Great McGinty, The (1940)

Great McGinty, The (1940)

Comments 1 comment

[Note: The following review is of a non-Guide for the Film Fanatic title; click here to read more.]

“You’ve got to understand, honey: no man is strong enough to buck the party, no matter how much he wants to make his wife happy.”

Synopsis:
A homeless man (Brian Donlevy) hired by a crime boss (Akim Tamiroff) to cast illegal votes quickly climbs the political ladder, becoming alderman, then mayor, then governor; but when his new wife (Muriel Angelus) encourages him to go straight, Tamiroff is anything but pleased.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Akim Tamiroff Films
  • Character Arc
  • Flashback Films
  • Political Corruption
  • Preston Sturges Films
  • Rise-and-Fall

Review:
Notable as the first film Preston Sturges helmed himself, rather than simply scripting, The Great McGinty is a puzzling omission from Peary’s GFTFF, given that he lists or reviews all of Sturges’ other major directorial titles. In addition to being of historical interest, it remains an enjoyably pointed satire, one which clearly displays Sturges’ genius with utilizing dark humor to convey incisive political and social commentary. It’s finely acted by Donlevy (an inspired casting choice) and Tamiroff (never better), and moves along at a steady pace, neatly showing us Donlevy’s rise and fall via a strategic flashback framework (opening, closing, and intermittent scenes are set in the seedy barroom of a “Banana republic”). The moral of the story remains deeply cynical, but there’s no denying that Sturges had his pulse on the true nature of power and corruption in America. What’s most disturbing is how ultimately realistic — and modern — this story still feels. My only minor quibble with the film is how instantly forgettable Muriel Angelus is as Donlevy’s secretary-turned-wife; she’s serviceable but not much more. (Interestingly, this was her last film before she disappeared off the cinematic radar.)

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Brian Donlevy as Dan McGinty
  • Akim Tamiroff as “The Boss”
  • Sturges’ cleverly satirical script

Must See?
Yes, as Sturges’ first directorial effort.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

Links:

Great Moment, The (1944)

Great Moment, The (1944)

Comments 1 comment

“You know I discovered the use of ether, don’t you?”

Synopsis:
An 18th century dentist (Joel McCrea) discovers the use of ether as an effective means of anesthetizing pain during dental operations, but encounters resistance and anger when he tries to patent his discovery.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Betty Field Films
  • Biopics
  • Dentists
  • Flashback Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Inventors
  • Joel McCrea Films
  • Preston Sturges Films

Review:
The Great Moment is surely the oddest entry in Preston Sturges’ estimable Hollywood career, given that the “biopic” genre was about as far removed from his standard milieu of satirical screwball comedies as possible. However, when one recalls that Sturges invented a “kissproof” lipstick in 1920 (!), his personal investment in telling the life story of a notoriously troubled inventor begins to make a bit more sense… Indeed, while The Great Moment doesn’t quite succeed as a classic Sturges outing, one stills feels oddly grateful that this story got made at all — and that it was given at least some semblance of the “Sturges touch”, rather than being told in standard (turgid) Hollywood fashion. Many of Sturges’ stock players show up in the cast, with William Demarest given an especially significant supporting role as the man who is first successfully operated upon by Dr. Morton (McCrea) while under the influence of ether; he and other familiar faces ensure that there’s a steady strain of comedic energy flowing through the film. Other scenes, unfortunately (including most with Betty Field as McCrea’s loyal, pretty wife), come across as disappointingly mainstream; Field’s opening flashback monologue, for instance, is laughably solemn.

Regardless of the film’s overall uneven approach to the material, however, you’re almost guaranteed to get caught up in the tale being told. While Dr. Morton’s story is presented from an unequivocally sympathetic point of view (the opening title card alone lets you know what Sturges’ opinion is on the matter), you’ll likely find yourself questioning his motives nonetheless: what is the right thing to do in a case like this, where one’s breakthrough discovery has the potential to prevent an enormous amount of suffering in the world? Meanwhile, the issue of multiple hands and minds inevitably playing a part in any medical “discovery” is respectfully handled; it’s made eminently clear that, despite Morton’s noteworthy role in persisting with his experimentation until he finally achieves success, he was not working or thinking in isolation.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Joel McCrea as Dr. Morton
  • An interesting depiction of the incipient development of anesthesiology

Must See?
No, though it’s worth a look, and is must-see for Sturges completists.

Links:

Mad Love (1935)

Mad Love (1935)

Comments 1 comment

“I, a poor peasant, have conquered science; why can’t I conquer love?”

Synopsis:
A mad surgeon (Peter Lorre) obsessed with an actress (Frances Drake) is distressed to learn that she’s happily married to a renowned concert pianist (Colin Clive). When Clive’s hands are mangled in a train accident, Dr. Gogol (Lorre) secretly replaces them with those of a recently guillotined murderer (Edward Brophy), and proceeds to take advantage of Clive’s increasingly disturbed state of mind.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Colin Clive Films
  • Horror
  • Mad Doctors and Scientists
  • Mental Breakdown
  • Obsessive Love
  • Peter Lorre Films
  • Plastic Surgery

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to this “first sound remake of [the] 1924 [German] classic The Hands of Orlac” (not listed in GFTFF) as an “underappreciated horror gem”, one which “gives definition to the term ‘sleeper'”. He calls out Peter Lorre’s performance as “one of his truly great screen portrayals”, and nominates him as one of the Best Actors of the Year in his Alternate Oscars. He notes that while “of course, Lorre dominates the eerie proceedings”, “Clive and Drake, as one of the strongest, most intelligent women in the horror cinema, are superb” as well:

… and that “thoughtful” casting leads to even the smallest parts being “well written and played”. However, he ultimately argues that the “picture’s success” is primarily attributable to its “eerie visuals”, with the finale particularly “surreal”; and he notes that the entire affair possesses an overall “hard-edged poetic quality”, with a “haunting atmosphere… created by… imaginative use of the camera”. Indeed, one would expect nothing less from a film helmed by noted DP Karl Freund (whose American directorial debut was 1932’s The Mummy), and photographed in part by another noted DP, Gregg Toland.

Peary’s review succinctly sums up the fine qualities of this most enjoyable “Grand Guignol” horror flick, one which afforded Peter Lorre his breakthrough role in American movies, and which remains a gruesomely absorbing tale of obsessive love. Peary is right to call out the performance by wide-eyed Drake (who co-starred the following year in The Invisible Ray); she’s a memorable heroine-in-distress, with more to do and say than Clive (whose character feels oddly underdeveloped, though Clive does a fine job showing his increasingly distraught state of mind). Meanwhile, the intermittent presence of a wisecracking reporter (Ted Healy) feels decidedly out of place, though I’m fond of the humorous character played by May Beatty as Gogol’s tippling housekeeper. But this is really Lorre’s show all the way:

He takes the material and runs with it, managing to present his villain as vaguely sympathetic, despite his nefarious plans to win Drake at any cost (he does save children’s lives through surgery, after all!). Watch for his “disguise” in the second half of the film (see second still below) — kudos to whoever was responsible for its design!

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Peter Lorre as Dr. Gogol

  • Frances Drake as Yvonne
  • Accomplished direction by Freund
  • Atmospheric cinematography (by Gregg Toland and Chester Lyons)
  • Fine Expressionistic sets

Must See?
Yes, as an early horror classic.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links:

Duet for Cannibals (1969)

Duet for Cannibals (1969)

Comments 1 comment

“About her, I know even less. I don’t understand what is between them.”

Synopsis:
A young man (Gosta Ekman) takes a job helping to organize the papers of a renowned philosopher (Lars Ekborg), and soon finds himself inextricably embroiled in Ekborg’s troubled marriage to a seemingly insane wife (Adriana Asti); when Ekman’s frustrated girlfriend (Agneta Ekmanner) appears at their house, relations get even more surreal and complicated.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Marital Problems
  • Scandinavian Films

Review:
It’s no surprise that noted philosopher/essayist Susan Sontag’s directorial cinematic debut — a Bergmanesque psychological drama housed within a Bunuel-ian/Godard-ian surrealist framework — has nothing to do with actual flesh-eating cannibals; what’s disappointing, however, is how ultimately derivative and pointless her experimental vision is. While we’re kept intentionally in the dark about various characters’ motivations, it’s immediately clear that Ekborg and his wife are manipulative narcissists desperate to ensnare gullible subjects in their troubled marital web; the real question (for those involved enough to care) is why Ekman and Ekmanner allow themselves to become part of such a farcically dysfunctional drama. When trying to read a bit more about Sontag’s possible intentions with the film, I stumbled across the following quote in an analytical essay, in which Duet… is described as “a film that punishes you vindictively for threatening its existence by trying to interpret it away” — in other words, viewers should be forewarned that any director who previously published a collection of essays entitled Against Interpretation (1966) is not likely to create a movie that allows for easy or straightforward analysis. Ultimately, this one is exclusively for diehard Sontag fans; all others should be forewarned.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Occasional moments of head-scratching surrealism

Must See?
No; this one will only appeal to certain constituents, and isn’t worth seeking out by all-purpose film fanatics. Listed as a film with Historical Importance in the back of Peary’s book, though I’m not sure why.

Links:

Safety Last! (1923)

Safety Last! (1923)

Comments 1 comment

“I’d give a thousand dollars — to anyone — for a new idea — one that would attract an enormous crowd to our store.”

Synopsis:
A poor country boy (Harold Lloyd) moves to the city and becomes a lowly clerk at a department store, but tells his girlfriend back home (Mildred Davis) that he’s much more successful. When she pays him a surprise visit, he must scramble to save face.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Harold Lloyd Films
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary accurately notes that this “Harold Lloyd silent classic” possesses a “splendid mix of genteel character comedy, sight gags, slapstick comic routines, and what [Lloyd] called ‘thrill’ comedy”. Peary points out that while this film is “most remembered for [the] thrilling moment [when] Lloyd hangs from the arms of a large clock” — indeed, this is often cited as the single most famous shot in all of silent cinema — the entire “elaborate”, “cleverly… filmed” final sequence is “impressive”, given that “there is a new adventure on every floor”. Meanwhile, as Peary notes, this breathtaking sequence “shouldn’t make us overlook [the] simpler comedy that takes place earlier”; he enjoins viewers to “watch how [Lloyd] hides from his rent-seeking landlady by hanging with his coat on a hook” (a truly hilarious scene), or “grapples with rampaging women who see there’s a sale at his counter” (note the creative way in which he’s able to temporarily clear his view in the room). Peary is right to call this an “excellent introduction to Lloyd”; it’s a consistently clever delight.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Numerous hilarious sight gags


  • The justifiably renowned final building-climbing sequence

Must See?
Yes, as a genuine comedic classic.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links:

Marriage Circle, The (1924)

Marriage Circle, The (1924)

Comments 1 comment

“How can a husband, who loves his wife, neglect her so!”

Synopsis:
An unhappily married woman (Marie Prevost) attempts to seduce the husband (Monte Blue) of her best friend (Florence Vidor), not knowing that her own divorce-seeking husband (Adolph Menjou) has set a detective (Harry Myers) on her trail; meanwhile, Vidor must stave off affectionate advances from her husband’s business partner (Creighton Hale).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Adolph Menjou Films
  • Ernst Lubitsch Films
  • Love Triangle
  • Marital Problems
  • Silent Films

Review:
The Marriage Circle was Ernst Lubitsch’s second American film, and is notable for showing early evidence of his fabled “touch” — i.e., his light hand with sophisticated romantic comedies. It was remade in 1932 as the musical One Hour With You, and my reaction to both films was much the same: frustration with the character played by Blue (who looks somewhat like Chevalier, his counterpart in the later version). We never quite understand the motivations of this presumably-happily-married fellow, given that he allows himself to be seduced by a femme fatale, and shows signs of not being nearly as committed to his devoted wife as he should be (i.e., he carelessly drops a bouquet of flowers she’s picked for him); is their “ideal marriage” just a figment of Vidor’s imagination, or is Blue really that much of a two-timing, gullible sap? The most believable characters are played by Prevost and Menjou, whose strained marriage (as epitomized in the smartly filmed opening scene) comes across as all-too-realistic. Their manipulative machinations — and easy willingness to use others for their own purposes — are reminiscent in some ways of the dynamics between Valmont and the Marquise in Dangerous Liaisons.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Adolph Menjou as Professor Stock
  • Florence Vidor as Charlotte Braun

Must See?
No, though it’s certainly must-see for Lubitsch fans.

Links:

For Heaven’s Sake (1926)

For Heaven’s Sake (1926)

Comments 1 comment

“We’ll just kidnap Manners and argue it out with him back at the Club.”

Synopsis:
A carefree millionaire (Harold Lloyd) falls in love with the daughter (Jobyna Ralston) of a missionary (Paul Weigel), and helps fund the construction of their new mission; but when he proposes to Ralston, his wealthy pals decide to save him from his “mistake” by kidnapping him.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Comedy
  • Cross-Class Romance
  • Harold Lloyd Films
  • Kidnapping
  • Millionaires
  • Missionaries and Revivalists
  • Silent Films

Review:
Made in between two of Harold Lloyd’s most beloved features — The Freshman (1925) and The Kid Brother (1927) — For Heaven’s Sake was reportedly not one of Lloyd’s personal favorites among his oeuvre; he cut it down in length to just under an hour in response to initial audience reactions, yet was “still so unhappy that he offered to buy the film back from the studio”. There’s actually some truth to Lloyd’s dissatisfaction, given that the overly simplistic narrative doesn’t really allow much room for development: Lloyd’s character shifts too quickly from self-absorbed playboy to magnanimous mission worker, and the kidnapping subplot comes literally out of nowhere, with a posse of “friends” suddenly showing up who we’ve never seen before. However, this merely serves as the narrative springboard for the film’s stunning finale, which begins with a series of amusingly conceived drunken antics by Lloyd’s “rescuers”, and leads to a handful of daringly accomplished physical stunts involving numerous moving vehicles. Ultimately, however, this one is only must-see for Lloyd fans; others will want to stick with watching his most celebrated successes.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Several amusing sequences
  • The stunningly executed finale

Must See?
No, though of course it’s a must for fans of Harold Lloyd.

Links:

Thief of Bagdad, The (1924)

Thief of Bagdad, The (1924)

Comments 0 Comment

[Note: The following review is of a non-Peary title; click here to read more.]

“I am less than the slave who serves you — a wretched outcast — a thief.”

Synopsis:
In ancient Bagdad, a thief (Douglas Fairbanks) — aided by his trusted companion (Snitz Edwards) — vies against other suitors — including an Indian Prince (Noble Johnson), a Persian prince (Mathilde Comont), and an evil Mongol prince (Sojin) — to win the heart of a princess (Julanne Johnston). When his true identity is revealed, he embarks on a magical journey, while his competitors set out to seek the rarest treasure possible to bring back to the princess.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Cross-Class Romance
  • Douglas Fairbanks Films
  • Fantasy
  • Raoul Walsh Films
  • Royalty and Nobility
  • Silent Films
  • Thieves and Criminals

Review:
Peary only lists two films with silent-era swashbuckler Douglas Fairbanks in his GFTFF — The Mark of Zorro (1920) and The Black Pirate (1926) — thus curiously neglecting what may be Fairbanks’ most celebrated movie, The Thief of Bagdad. 40-year-old Fairbanks is at his most fit here, leaping across the screen in bare chest, clambering up and down ropes, standing on his head to shake stolen coins out of his kerchief; he perfectly embodies the title character’s scampish romanticism and unending thirst for adventure. However, it’s William Cameron Menzies’ truly astonishing sets — Baroque, fantastical environments which literally dwarf Fairbanks and his supporting cast — that make this film a must-see spectacle; combined with creative special-effects (including, of course, a flying carpet), we really feel we’ve entered into the magical world of ancient Bagdad and its environs. The film’s primary downfall is its length: at 2 hours and 20 minutes, it goes on for a bit too long; meanwhile, those offended by culturally insensitive depictions of “Asian menace” will be discouraged by the presence of sexy Anna May Wong as the evil accomplice to a Mongol despot (Sojin) with plans to take over Bagdad by force. However, it’s easy enough to ignore these concerns while marveling at the consistently innovative visuals, and appreciating just how athletically impressive Fairbanks really was.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Douglas Fairbanks as the Thief of Bagdad
  • William Cameron Menzies et al.’s truly magnificent sets and art design

  • Impressive special effects

Must See?
Yes, as an iconic silent film.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

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

Links:

Eagle, The (1925)

Eagle, The (1925)

Comments 1 comment

“I enlisted for war service only.”

Synopsis:
When a handsome young Cossack (Rudolph Valentino) rebuffs the romantic advances of Catherine the Great (Louise Dresser), he must flee to safety; meanwhile, after learning that his father (Spottiswoode Aitken) has been fleeced by a notorious thief (Albert Conti) — whose beautiful daughter (Vilma Banky) Valentino recently saved from a runaway carriage — he dons a mask to become an avenger known as the Black Eagle.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Clarence Brown Films
  • Historical Drama
  • Mistaken or Hidden Identities
  • Revenge
  • Royalty and Nobility
  • Rudolph Valentino Films
  • Silent Films

Review:
Loosely based on an unfinished novel by Alexander Pushkin, this historical romantic adventure (directed by Clarence Brown) was one of Rudolph Valentino’s final films before his death at the age of 31. It’s the type of material that seems perfectly suited for Valentino’s cinematic “rival”, Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. — indeed, Valentino’s donning of a mask to become a Robin Hood-like avenger hearkens back immediately to Fairbanks’ work in The Mark of Zorro and its sequel. Unfortunately, The Eagle‘s storyline doesn’t offer much that’s new or particularly noteworthy; the most astonishing scene occurs early on, as the Czarina Catherine (Dresser) bids Valentino’s Lt. Dubrovsky to kneel and kiss her hand, then seems to want him to stay down in that location for much longer than he’s comfortable with… One wishes the rest of the narrative focused on Catherine’s May-December lustiness for young Valentino; instead, we’re given a fairly standard tale of vengeance and concealed identities, with obligatory romantic tensions thrown in for good measure. (Hungarian-born Banky is as beautiful as ever, though her erotic appeal is exploited much more effectively in her follow-up film with Valentino — Son of the Sheik).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Solid direction by Clarence Brown

  • William Cameron Menzies’ sets

Must See?
No, unless you happen to be a Valentino fan.

Links:

Calling Dr. Death (1943)

Calling Dr. Death (1943)

Comments 1 comment

“I have no alibi — don’t even know where I was.”

Synopsis:
When his faithless wife (Ramsay Ames) is found murdered, a neurologist (Lon Chaney, Jr.) who is perhaps overly fond of his beautiful nurse (Patricia Morison) becomes the prime suspect. Soon Ames’s lover (David Bruce) is accused instead, but the investigating detective on the case (J. Carrol Naish) refuses to leave Chaney alone.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Amnesia
  • Detectives and Private Eyes
  • Falsely Accused
  • Lon Chaney, Jr. Films
  • Murder Mystery

Review:
The first of Universal Studios’ “Inner Sanctum” films (inspired by the popular radio series of the same name), this surprisingly dull murder mystery stars Lon Chaney, Jr. as an unhappily married doctor who suffers from an inconvenient bout of amnesia during just the weekend his philandering wife is killed. Despite some creative visual touches (thanks primarily to effective use of double exposure), the storyline plods along creakily, without generating much interest; it ultimately feels much longer than its 63 minutes. A snappy performance by J. Carroll Naish as the omnipresent detective on the case simply highlights how tepid all the other actors are: Chaney is his usually plodding, tortured self, and while Morison is lovely to look at, her performance never rises above adequate (though her talents are head-and-shoulders above those of Ames, who is mercifully only on screen for a couple of short scenes before her death).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • J. Carrol Naish as Inspector Gregg
  • Creative visual touches

  • The inspired final flashback scene

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for Inner Sanctum fans.

Links: