Monsieur Beaucaire (1946)

Monsieur Beaucaire (1946)

Comments 1 comment

“Listen to me, Beaucaire — your life is in danger!”

Synopsis:
During the reign of Louis XV (Reginald Owen), a French barber (Bob Hope) who has recently been spurned by his ambitious girlfriend (Joan Caulfield) is forced to impersonate a duke (Patric Knowles), whose upcoming marriage to a Spanish princess (Marjorie Reynolds) will supposedly stop imminent war between the two countries.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bob Hope Films
  • Cecil Kellaway Films
  • Comedy
  • George Marshall Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Mistaken Identities
  • Royalty and Nobility

Review:
Based on a novel by Booth Tarkington, this farcical costume drama is a classic Bob Hope feature, featuring the beloved ski-nosed star bumbling his way through numerous semi-dangerous scenarios — all while keeping an eye on the girl he hopes to win (in this case, an enjoyably feisty Joan Caulfield), and spouting characteristically snappy come-back lines:

Count D’Armand: Go on! Help him!
Monsieur Beaucaire: Who me?
Count D’Armand: Yes, you! You’re a man. You’ve got blood in your veins.
Monsieur Beaucaire: I wanna keep it there. It’s the squirty kind.

How much you’ll enjoy Monsieur Beaucaire depends precisely on how funny you find this kind of exchange. For myself, I find that a little of Hope goes a long way — and having watched soooo many of his films in recent months, I’m feeling a little weary at this point. In fact, now that I’ve finished reviewing all of the Bob Hope titles in Peary’s book, I think I can safely say that you only need to a see a couple of his films (one of the Road To… flicks with Bing Crosby, and what I consider to be Hope’s best satirical vehicle — My Favorite Brunette) to get a sense of what his enduring popularity was all about. If you’re a fan, rest assured that there are plenty of other competent Hope films out there — like this one — to enjoy.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Plenty of Hope’s typically light-hearted humor

Must See?
No, though naturally Hope fans will want to check it out. Listed as a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Night of the Ghouls / Revenge of the Dead (1959)

Night of the Ghouls / Revenge of the Dead (1959)

Comments 1 comment

“Monsters! Space people! Mad doctors! They didn’t teach me about such things in the police academy!”

Synopsis:
A pair of detectives (Duke Moore and Paul Marco) are sent to investigate a suspicious spiritualist named Dr. Acula (Kenne Duncan), who works in cahoots with a fake ghost (Valda Hansen) to convince wealthy clients that they are in communication with departed loved ones.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Con-Artists
  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Ed Wood Films
  • Horror
  • Zombies

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately notes that while Ed Wood’s “follow-up to Plan 9 From Outer Space features god-awful acting, direction, music, dialogue, costumes, sets, props, lighting, pacing, and camera work”, this likely “won’t be enough to satisfy hardcore Wood fanatics” (or all purpose bad-movie lovers for that matter) “who have the right to expect much worse”. Often afforded the dubious label of being Wood’s most competent film (for better or for worse), Night of the Ghouls actually possesses an interesting history, not mentioned in Peary’s book: Wood couldn’t afford the lab fees to print the film, so it wasn’t viewed until years later (in 1983), when an aficionado named Wade Williams paid the overdue lab fees and released the film, much to the delight of Wood’s growing cult of fans. At any rate, as Peary notes, the film is full of “typically ludicrous Wood touches”, such as the infamously giggle-worthy scene when one of the detectives “sneaks through a dark house (the film’s prime set) [and] both [the film’s narrator] Criswell and our hero, through voiceovers, discuss in great detail the railing his hand happens to touch” — which is “completely irrelevant to the story”. Unfortunately, however, as Peary notes, “the picture hasn’t the inspired madness of Wood’s classics”, and really isn’t must-see except for his die-hardest fans.

Note: I disagree with Peary that “Jennie Stevens as the Black Ghost can’t hold a candle to Plan 9‘s Vampira”. While Vampira may have been more strikingly dramatic (and unearthly), Stevens is both gorgeous and haunting in her own way. (Besides, it’s not like these “roles” were really meant to offer anything more than ghoulish eye-candy anyway!).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • A few humorously campy moments

Must See?
No; this one is only for Ed Wood completists.

Links:

Mummy, The (1932)

Mummy, The (1932)

Comments 1 comment

“No man has ever suffered as I did for you.”

Synopsis:
A team of archaeologists unearth the mummy (Boris Karloff) of an ancient Egyptian prince, who returns to life and seeks to turn the reincarnation of his former love (Zita Johann) into his eternal mate.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Boris Karloff Films
  • Egypt and Egyptology
  • Horror Films
  • Mind Control and Hypnosis
  • Mummies
  • Scientists

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that this classic Universal horror flick — which is “loved by many horror fans” — has “visual beauty” (D.P. Karl Freund directed), but “moves along at a snail’s pace” after its “unforgettable”, truly terrifying opening sequences. Part of the problem, as Peary notes, is that “Karloff never again appears in mummy’s get-up” (though his make-up as modern-day ‘Ardath Bey’ is impressively gruesome in itself); and that “when he uses mind-control over Johann and the men who challenge him, the scenes seem [like] watered-down versions of similar scenes from Dracula” (I actually find them reasonably compelling). Peary labels the film “overrated”, but acknowledges that “there’s little doubt it’s the best of the crummy mummy subgenre”; astonishingly (or perhaps not), he lists no other titles from the franchise in his book. While I’m a tad more enthusiastic about this quietly creepy horror outing than Peary, I’ll concede it’s ultimately less memorable than its more famous counterparts; but it’s atmospherically shot, and Jack Pierce’s make-up really is impressive. Film fanatics won’t want to miss checking it out at least once.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Boris Karloff as Im-ho-tep and Ardath Bey
  • Zita Johann as Helen
  • Jack Pierce’s truly impressive mummy make-up
  • Atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a classic title from Universal’s Golden Age of Horror.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links:

Dracula’s Daughter (1936)

Dracula’s Daughter (1936)

Comments 2 comments

“Sympathetic treatment will release the mind from any obsession.”

Synopsis:
Dracula’s daughter (Gloria Holden) seeks help from a psychologist (Otto Kruger) to cure her affliction, despite constant reminders from her cruel servant (Irving Pichel) that she has a family legacy to consider.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Horror
  • Vampires

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “low-budget, still neglected chiller” is “cleverly plotted, atmospheric, and erotic”, and argues that it’s “better than the original” — specifically “at conveying the sexuality implicit in the vampire legend”. He calls out the film’s “most famous scene”, in which Holden’s servant (Irving Pachel) invites a young girl (“lovely” Nan Grey) up to their apartment to pose as Holden’s model; Holden “obviously feels attracted to the half-naked girl and ends up seducing her with her eyes”, then “draining her blood”. It’s a powerfully filmed sequence, one which clearly indicates that Holden’s desires are simply too strong to resist on her own. Indeed, part of what makes the film so appealing is that Holden’s “smart, cultured” character “doesn’t wish to carry on [Dracula’s] evil ways”: while her father was “not to be sympathized with”, given that it was “by choice rather than happenstance that he [did] evil”, Holden’s desperate quest to find a cure for her vampirism makes her an unusually sympathetic “monster”. Both a victim and a villain, she’s someone we’re actually rooting for up until the film’s unfortunately “rushed ending”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Gloria Holden as Countess Marya Zaleska
  • Marguerite Churchill as Janet (Kruger’s lively assistant and fiancee)
  • Holden’s seduction of Lily (Nan Grey)
  • Holden’s contentious rapport with her manservant, Sandor (Irving Pachel)
  • Atmospheric cinematography
  • Memorable imagery

Must See?
Yes, as a seductive follow-up to an early classic.

Categories

  • Good Show

Links:

Diabolique / Diaboliques, Les / Fiends, The (1955)

Diabolique / Diaboliques, Les / Fiends, The (1955)

Comments 1 comment

“Each time I close my eyes, it seems I’m going to see him.”

Synopsis:
The unhappy wife (Vera Clouzot) and abused mistress (Simone Signoret) of a sadistic headmaster (Paul Meurisse) plot to murder him, but are shocked when his corpse suddenly disappears. Soon a detective (Charles Vanel) arrives on the scene, and begins to uncover clues to Meurisse’s whereabouts.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Domestic Abuse
  • French Films
  • Henri-Georges Clouzot Films
  • Horror
  • Plot to Murder
  • Simone Signoret Films
  • Teachers

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, “Before Psycho raised the psychological thriller to a new, horrific level, this French classic by Henri-Georges Clouzot was considered the most frightening and artistic picture that the genre could ever produce”. However, he argues that, “like Psycho, it has been copied so many times that its twist ending [likely] won’t surprise first-time viewers, much less terrify them”. He points out that “it’s hard not to be impressed by the cinematic virtuosity of Clouzot”, given that “his work… is stunningly acted, beautiful paced for tension and suspense, and cleverly structured”; indeed, from the film’s provocative opening scene — in which an observer notes about Clouzot and Signoret, “I may be reactionary, but this is absolutely astounding: the legal wife consoling the mistress!” — we’re hooked, desperately curious to know how and why this unlikely duo is consorting together, and what the ultimate result of their “diabolical” actions will be.

In the rest of his review, Peary discusses the film’s “sinister vision”, arguing that it “conveys a nastiness of character and environment that is both oppressive and unsettling”, given that “the heroine, the nicest person in the story, plans cold-blooded murder” — yet this isn’t quite accurate. As in Hitchcock’s Rope (1948), one weaker (same-sex) character is convinced by another that murder is an appropriate course of action in a particular situation — therefore, it’s not really Clouzot’s character who plans the murder, per se. Plus, Clouzot is so clearly guilt-ridden and panic-stricken about what she’s doing that she remains a sympathetic protagonist throughout. Regardless, this is most definitely a bleak and “unsettling” film, one which works almost (though not quite) as well even if you already know (or can predict) the infamous plot twist. (And here’s where I’ll admit that years ago, as a first-time viewer, I was both terrified and shocked by the twist — thus disproving Peary’s assertion above).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Vera Clouzot as Christina
  • Simone Signoret as Nicole
  • Paul Meurisse as Michel
  • Effectively noir-ish cinematography
  • A truly memorable and frightening screenplay

Must See?
Yes, as a classic French thriller.

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

Links:

Youth Runs Wild (1944)

Youth Runs Wild (1944)

Comments 1 comment

“There’s more to war than fighting — what it does to kids, that’s just as much our job.”

Synopsis:
During WWII, a teenager (Glen Vernon) whose parents (Mary Servoss and Art Smith) work the night shift at a munitions factory dates the girl next door (Vanessa Brown), whose parents (Elizabeth Russell and Ben Bard) are equally absent from her life. When Vernon gets in trouble for petty crimes, he’s told not to see Brown anymore; meanwhile, Brown befriends a woman (Bonita Granville) whose boyfriend (Lawrence Tierney) runs a tire-stealing “trade”.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bonita Granville Films
  • Juvenile Delinquents
  • Lawrence Tierney Films
  • Mark Robson Films
  • Val Lewton Films

Review:
The teenage “hoods” in this earnest, low-key social interest drama are just about the nicest “delinquents” you’d ever want to meet. Best known as a curio in the estimable oeuvre of RKO producer Val Lewton, Youth Runs Wild remains a sincere if overly sanitized attempt to address an emerging concern at the time (absentee parents during the war), offering audiences sympathetic protagonists to root for, and a convenient solution to walk away with (just build youth centers to keep kids busy and out of trouble!). The storyline itself is laughably simplistic, but helped a bit by the welcome presence of Brown (an Austrian-Jewish emigre reminiscent of a young Ingrid Bergman), and the always-excellent Granville in a supporting role as her “corrupting” new buddy. Perhaps of most interest to film fanatics, however, will be seeing a small handful of Lewton’s regulars (i.e., Kent Taylor and Elizabeth Russell from both Cat People films) in the cast. Given that Peary lists all of Lewton’s films produced during the height of his acknowledged “creative period” (beginning in 1942 with Cat People, and ending in 1946 with Bedlam), I guess his completist nature wouldn’t allow him to avoid throwing this oddball title into the mix as well (he lists it as a Sleeper). But it’s not must-see.

Note: One can’t really blame Lewton for wanting to disown this title, given that it likely reflects little of his original vision; one wonders what it was like before a negative audience screening caused the studio to make drastic cuts. (See IMDb’s trivia for an extensive list of actors whose bit parts were reduced or eliminated entirely — including Dorothy Malone).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Vanessa Brown (billed as Tessa Brind) as Sarah Taylor
  • Bonita Granville as Toddy
  • An interesting social document

Must See?
No, though most Lewton fans will probably be curious to seek it out. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Dracula (1931)

Dracula (1931)

Comments 3 comments

“Listen to them: children of the night. What music they make!”

Synopsis:
A lawyer (Dwight Frye) travels to Transylvania to meet with the vampire Count Dracula (Bela Lugosi), who promptly bites him, then moves to England to pursue other victims; but with Van Helsing (Edward Van Sloan) on his trail, Dracula’s days are numbered.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bela Lugosi Films
  • Horror
  • Tod Browning Films
  • Vampires

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that while this “horror classic was once considered terrifying”, it’s now “often appreciated solely for its camp value” by movie fans who “regard it with tremendous affection”. There’s some truth to the latter part of this statement (Dracula is beloved by most horror fans simply for its pivotal role in cinematic history), but I’m not sure I agree that its “camp value” remains its primary allure — though there’s certainly some fun to be had in Dwight Frye’s loopily over-the-top performance as the bug-eating Renfield. Also arguably of camp value is Lugosi’s oft-imitated central performance as Dracula — though Peary generously argues that Browning’s “close-ups of Lugosi’s heavily rouged face and those wide, aggressive eyes are genuinely frightening”, and posits that while “Lugosi is no great actor… he is a great Dracula”. Peary accurately points out that director “Tod Browning’s direction is too stagey” — perhaps in part because the screenplay was based on a theatrical adaptation rather than Bram Stoker’s original novel — but notes that “cinematographer Karl Freund” (who purportedly directed numerous scenes) “manages to give [the] film some haunting atmosphere, particularly in the [early] Transylvania scenes” (which remain the most chilling moments in the movie). While undeniably creaky at times (it feels longer than its 75 minutes), this one is ultimately too historically important for film fanatics to miss.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Bela Lugosi’s highly influential performance as Dracula
  • Dwight Frye’s campily mad portrayal as Renfield
  • Magnificently baroque sets

  • Karl Freund’s atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a flawed but historically relevant classic of horror cinema.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Historically Relevant
  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

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

Links:

Princess and the Pirate, The (1944)

Princess and the Pirate, The (1944)

Comments 1 comment

“If you don’t tell anybody I’m not a gypsy, I won’t tell anybody you’re not an idiot.”

Synopsis:
A traveling minstrel (Bob Hope) and an undercover princess (Virginia Mayo) escape from the clutches of a vicious pirate (Victor McLaglen), in possession of a treasure map given to them by a wily tattoo artist (Walter Brennan); soon the corrupt governor (Walter Slezak) of a town overrun by pirates is on their trail, desiring both Mayo and the map.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Bob Hope Films
  • Comedy
  • Historical Drama
  • Mistaken Identities
  • Pirates
  • Royalty and Nobility
  • Victor McLaglen Films
  • Virginia Mayo Films
  • Walter Brennan Films

Review:
If you’re a Bob Hope fan, you’re sure to enjoy this genial costume comedy, co-starring Virginia Mayo in her first substantial role as the object of Hope’s romantic yearnings.

Hope (as usual) essentially plays a variation on his standard cinematic presence, flinging droll one-liners at a fast and furious pace, and overcoming his cowardly nature just in time to help save a damsel in distress (who may or may not really be interested in him). Hope is almost immediately upstaged, however, by Walter Brennan, giving a truly demented performance as a tattoo artist determined to embroil Hope in treasure-map shenanigans:

He’s missed when he’s not on-screen. Indeed, other than Brennan (and a nicely villainous turn by typecast Slezak):

… there’s not much here that’s particularly memorable — but it’s a finely mounted production if you’re in the mood for just this kind of fare.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Walter Brennan’s delirious turn as the pirate Featherhead

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended for fans of Hope’s unique comedic style.

Links:

Reflections on Website — July 15, 2011

Reflections on Website — July 15, 2011

Comments 1 comment

Greetings to my fellow Film Fanatics,

I’ve never used FilmFanatic.org to blog about my ongoing progress with the site, or to share my thoughts in general on watching and writing about the unique niche of “pre-1986 must-see films”, but I’ve thought about doing so for quite a while — so, here I finally am.

Since posting my first brief review on March 4, 2006 (of Jean-Jacques Beineix’s Moon in the Gutter), I’ve added 1,405 reviews to the site — which is roughly one-third of the 4300 titles included in GFTFF (for those who care to keep track). At this rate, it should only take me another 10 years or so to complete this project! Not that completion is the goal per se… By the time I finish (re)watching and writing about all the titles in Peary’s book, I’ll probably be ready to visit and/or comment on many of them again. Or I may finally get serious about diving into my ModernFilmFanatic.org site, which I’ve had to put on hold for now… In addition to maintaining this site, I’m married with two little kids and a full-time job, so time and energy are severely limited!

(I’ll post more on this topic another time, but I actually find that having a really busy life with limited time for movies helps me appreciate them all the more. I may complain quietly to myself on a daily basis that I wish I had more time to devote to the site, but ultimately, a diet of pure cinema has never been a healthy choice for me; hence, my decision to enter into a non-film-related career. Peary himself admits to burning out after writing GFTFF, which should be taken as a cautionary warning of some kind.)

At any rate, recently I’ve found myself watching and posting on movies in thematic “clusters” — I’ll suddenly notice I’ve been watching a bunch of a particular actor or director or producer’s films, for instance, and decide I might as well finish watching all of them to really get a sense of the gestalt of that particular person’s work (as selected by Peary, and only up until his 1986 publishing deadline, of course). My most recent attempt has been to finally finish up rewatching and posting on all of the 41 Hitchcock films included in GFTFF (I only have 7 left at this point). He’s probably my favorite director (if I had to choose), and it’s been a true pleasure to revisit the majority of them. 1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die (a well-meaning but horribly pretentious and flawed book, btw, yet nonetheless the one used by most modern film fanatics as their go-to checklist, so I continue to reference it) lists no less than 18 of his titles, which is impressive, and speaks (I believe) to their enduring power.

In contrast, I also recently watched nearly the entire Universal Studios Frankenstein series — a project it made sense to attempt in one go, given that serialized films like this really are best reviewed in comparison with one another, and at least relatively in order (to get a sense of their chronological progression). However, while there are very few GFTFF-Hitchcock titles I’ve voted “no” on (and even those “no” votes are, I believe, worth a one-time look by serious film fanatics), Peary’s inclusion of ALL the Universal Frankenstein titles in his book is an example of what I refer to repeatedly as his sense of “completism” — a symptom either of his inability to decide which of the many titles are must see (so why not include them all??), or his genuine belief that any true film fanatic will WANT to have seen all the titles in a particular “series” or franchise (no longer really a sustainable choice, given the wealth of new titles produced all the time — a film fanatic only has so much viewing time to spread around!). Since beginning the site, I’ve been working hard to sift through all such titles and make critical decisions on behalf of my fellow film fanatics — which, of course, you can and should feel free to disagree on.

Just as mysterious to me is Peary’s random inclusion of certain titles by a particular performer and/or director — say, Danny Kaye or Jerry Lewis — to the exclusion of others. While he nearly always includes all the “big name” titles of a star (for obvious reasons), I’m puzzled why, for instance, Peary includes Lewis’s lame The Sad Sack in his book when there are other “bigger name” titles he could have chosen to include instead, if he really wanted to beef up the number of Lewis offerings (which he DIDN’T need to do!). At any rate, ultimately this kind of thing comes down to personal taste — and I’ll admit that a tiny part of me is secretly tickled by Peary’s blatant favoritism. He’s not afraid to call a personal favorite a Must See title — and while I may fervently disagree with his choices, he’s at least (covertly) admitting that subjectivity is an inherent element in any such daunting undertaking.

I’ll continue to post occasional “check-in” blog entries in future weeks and months, on various topics that have occurred to me — including:

* how I decide which film to watch and review next (partially touched upon here)
* how my thinking about which films are must see or not has evolved over the years (and continues to evolve)
* my summative thinking on the oeuvres of various actors or directors whose Peary-listed work I’ve finished reviewing (including Jerry Lewis, Danny Kaye, Abbott and Costello, and others)

Back to viewing and reviewing! Thanks for reading.

–Film Fanatic

I Confess (1953)

I Confess (1953)

Comments 1 comment

“I never thought of the priesthood as offering a hiding place.”

Synopsis:
A priest (Montgomery Clift) hears the confession of a murderer (O.E. Hasse), but is unable to say anything about it to the prosecutor (Karl Malden) who questions him, and soon finds himself the prime suspect — especially when his friendship with a married woman (Anne Baxter) is revealed.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Anne Baxter Films
  • Brian Aherne Films
  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Falsely Accused
  • Hitchcock Films
  • Karl Malden Films
  • Montgomery Clift Films
  • Play Adaptations
  • Priests and Ministers

Review:
Opinions vary wildly on this relentlessly somber, somewhat dated Hitchcock outing (based on a 1902 play by Paul Anthelme), with some finding it seriously flawed, and others (a smaller group, to be sure) ranking it among his finest films. An overtly religious movie in many ways, it deals with issues of ethics, conscience, and clerical duty (with thriller elements thrown in for good Hitchcockian measure); indeed, as noted by DVD Savant, it actually features thematic similarities to Bresson’s Diary of a Country Priest (1951). Many have complained that Clift’s performance is overly stoic — and it’s true that it’s difficult to really get to know his character, just as it may be to get to know any priest.

Baxter (whose story one can’t say too much about, at risk of giving away spoilers) ends up as the most “human” of the protagonists in the movie — the one we’re most meant to relate to — but she’s unfortunately not all that sympathetic.

Even more viewers have complained about the central conceit around which the storyline pivots: Clift’s refusal to give away even the slightest hint of what he’s heard in confession. Non-Catholics may have a hard time understanding this, and I’ll admit to feeling frustrated by it myself — but ultimately, Clift’s utter devotion to his character’s ethos pays off, such that the final shot truly gave me chills, and suddenly placed the entire film in a different light.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Robert Burks’ cinematography
  • Dimitri Tiomkin’s score

Must See?
No, but it’s recommended for one-time viewing, and certainly a must for Hitchcock fans.

Links: