop - here Two Cities hired the excellent screenwriter Charles Bennett to write and direct and Gainsborough's former first lady Margaret Lockwood to star. The result has a poor reputation but actually I like it.
It's derivative certainly, and is full of scenes/characters/tropes you encounter in other movies, but Bennett's done a pretty good job and on the whole it's well executed, with acting that ranges from decent to excellent. It's only at the end he muffs it.
Margaret Lockwood is decent as the young woman going blind who falls for wealthy Paul Dupis, not realising that his friend Kathleen Byron is in love with him and wants her dead. This is a good set up for a film - indeed, it was used in Rebecca. There's also elements of Gaslight (moving items around), The Spiral Staircase (crippled heroine), Leave Her to Heaven (nasty woman tries to engineer drowning).
There's also a strong third act, when Lockwood regains her sight, but doesn't tell anyone as she returns to the mansion. At this point I was going "alright!" and waiting for Lockwood to kick arse/do something clever but it never really happens - Bennett muffs the climax, Lockwood reveals herself to Byron way too soon and then Byron drives off a convenient cliff with Maxwell Reed. Reed is also under-used - he's a mysterious figure who is on to Byron but never does anything really bad even though you keep expecting him to. There is also too much overhearing and coincidences.
But for all that it was an enjoyable movie and it's a shame Bennett didn't direct more.
It's derivative certainly, and is full of scenes/characters/tropes you encounter in other movies, but Bennett's done a pretty good job and on the whole it's well executed, with acting that ranges from decent to excellent. It's only at the end he muffs it.
Margaret Lockwood is decent as the young woman going blind who falls for wealthy Paul Dupis, not realising that his friend Kathleen Byron is in love with him and wants her dead. This is a good set up for a film - indeed, it was used in Rebecca. There's also elements of Gaslight (moving items around), The Spiral Staircase (crippled heroine), Leave Her to Heaven (nasty woman tries to engineer drowning).
There's also a strong third act, when Lockwood regains her sight, but doesn't tell anyone as she returns to the mansion. At this point I was going "alright!" and waiting for Lockwood to kick arse/do something clever but it never really happens - Bennett muffs the climax, Lockwood reveals herself to Byron way too soon and then Byron drives off a convenient cliff with Maxwell Reed. Reed is also under-used - he's a mysterious figure who is on to Byron but never does anything really bad even though you keep expecting him to. There is also too much overhearing and coincidences.
But for all that it was an enjoyable movie and it's a shame Bennett didn't direct more.
Friday, April 08, 2016
Movie review - "Thrill of a Romance" (1945) ***
MGM had the Midas touch when it came to making film stars in the 30s and 40s - in addition to the usual suspects (i.e. really good looking people, musical comedy stars), they made stars who had failed at other studios (Spencer Tracy), who were really old (Marie Dressler), who were really young (Judy Garland).
This film stars two of their biggest "they were stars?" stars - Esther Williams, who was very pretty and could swim well and that was about it, and Van Johnson, who was pleasantly looking in a boy next door way and who could act well enough and that was about it. But the studio understood it was wartime and people wanted relateable escapism - she was the girl next door, he was the boy next door. The team together marvelously (they'd make several more movies together), and there's bright colour and opulent sets plus a variety of music acts.
It's a wonky old musical really - apparently a lot of Broadway musicals were like this, before Oklahoma! revolutionised the genre - where the book mainly serves as an excuse to go from song to song and the musical numbers kind of shoved in any old how. There are musical numbers by Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra, some fat opera singer called Lauritz Melchior, a little black kid who sings a number. Melchior sings a lot - I'd never heard of him but he gets heaps of screen time, a lot more that Esther swimming numbers (of which there's hardly any).
It is a slightly racier book that you'd expect... Esther plays a swimming instructor who is wooed by millionaire (someone called Carleton Young). He sweeps her off her feet, they get married, go on honeymoon, he leaves on business reasons... and she proceeds to fall in love with soldier Van Johnson. That's pretty full on, Esther falling for two guys in the one movie, in very quick succession (I think it's meant to be implied that she doesn't have sex with her husband).
A lot of people would have related to this in war time though. There's production value to spare (it mostly takes place at a resort), everyone is forever having breakfast/lunch/dinner somewhere swank, lots of cheek to cheek dancing; there's even some location footage when Esther and Van go walking through the forest.
Esther and Van are genuinely good together. He doesn't sing and she hardly swim but they suit the roles.
This film stars two of their biggest "they were stars?" stars - Esther Williams, who was very pretty and could swim well and that was about it, and Van Johnson, who was pleasantly looking in a boy next door way and who could act well enough and that was about it. But the studio understood it was wartime and people wanted relateable escapism - she was the girl next door, he was the boy next door. The team together marvelously (they'd make several more movies together), and there's bright colour and opulent sets plus a variety of music acts.
It's a wonky old musical really - apparently a lot of Broadway musicals were like this, before Oklahoma! revolutionised the genre - where the book mainly serves as an excuse to go from song to song and the musical numbers kind of shoved in any old how. There are musical numbers by Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra, some fat opera singer called Lauritz Melchior, a little black kid who sings a number. Melchior sings a lot - I'd never heard of him but he gets heaps of screen time, a lot more that Esther swimming numbers (of which there's hardly any).
It is a slightly racier book that you'd expect... Esther plays a swimming instructor who is wooed by millionaire (someone called Carleton Young). He sweeps her off her feet, they get married, go on honeymoon, he leaves on business reasons... and she proceeds to fall in love with soldier Van Johnson. That's pretty full on, Esther falling for two guys in the one movie, in very quick succession (I think it's meant to be implied that she doesn't have sex with her husband).
A lot of people would have related to this in war time though. There's production value to spare (it mostly takes place at a resort), everyone is forever having breakfast/lunch/dinner somewhere swank, lots of cheek to cheek dancing; there's even some location footage when Esther and Van go walking through the forest.
Esther and Van are genuinely good together. He doesn't sing and she hardly swim but they suit the roles.
Movie review - "King of the Zombies" (1941) **
Low budget horror comedy in the vein of The Ghost Breakers is actually quite fun if you can get past the political incorrectness (okay racism). Three men - pilot, rich white guy, rich white guy's servant - crash on an isolated tropical island inhabited by a mad doctor and bunch of zombies.
The real star of the movie is actually the black guy, Mantan Moreland, doing a variation of Eddie Anderson's Rochester character, a smart talking valet to Jack Benny on radio. He's constantly being terrified, sassing his bosses, and is the first one to figure out what's going on. Yes, he's a "comic darky" but he gets to drive a lot of the action.
The zombie moments are fine, there are some laughs and I enjoyed the atmosphere, especially the zombie ritual at the end, and the wackiness of Nazi agents turning up on the island. A big flaw for me was the lack of star names - Belga Lugosi was originally meant to be cast and he would've been great as the mad doctor. Victory Henry is fine but lacks spark. The two white leads are forgettable. Only Moreland stands out.
The real star of the movie is actually the black guy, Mantan Moreland, doing a variation of Eddie Anderson's Rochester character, a smart talking valet to Jack Benny on radio. He's constantly being terrified, sassing his bosses, and is the first one to figure out what's going on. Yes, he's a "comic darky" but he gets to drive a lot of the action.
The zombie moments are fine, there are some laughs and I enjoyed the atmosphere, especially the zombie ritual at the end, and the wackiness of Nazi agents turning up on the island. A big flaw for me was the lack of star names - Belga Lugosi was originally meant to be cast and he would've been great as the mad doctor. Victory Henry is fine but lacks spark. The two white leads are forgettable. Only Moreland stands out.
Tuesday, April 05, 2016
Movie review - "Jassy" (1947) ** (re-viewing)
The last of the "official" Gainsborough melodramas even though it was a hit at the box office - this was partly because of Gainsborough's new studio head, Sydney Box, and studio owner, J. Arthur Rank, not liking the genre, combined with a decrease in the popularity of other costume pictures.
It's not that well remembered either, certainly not compared to say The Man in Grey or even Madonna of the Seven Moons. I watched it without realising that I'd actually seen it before in 2012. This is likely partly due to the fact the film is in colour, and lacks star names. There is Margaret Lockwood and Pat Roc but instead of Stewart Granger and James Mason there is Dermot Walsh and Basil Sydney - both of whom, it has to be said so decent jobs, though Sydney lacks sex appeal (I was surprised Dennis Price, who plays Walsh's father, wasn't given this role).
There's plenty of story on display here, with some powerful tropes - alcoholism, suicide, gambling, drunkeness, adultery, revenge, confessions in the dock then dropping dead - but the screenwriters weren't able to knock it into a cohesive whole. I never got a fix on the character of Jassy - she's part gypsy and has second sight, but that's only really an issue at the beginning; then she becomes a driven woman, determined to get revenge for the death of her father but also in love with Dermot Walsh, even though he's in love with her friend Patricia Roc - even though she cheats on him.
I think the piece would have been more effective as a straight up revenge piece, going after Basil Sydney by taking over his house and marrying him and tormenting him, and confused by her love for Walsh. But Jassy isn't that driven by revenge - she seems to marry Sydney out of pique, she doesn't seem to have a plan except maybe to get the property back to Walsh but she can do that half an hour before she does.
They don't really explore her relationship with slutty best friend Pat Roc either, as Sydney's daughter. The demarcation between women in Man in Grey and Wicked Lady was clear - good girl vs bad girl. Here Jassy is a bit bad but not really and Roc is a bit bad but not really which might be less predictable but dilutes the drama and isn't necessarily more complex, just less interesting. I didn't get the link between Lockwood and Walsh as well - no heat, no reason for them to be together (the finale where they kiss is completely unconvincing).
Too much of it is repetitious as well - there's two whippings (both by fathers of daughters), endless scenes of Sydney pouring a drink. Lockwood leaves the property to Walsh via letter then turns up in person straight away.
It's just not a very good movie, and the main reason is the script.
It's not that well remembered either, certainly not compared to say The Man in Grey or even Madonna of the Seven Moons. I watched it without realising that I'd actually seen it before in 2012. This is likely partly due to the fact the film is in colour, and lacks star names. There is Margaret Lockwood and Pat Roc but instead of Stewart Granger and James Mason there is Dermot Walsh and Basil Sydney - both of whom, it has to be said so decent jobs, though Sydney lacks sex appeal (I was surprised Dennis Price, who plays Walsh's father, wasn't given this role).
There's plenty of story on display here, with some powerful tropes - alcoholism, suicide, gambling, drunkeness, adultery, revenge, confessions in the dock then dropping dead - but the screenwriters weren't able to knock it into a cohesive whole. I never got a fix on the character of Jassy - she's part gypsy and has second sight, but that's only really an issue at the beginning; then she becomes a driven woman, determined to get revenge for the death of her father but also in love with Dermot Walsh, even though he's in love with her friend Patricia Roc - even though she cheats on him.
I think the piece would have been more effective as a straight up revenge piece, going after Basil Sydney by taking over his house and marrying him and tormenting him, and confused by her love for Walsh. But Jassy isn't that driven by revenge - she seems to marry Sydney out of pique, she doesn't seem to have a plan except maybe to get the property back to Walsh but she can do that half an hour before she does.
They don't really explore her relationship with slutty best friend Pat Roc either, as Sydney's daughter. The demarcation between women in Man in Grey and Wicked Lady was clear - good girl vs bad girl. Here Jassy is a bit bad but not really and Roc is a bit bad but not really which might be less predictable but dilutes the drama and isn't necessarily more complex, just less interesting. I didn't get the link between Lockwood and Walsh as well - no heat, no reason for them to be together (the finale where they kiss is completely unconvincing).
Too much of it is repetitious as well - there's two whippings (both by fathers of daughters), endless scenes of Sydney pouring a drink. Lockwood leaves the property to Walsh via letter then turns up in person straight away.
It's just not a very good movie, and the main reason is the script.
Monday, April 04, 2016
Movie review - "Invisible Ghost" (1941) ** (re-viewing)
The first of the "Monogram nine", nine films Bela Lugosi made for Sam Katzman at Monogram. It's one of the best known and benefits from some very good direction from Joe Lewis. It starts with a bang: Bela is having dinner for his dead wife, then we find out the wife is alive, then we find out Bela is a murderer without knowing, then an innocent person dies...
It's got elements of Jane Eyre (crazy wife locked away) and Poe (man not knowing he's man going on killing sprees). Then things go a bit haywire - the story becomes repetitive instead of developing, the story becomes increasingly silly/illogical, and it got dull. Lugosi is in good form, particularly his touching moments - it's a different sort of role for him, a killer who doesn't know he's a killer. But this never becomes as good as you hope it'll be.
It's got elements of Jane Eyre (crazy wife locked away) and Poe (man not knowing he's man going on killing sprees). Then things go a bit haywire - the story becomes repetitive instead of developing, the story becomes increasingly silly/illogical, and it got dull. Lugosi is in good form, particularly his touching moments - it's a different sort of role for him, a killer who doesn't know he's a killer. But this never becomes as good as you hope it'll be.
Sunday, April 03, 2016
Movie review - "The Devil Bat" (1940) **1/2 (re-viewing)
Bela Lugosi made nine films for Monogram of which this is not one - however it is often regarded as such because it was made for the similarly impoverished outfit PRC. The budget is limited an it has plenty of flaws but it does put Lugosi - so often wasted in red herring support roles - front and center.
He's a mad scientist on a rampage but a well motivated one - he works for a cosmetics company and wants revenge against the executives who made a fortune from his formula (he sold it outright instead of holding out for a percentage); so he trains a bat to attack a particular type of cream. Now that's a solid idea for a horror movie, a lot better than you often found at PRC and Monogram.
And the film delivers on deaths - unlike The Ape where Karloff only knocked off one or two Lugosi chalks up a decent death toll here, not that anyone seems to notice. The bat attacks are occasionally laughable but they are deadly.
I actually liked the reporter character more on second viewing - it was his sidekick who annoyed me. Some decent acting from the older actors and Lugosi delivers a solid, hammy star performance utterly perfect for the part.
He's a mad scientist on a rampage but a well motivated one - he works for a cosmetics company and wants revenge against the executives who made a fortune from his formula (he sold it outright instead of holding out for a percentage); so he trains a bat to attack a particular type of cream. Now that's a solid idea for a horror movie, a lot better than you often found at PRC and Monogram.
And the film delivers on deaths - unlike The Ape where Karloff only knocked off one or two Lugosi chalks up a decent death toll here, not that anyone seems to notice. The bat attacks are occasionally laughable but they are deadly.
I actually liked the reporter character more on second viewing - it was his sidekick who annoyed me. Some decent acting from the older actors and Lugosi delivers a solid, hammy star performance utterly perfect for the part.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)