FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
The daughter (Frances Dee) of a wealthy socialite (Billie Burke) is sent to a finishing school, where she rooms with an outspoken heiress (Ginger Rogers) who introduces her to the high life. Soon she meets a medical intern (Bruce Cabot) moonlighting as a waiter, and falls in love — much to the consternation of her disapproving headmistress (Beulah Bondi).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Beulah Bondi Films
• Boarding School
• Cross-Class Romance
• Frances Dee Films
• Ginger Rogers Films
• Morality Police

Review:
Finishing School is perhaps best known for providing Ginger Rogers with her final supporting role before she achieved leading-lady fame with Fred Astaire in The Gay Divorcee (1934) — but it remains a noteworthy, historically interesting little film in its own right. Released just before the Hays Code became more strictly enforced, it dares to present the story of a young socialite who embarks upon a romance with an upstanding young doctor-in-training, and…

(sorry for mild spoilers)

… isn’t necessarily made to pay for her “sins”. What’s most fascinating about Finishing School is the way it daringly portrays the utter hypocrisy behind upper-class mores, which hold that as long as one isn’t “caught”, one can get away with just about anything; the goal is to avoid detection and public shame. One particularly well-handled scene shows Bondi glimpsing Dee arriving home after an outing with Mac, and hesitating as she clearly wishes she could pretend not to have seen what she just saw.

Dee’s sin isn’t carousing; it’s falling in love with a lower-class man and daring to present it openly.

Dee does a fine, sensitive job in the leading role:

… and Cabot stands out as refreshingly natural in what appears at first to be a nominal supporting role (he’s first glimpsed wandering around a hotel room picking up after the partying socialites), but turns into a major romantic lead; one can easily see why Dee would fall for someone like him.

Rogers, meanwhile, is perfectly cast as Dee’s wisecracking roomie, and other young starlets — including Anne Shirley — do a fine job portraying young heiresses of various stripes. Interestingly, Finishing School was co-directed by a woman (Wanda Tuchock) — something so unusual at the time that it most definitely stands out when watching the opening credits. (Unfortunately, it seems she only directed one other short film; the rest of her Hollywood career was spent on screenwriting.)

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Frances Dee as Virginia
  
• Bruce Cabot as Mac
  
• Ginger Rogers as Pony
  

Must See?
Yes, as a fine example of a pre-Code drama unhampered by moral restrictions.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review (spoiler alert)
• DVD Talk Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A demented widow (Shelly Winters) whose young daughter died in an accident many years earlier entices a young orphan (Chloe Franks) to come live with her in her mansion — but Franks’ brother (Mark Lester) believes Winters is a witch, and is determined to rescue Franks (and himself) from her clutches.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Horror
• Hugh Griffith Films
• Orphans
• Ralph Richardson Films
• Shelley Winters Films
• Widows and Widowers

Review:
Following in the dubious footsteps of What’s the Matter With Helen? (1971), Who Slew Auntie Roo? inexplicably gives away a major spoiler in its very title — an inauspicious sign for what amounts to a disappointing entry in the Grande Dame Guignol (or “Psycho Biddy”) horror subgenre (kicked off by Robert Aldrich’s classic What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?). The primary problem with … Auntie Roo is that Winters’ deeply troubled character is pitiable rather than fearful, given that we see early on how her daughter died in a tragic incident (rather than, say, being murdered); we therefore never really believe the two orphans are in serious danger. Instead, Lester — who apparently is convinced he’s trapped in the story “Hansel and Gretel” — emerges as the unlikely villain of the piece, convincing his sister that “Auntie Roo” is going to stuff them and eat them for dinner.

Meanwhile, other plot elements — such as the presence of Winters’ manipulative butler (Michael Gothard) working in cahoots with a sham medium (Ralph Richardson) to convince Winters her daughter is communicating with her — are poorly resolved.

Winters tries hard with the material she’s given, but this one is only must-see for her diehard fans.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Some campily creepy moments
  
• Fine sets
  

Must See?
No; feel free to skip this one.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• SciFilm Review
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
A host of diverse animals and plants struggle to survive in the often-harsh desert climate of the U.S.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Deserts
• Documentary
• Survival

Review:
Disney’s first feature-length entry in its “True-Life Adventures” series won an Academy Award as Best Documentary of the Year, and was selected for preservation in the National Film Registry in 2000. It remains a reasonably compelling, carefully edited montage of desert footage (complete with soundtrack and authoritative voiceover), chronicling the harsh survival tactics of various savvy animals who understand each others’ strengths and weaknesses to a tee, in addition to knowing how to fully exploit their environment (a bobcat chased by wild pigs seeks refuge at the top of tall cacti; a kangaroo rat throws sand in the eyes of a vulnerable eyelid-less snake; two male tortoises wrestle each other onto their backs in pursuit of a female). Modern viewers may already be overly familiar with the type of “educational” footage presented here, which has been available for viewing in various forms for literally decades (on television, and now in snippets on YouTube) — but this shouldn’t diminish the historical relevance of the film, which was groundbreaking at the time of its release, and led to several other similarly-themed, award-winning documentaries.

Note: You may or many not enjoy one of the film’s most discussed segments, in which scorpions “square dance” with one another — helped by the clever cinematic technique of running the film reel backwards… It’s done for comedic effect, but does it sully the supposed veracity of the documentary?

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Plenty of fascinating footage of desert beauty…
  
  
  
• … and desert survival
  
  

Must See?
No, though kids are likely to enjoy it. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• All Movie Review
• Chicago Reader Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A crazed artist (William Campbell) kills his models, painting death-themed canvases to immortalize them; meanwhile, a vampire roams the streets at night, attacking beautiful women. Could the two killers be related in some way?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Artists
• Horror
• Roger Corman Films
• Stephanie Rothman Films
• Vampires

Review:
Produced by Roger Corman and co-directed by Jack Hill and Stephanie Rothman, Blood Bath (a.k.a. Track of the Vampire) is a notorious mess of a film, one which incorporates footage from an unfinished European vampire flick into an entirely different storyline about a psychopathic modern artist. (Click here to read about another such dubious “salvaged film” effort by the industrious, penny-pinching Corman.) Critics have noted Blood Bath‘s thematic parallels with Corman’s darkly humorous A Bucket of Blood (1959) — also about a crazed artist who kills for his art — but this comparison simply serves to remind one how much infinitely better the latter film is on every level. Scenes taking place in a Beatnik bar — as a cadre of wannabe artists listen intently to their mentor (Karl Schanzer) — are clearly an attempt to add some comedic relief, but ultimately fall flat. Working in Blood Bath‘s favor is its atmospheric b&w cinematography; and if one focuses exclusively on the modern-day tale of Campbell’s seduction and murder of beautiful young women, the storyline begins to makes some kind of sense (with Campbell’s visions of his ancestor seduced by a siren-like muse [Lori Saunders] simply a symptom of his deranged sensibility). Overall, however, this one remains a disappointing misfire.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Atmospheric cinematography
  
  

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for diehard Corman fans.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• Combustible Celluloid Review

Synopsis:
The two-timing wife (Mae Busch) of a gullible gypsy con-artist (Oliver Hardy) runs away with her lover (Antonio Moreno), leaving behind the kidnapped daughter (Darla Hood) of a local count (William P. Carleton). Arline (Hood) is raised by Hardy and his business partner (Stan Laurel), and even as a young woman (Julie Bishop) has no idea about her true identity.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Comedy
• Con-Artists
• Cuckolds
• Gypsies
• Kidnapping
• Laurel and Hardy Films
• Musicals
• Royalty and Nobility

Review:
Laurel-and-Hardy fans are fond of defending this musical-comedy adaptation of Michael William Balfe’s 1843 opera, an innocuous melodrama which (not surprisingly) serves here as simply a narrative crutch for a series of semi-humorous L&H sketch pieces. The songs are primarily forgettable ditties warbled by a sound-stage full of would-be gypsies, though one — as Bishop croons the lovely aria “I Dreamt I Dwelt in Marble Halls” (more recently covered by Enya) — stands out as enjoyable enough to merit mention. Mae Busch (as Hardy’s wife) has fun with her role as perhaps the ultimate two-timing shrew, brazenly flirting with her lover in front of Hardy, but she’s not really given enough screen-time. Ultimately, this one will quickly fade from memory; diehard L&H fans will naturally want to check it out, but others can stay away.

Note: TBG is notorious as the final film of Thelma Todd, whose role was whittled away to hardly anything after her infamous “suicide” (considered by many to be murder).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Bishop (dubbed) singing “I Dreamt I Dwelt in Marble Halls”
  
• Creative visual effects at the very end
  

Must See?
No; this one is most definitely just for L&H fans.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• TV Guide Review

Synopsis:
An upwardly mobile, flirtatious carnival dancer (Mae West) falls in love with a wealthy businessman (Cary Grant), but must defend her seemingly unsavory past.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Carnivals and Circuses
• Cary Grant Films
• Cross-Class Romance
• Mae West Films
• Social Climbers

Review:
Along with She Done Him Wrong (1932), I’m No Angel is notorious as one of the films that finally put Hollywood’s self-appointed morality police over the edge, leading to much more stringent guidelines about what was permissible on screen. Indeed, with a script written by the inimitably salacious Mae West, one would expect nothing less than a series of barely-concealed sexual zingers — and that’s pretty much what you get here:

Grant: You were wonderful tonight.
West: I’m always wonderful at night.

West (to Grant, after refusing his money): You’ve got a lot of other things it takes to make a woman happy.

Unfortunately, as enjoyably giggle-worthy as these innuendos are, they aren’t enough to sustain the paper-thin plot, which is based on the wholly preposterous notion that West’s sexual allure is enough to turn nearly every able-bodied man she meets to mush (talk about giggle-worthy!). This one is purely a vehicle for West to demonstrate her exaggerated sense of narcissistic self-worth — but film fanatics curious to get a taste of West would be better off watching her in a more involving vehicle.

Note: I’m No Angel is also notable as the film in which West quips the infamous line “Beulah, peel me a grape” to her maid (Gertrude Howard).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Some fun gowns
  
• Plenty of typically zingy West-ian retorts and one-liners:
  

  Nigel de Brulier (as Rajah the Fortune Teller): I see a man in your life.
  West: What? Only one?

Must See?
No; despite its historical relevance, this isn’t among West’s best films, and is only must-see for her admirers. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Spinning Image Review
• FilmSite Review
• DVD Savant Review
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
A naive doctor-in-training (Dirk Bogarde) and his classmates (Kenneth More, Donald Sinden, and Donald Houston) navigate through the challenges of medical school and dating.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• College
• Comedy
• Dirk Bogarde Films
• Doctors and Nurses

Review:
I’ll admit to having little patience for this enormously popular British comedy (based on a novel by former doctor Richard Gordon), which broke box-office records and spawned no less than six cinematic sequels and a television series. Unfortunately, it’s little more than an extended situation comedy involving a cadre of not-too-likeable young medical students who are much more interested in having fun than gaining a solid footing in their future profession; Bogarde is nominally the sympathetic protagonist, but he doesn’t come across as much better (or more interesting) than his friends.

The humor is consistently lowbrow, and the episodic screenplay does little to hold our attention. The film’s only minor redeeming point is its willingness to show a diverse crowd of medical students on campus (including women and people of color):

Unfortunately, none of the latter are given substantial roles, and the former are reduced to either sex objects or shrews. Call me a grump, but this one’s simply icky; I couldn’t wait for it to be over.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:
Not much at all.

Must See?
No; feel free to skip this clunker.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Talk Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A recently widowed composer (George C. Scott) moves into a house haunted by the ghost of an unhappy child, whose tragic death is somehow linked to that of an aging senator (Melvyn Douglas).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• George C. Scott
• Ghosts
• Horror
• Melvyn Douglas Films
• Old Dark House
• Widows and Widowers

Review:
This atmospheric haunted house flick by director Peter Medak is based on a genuinely disturbing premise (don’t read too much about it online if you want to remain surprised), but is poorly paced and takes far too long to build momentum. In addition, Medak relies too heavily on both wide-angle and low-angle shots — the latter presumably to make us feel we’re consistently viewing the action from the perspective of a (buried?) child, but it quickly feels derivative and overly stylized.

Scott is typically fine (if perhaps a tad too stalwart) in the lead role:

and his real-life wife (Trish Van Devere) registers an appropriate level of mounting trepidation as Scott’s realtor and amateur-sleuthing-partner (though their relationship remains frustratingly opaque).

Ultimately, this one is really only must-see for fans of the genre, who will likely enjoy the intermittent chills and thrills it provides. Best scene: the genuinely freaky seance, which suddenly and effectively shifts the film into high gear.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Some moments of genuinely creepy terror
  

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for fans of the genre, though others may be curious to at least check it out. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Spinning Image Review
• SF, Fantasy, and Horror Review

Synopsis:
In 19th century France, an ex-convict (Fredric March) is given a second chance at life by a kind priest (Cedric Hardwicke), and becomes a successful businessman under an assumed name. However, his happiness — and that of his adopted daughter, Cosette (Rochelle Hudson) — are compromised by a relentless policeman (Charles Laughton) who is determined to send March back to jail at any cost.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Cat-and-Mouse
• Charles Laughton Films
• Ex-Cons
• Fredric March Films
• Historical Drama
• Literature Adaptation

Review:
While it’s probably best known by modern audiences as an enormously successful Tony-winning Broadway musical, Victor Hugo’s epic novel Les Miserables has been adapted for the screen numerous times (though Peary only lists this 1935 version in his GFTFF). Directed with visual panache by Richard Boleslawksi and DP Gregg Toland, the film is consistently stunning to look at, effectively utilizing stylized camera angles and atmospheric b&w cinematography to highlight the undeniably melodramatic nature of the storyline. March is appropriately stalwart and sympathetic as an ethically innocent man (unable to find work, he steals bread to feed his family) who is given an unduly harsh prison sentence, then treated with disdain and contempt by nearly all he meets upon his release; as fans of the story know, he’s not given a fair chance at life until a kind bishop treats him with unexpected kindness, and he is able to assume a new identity.

Laughton’s Inspector Javert, meanwhile, stands for all that is most corrupt about a legal system which leaves no room for contextual consideration or humanity; in a powerfully filmed opening sequence — as Laughton is inducted into his chosen profession — we’re told exactly what makes this vilest of persecutors tick, and we gain an unexpected measure of compassion for his motivations. Indeed, Laughton’s typically nuanced, brave performance is almost enough to make this film must-see — but the narrative itself is ultimately too much of a standard literary-adaptation (in which a rich and layered novel is condensed into just under two hours) to be entirely successful; too many of the later supporting characters are given short shrift, and Hugo’s complex social commentary is over-simplified. However, this one remains worth a look at least once, both for the lead performances and for the impressive visuals.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Charles Laughton as Inspector Javert
  
• Fredric March as Jean Valjean
  
• Cedric Hardwicke as the Bishop
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  
  
• Fine sets
  

Must See?
No, but it’s certainly worth a look for Laughton’s performance. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book (though I’m not sure why).

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Cinematic Threads Review
• DVD Savant Review

Synopsis:
An itinerant Czech philosopher (Charles Boyer) is invited to stay at a country manor owned by the parents (Reginald Owen and Margaret Bannerman) of one of his admirers (Peter Lawford); meanwhile, a quirky, plumbing-loving housemaid (Jennifer Jones) sent to work in the manor falls in love with a stuffy local pharmacist (Richard Haydn), not realizing Boyer has his eye on her as well.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Charles Boyer Films
• Class Relations
• Comedy
• Ernst Lubitsch Films
• Jennifer Jones Films
• Peter Lawford Films
• Richard Haydn Films
• Servants, Maids, and Housekeepers

Review:
While conceding that it doesn’t quite rank among his best work, critics nonetheless seem uniformly charmed by Ernst Lubitsch’s final completed comedy (he died midway through directing 1948’s That Lady in Ermine), based on a coming-of-age novel by Margery Sharp. I’m less impressed. Beautiful Jones (whose comedic performance is eerily reminiscent at times of Marilyn Monroe) puts forth her best effort, and comes across as appropriately free-spirited, but she nonetheless seems inappropriately cast as a lower-class maid-servant (and when she talks at a certain point about how make-up doesn’t do much to help her appearance, one can’t help snorting a bit).

Meanwhile, it beggars all belief that she would fall head-over-heels in love with an annoying prig like Haydn; what could she possibly be thinking? That she’s ultimately best suited for Boyer’s charismatic European refugee is made clear from the start; we thus spend the entire film waiting for them to finally realize this fact themselves. There’s subtle humor to be had, I suppose, in the running joke about Cluny’s obsession with plumbing —

“Whoever gets me won’t have to worry about his plumbing.”
“You know what plumbing does to me — I just can’t keep my hands off it.”

— but this humor ultimately feels somewhat forced and juvenile. Boyer fares well, and I’m fond of Helen Walker’s unabashedly privileged performance as the much-lusted-after “Betty Cream”, but the rest of the film simply leaves me unmoved.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Charles Boyer as Professor Belinski
  
• Helen Walker as Betty Cream
  

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for Lubitsch completists. Listed as a film with Historical Importance and a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• At-a-Glance Review
• TCM Article