Browsed by
Month: July 2011

Rope (1948)

Rope (1948)

Comments 1 comment

“The power to kill can be just as satisfying as the power to create.”

Synopsis:
A pair of roommates (John Dall and Farley Granger) murder their “inferior” classmate (Dick Hogan) simply to demonstrate their superiority. After placing the body in a chest in their living room, they throw a dinner party to celebrate their crime, inviting their former housemaster (Jimmy Stewart), Hogan’s fiancee (Joan Chandler), Chandler’s ex-boyfriend (Douglas Dick), and Hogan’s father (Cedric Hardwicke) and aunt (Constance Collier).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Farley Granger Films
  • Hiding Dead Bodies
  • Hitchcock Films
  • Jimmy Stewart Films
  • John Dall Films
  • Play Adaptations
  • Plot to Murder
  • Psychopaths

Response to Peary’s Review:
Hitchcock’s adaptation of Patrick Hamilton’s 1929 play — scripted by Arthur Laurents and inspired by the infamous “Leopold-Loeb thrill-killing” in 1924 — is best known for being the director’s most overtly experimental film. Hitchcock used just “one large apartment set” and had “one camera follow the characters about, with cuts coming only once every 10 minutes” or so, thus designating the framing of the film as its central “character”. While Rope undeniably suffers from lack of editing (and Hitchcock himself later dismissed the film as merely a “stunt”), it remains surprisingly engaging, at least on a technical level. Indeed, after learning about the work that went into coordinating such a tremendously challenging stunt (see here and here), it’s a bit easier to forgive the film’s patent staginess; as Peary puts it, “Camera gimmick works well, but picture remains theatrical, as actors all seem a bit stiff — only Dall and Collier seem unafraid to change expressions, [and] Stewart has never been so unanimated.”

Unfortunately, while the film’s technical bravado excuses its staginess, it only partially hides the storyline’s more obvious flaws — most notably the fact that Stewart’s character boldly preaches an outrageously Nietzschian philosophy (“After all, murder is — or should be — an art”, he says; “And, as such, the privilege of committing it should be reserved for those few who are really superior individuals.”), then acts horrified when his impressionable young charges carry out exactly the actions he has just condoned. (Apparently he takes issue with the young men’s positing of themselves as “superior individuals” — but who, pray tell, WOULD fit this bill in his eyes?!?)

On the other hand, while some believe that Hitchcock should not have chosen to show the murder itself taking place as the film opens — instead allowing viewers to remain in suspense about whether the duo actually committed the crime — I don’t believe this negatively impacts the storyline, which remains inherently suspenseful simply given the omnipresence of the chest where Hogan’s freshly killed corpse has been placed.

Peary makes an interesting observation near the end of his review, noting that it’s “tough to be in [the] audience” while watching such “morbid subject matter” because, “while you despise the two killers, for some reason you hope the crime goes unresolved”. Actually, I find it difficult to truly “despise” Granger’s character, who — unlike the “arrogant Dall”, “immediately feels woozy [and] guilty” about what he’s done. To that end, it’s clear from the get-go that the sociopathic Dall is the dominant partner in this thinly veiled homosexual partnership, and that Granger has likely been bullied somehow into committing the murder. It’s interesting to contemplate what kind of different impact the movie would have if: a) Dall and Granger’s characters were written as more openly homosexual, and b) Stewart’s character were portrayed as a homosexual as well (given that this was Hamilton’s original intention). At the very least, it would add another level of tension and thematic interest — though in some ways, of course, it’s refreshing NOT to see two cold-blooded murderers overtly portrayed on-screen as gay, given all the implications that would engender.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Truly impressive — and often quite effective — direction

Must See?
Yes, simply for its notoriety as one of Hitchcock’s most technically innovative films.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Son of Paleface (1952)

Son of Paleface (1952)

Comments 1 comment

“You, sir, have cast aspersions on my dear old daddy — the brave, low-down, mangy, crooked, drunken hero that won the West!”

Synopsis:
The grown son (Bob Hope) of a notorious pseudo-sharpshooter travels West to retrieve his father’s fortune, but quickly finds that it’s been hidden. Meanwhile, a federal agent (Roy Rogers) is hot on the trail of the beautiful leader of a gang of thieves (Jane Russell), who Hope promptly falls in love with.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bob Hope Films
  • Frank Tashlin Films
  • Jane Russell Films
  • Satires and Spoofs
  • Thieves and Criminals
  • Westerns

Review:
This sequel to the enormously popular comedic western The Paleface (1948) is widely considered to be even better, thanks to the direction and vision of Frank Tashlin (who scripted the original film, but was disappointed with how it was executed by director Norman Z. McLeod). To be honest, however, I don’t really find this one to be all that funnier or more original — with the exception of some amusing visual gags sprinkled throughout (sure to appeal to those who enjoy Tashlin’s uniquely “cartoonish” sense of humor). On the plus side, Russell is just as bodacious and sassy here (playing a character named “Mike”) as she was portraying Calamity Jane. On the negative side, Hope’s character (an acknowledged “idiot”) is even more of a ninny than his notorious father, Painless Potter the dentist. The presence of Roy Rogers and Trigger provides a bit of historical interest, but Rogers’ acting range isn’t all that broad, and Trigger’s tricks — while cute and impressive — are few and far between.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Creative visual gags
  • Russell’s stunning gowns

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended for fans of Hope, Russell, and/or Tashlin.

Links:

Invisible Ray, The (1936)

Invisible Ray, The (1936)

Comments 1 comment

“The universe is very large, and there are some secrets we are not meant to probe.”

Synopsis:
A scientist (Boris Karloff) exposed to a rare element known as Radium X finds that he can kill people simply by touching them, and becomes increasingly reclusive. Soon he allows jealousy of his colleague, Dr. Benet (Bela Lugosi) — who wants to use Radium X for healing purposes — and his beautiful young wife (Frances Drake) — who has fallen in love with another man (Frank Lawton) — to drive him to vengeful murder.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Atomic Energy
  • Bela Lugosi Films
  • Beulah Bondi Films
  • Boris Karloff Films
  • Horror
  • Mad Doctors and Scientists
  • Revenge

Review:
This uneven but atmospheric mad scientist/revenge flick — co-starring notorious Universal Studios “rivals” Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi — is primarily notable for providing Lugosi with one of his rare non-villainous roles (with which he does a fine, subtle job). Indeed, having recently rewatched so many of Universal’s Frankenstein films — in which Lugosi either played the demented Ygor, or The Monster himself — it’s truly astonishing to see him here playing a “normal”, rational male. If you can ignore the often silly and sloppy “science” behind Karloff’s death/healing machine (which, to be fair, is actually remarkably prescient in theory), you may find yourself at least enjoying the fun special effects and sets. Note that, as in Werewolf of London (1935), the screenplay for The Invisible Ray makes somewhat clumsy use of a convenient “replacement partner” for the doomed central character’s beautiful young wife. With that said, doe-eyed Frances Drake (best known for co-starring with Peter Lorre in Mad Love the previous year) is quite compelling here in one of her few better-known leading roles.

Note: Click here to read a detailed essay about Karloff and Lugosi’s fabled, often overlapping careers.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Bela Lugosi as Dr. Benet
  • Frances Drake as Diana
  • Some nifty special effects and sets

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look.

Links:

Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943)

Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943)

Comments 2 comments

“He is not insane; he simply wants to die.”

Synopsis:
Werewolf Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney, Jr.) is accidentally brought back to life by gravediggers, and embarks on a quest to “truly” die once and for all. In hopes of locating Dr. Frankenstein’s research journals — which possess the secret to life and death — he awakens Frankenstein’s monster (Bela Lugosi), and seeks out Frankenstein’s grown daughter (Ilona Massey).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bela Lugosi Films
  • Frankenstein
  • Horror
  • Lionel Atwill Films
  • Lon Chaney, Jr. Films
  • Werewolves

Review:
More a Wolf Man tale than a sequel about Frankenstein’s monster (who only plays a relatively important role during the final 15 minutes of the film, when he infamously does battle with the Wolf Man), this sixth entry in Universal’s “Frankenstein” series is, like so many of the others, only must-see for fans of the genre. The storyline basically rehashes the central conceit of The Wolf Man (1941), with poor, hapless Chaney forced to once again seek permanent escape from his lycanthropy through death. Massey is pretty and charming but merely serves as a convenient female presence in the film:

Meanwhile, the rapid change of heart undergone by young Dr. Mannering (Patric Knowles) defies all logical belief, highlighting the screenplay’s already paper-thin premise.

Enjoy the reliably atmospheric cinematography and sets, but don’t expect much else from this one.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Creative opening titles
  • Effectively spooky sets
  • Fine cinematography

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for fans of the series.

Links:

Frankenstein’s Daughter (1958)

Frankenstein’s Daughter (1958)

Comments 1 comment

“The Frankensteins were monsters who brought life from death — and that’s a true achievement.”

Synopsis:
The insane grandson (Donald Murphy) of Dr. Frankenstein relies on the help of a zealous gardener (Wolfe Barzell) to create a modern-day female version (Sally Todd) of his grandfather’s fabled creature. Meanwhile, the niece (Sandra Knight) of Murphy’s employer (Felix Locher) complains to her boyfriend (John Ashley) about seeing visions of monsters roaming the streets.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Frankenstein
  • Horror Films
  • Mad Doctors and Scientists

Review:
Hawaiian-born director Richard Cunha is best-known for the four low-budget sci-fi/horror flicks he helmed in the 1950s — including this infamously awful entry in the prolific genre of Frankenstein-themed films. The title refers not to the actual daughter of Dr. Frankenstein (that designation would go to the character played by Ilona Massey in 1943’s Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man), but rather to the dubiously female “creature” — hence, daughter — created by mad Dr. Frank (Murphy). (It’s challenging to keep all these Frankensteins and their progeny — both biological and mutant — straight!) Meanwhile, any casual viewer doing a Google image search would be forgiven for believing that somehow Sandra Knight’s character:

is the hideous beast in question, given that images of her pert teenage face made up with gruesomely bushy brows and rotten, crooked teeth dominate the virtual landscape.

But no: while Dr. Frank does try out his potion (?) on her, the ACTUAL monster is supposedly crafted from Knight’s snooty blonde rival (Sally Todd):

— though the monster him/herself was actually played by a man (Harry Wilson):

… and the make-up designer, Harry Thomas, didn’t realize until after the fact that he was designing a mask for a female, and there was no money left to create another one. (Thanks to Goremasterfx for this info.)

Well, you get the point. Watch at your own peril.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Laughably awful acting, make-up, and script

Must See?
No; definitely skip this one unless you’re a fan of Z-grade “chillers”. Listed as a Camp Classic in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Werewolf of London (1935)

Werewolf of London (1935)

Comments 1 comment

“The werewolf instinctively seeks to kill the thing it loves best.”

Synopsis:
A botanist (Henry Hull) seeking a rare flower in Tibet is scratched by a werewolf and given the “disease”; back in London, he tries to hide his secret from his wife (Valerie Hobson) and stay away from her during the full moon, so that he won’t “harm the one he loves best”.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Horror
  • Scientists
  • Werewolves

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, this “first werewolf movie” — directed by Stuart Walker — features “solid acting”, “was seriously, somberly made”, and “set the rule for future entries in the subgenre by having an unhappy ending”. As he points out, it’s “not a bad horror film, although it isn’t particularly frightening”, and Warner Oland’s sinister character (a mysterious Japanese “gentleman” who “pays him a visit”) isn’t given enough screentime. Peary accurately notes that “the best scenes” are the “exciting, atmospheric opening” in the Himalayas, and “when Hull transforms into a werewolf as he walks behind some columns” (a nifty, seamless piece of special effects editing).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Effective make-up design and transformation sequences
  • Atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
Yes, simply for its historical importance as the first werewolf film (other than a lost 18-minute silent short).

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Paleface, The (1948)

Paleface, The (1948)

Comments 1 comment

“There’s a million Indians out here against one coward!”

Synopsis:
Calamity Jane (Jane Russell) is offered a pardon if she can discover who’s selling guns to Native Americans, and hoodwinks a cowardly dentist (Bob Hope) into marrying her as part of her disguise.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bob Hope Films
  • Cowardice
  • Jane Russell Films
  • Mistaken Identities
  • Native Americans
  • Satires and Spoofs
  • Strong Females
  • Westerns

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this top-grossing Bob Hope comedy (scripted by Frank Tashlin and directed by Norman Z. McLeod) as “engaging”, noting that while it has “an unfortunate lack of visual wit”, Hope’s “non-stop wisecracking is most often on target”. He calls out a few of the “top comedy sequences”, and notes that, for him, the “picture’s highlight has Hope singing ‘Buttons and Bows’ to Russell”. While I’m basically in agreement with Peary’s positive but not overly enthusiastic review, I’ll admit I simply didn’t find it all that funny this time around (I remember enjoying it quite a bit more when I first saw it years ago). Perhaps I’ve simply watched too many Bob Hope films recently, but I didn’t find his performance in this one to be particularly memorable or side-splitting. With that said, it’s always refreshing to see a strong female character like Calamity Jane on-screen (Russell is fine in the role), and I did enjoy the bawdy comedic tension generated by Hope’s perpetually unconsummated marriage to the bodacious Russell.

Note: Interestingly, this title is included in the notoriously snooty 1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, though the reviewer is frustratingly elusive as to exactly why it should be considered “must-see”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Hope singing the pleasantly hummable Oscar-winning song “Buttons and Bows”

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look simply for its historical popularity.

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

Isle of the Dead (1945)

Isle of the Dead (1945)

Comments 1 comment

“I told you that no one could leave.”

Synopsis:
Accompanied by an American reporter (Mark Cramer), a Greek general (Boris Karloff) during the Balkan Wars orders a group of island residents to remain quarantined in the house of a sickly woman (Katherine Emery) when plague breaks out — but Emery’s beautiful young caretaker (Ellen Drew) soon feels her life is at risk when the household’s superstitious housekeeper (Helen Thimig) convinces Karloff that Drew is a vampiric demon known as a “vorvolaka”.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Boris Karloff Films
  • Horror
  • Mark Robson Films
  • Plague
  • Ruthless Leaders
  • Val Lewton Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary is more a fan of this “intelligent, atmospheric horror film” (produced by Val Lewton and directed by Mark Robson) than I am. He argues that while the “picture suffers because of [the] uninteresting coupling of Drew and Cramer” (which is true), the performances by “Karloff and Emery are outstanding”, the “set design is imaginative (for a low-budget film), the camera work properly excites, and the horror is intense”. I’m not quite in agreement. Emery (who only made 12 films, a few of which are listed in Peary’s book) is fine if underused in what turns out to be a pivotal role, but I actually don’t find Karloff all that convincing as the boot-quaking general, and many of the other supporting performances are surprisingly stiff. Meanwhile, the film as a whole simply fails to either engage or adequately frighten (at least until the final spooky fifteen minutes, which are worth a look). Ultimately, while all the necessarily ingredients for a rich and provocative Lewton-ian experience are here, they unfortunately never quite gel.

Peary spends the bulk of his review analyzing the film and its characters in light of Lewton’s limited but impressive oeuvre (nearly all of which are “must see” movies). He points out that “in Lewton films, when a character” (such as Karloff’s general) “loses his mind he reverts to old, superstitious ways”, and notes that the screenplay allows Lewton to “exploit his concept of man controlled by fate”. He makes an apt analogy between Drew’s character (Thea) and Simone Simon’s Irena in Lewton’s Cat People, noting that Thea, like Irena, is “not sure she doesn’t harbor evil within her” — but while Irena is immediately presented as a sympathetic character whose fate we genuinely care about, Thea (a gypsy) simply functions here as a conveniently “Othered” scapegoat (and a requisite romantic lead). Ultimately, you’re better off spending your time rewatching one of Lewton’s many other classic psychological horror flicks — though film fanatics will be probably be curious to check this one out at least once.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Atmospheric cinematography
  • The creepy “premature burial” scene

Must See?
No; this one isn’t a must-see Lewton film.

Links: