Dr. Ehrlich’s Magic Bullet (1940)

Dr. Ehrlich’s Magic Bullet (1940)

Comments 1 comment

“It is the task of science to discover the truth. There is no shame attached to the recognition of error.”

Synopsis:
With the support of his loyal wife (Ruth Gordon) and colleague (Otto Kruger), Dr. Paul Ehrlich (Edward G. Robinson) leaves his clinical career behind to pursue scientific research on potential diagnosis and cure of bacterial diseases — including syphilis.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Biopics
  • Doctors and Nurses
  • Donald Crisp Films
  • Edward G. Robinson Films
  • Inventors
  • Louis Calhern Films
  • Ruth Gordon Films
  • William Dieterle Films

Review:
Of all his many celebrated roles, Edward G. Robinson was purportedly most proud of his work in this Warner Brothers biopic about the Nobel Prize-winning German physician and scientist Paul Ehrlich: “It was, I think, one of the most distinguished performances I’ve ever given,” he stated. It’s easy to understand why Robinson so enjoyed getting to portray this justly famous man; as summarized by the review site And You Call Yourself a Scientist!:

Ehrlich pioneered the discovery of specific bacteriological stains to facilitate diagnosis; was involved in the development of a treatment for diphtheria; elucidated the toxin/antitoxin relationship, which allowed the standardisation of serum-based treatments; refined and improved the treatment for sleeping sickness; discovered a cure for syphilis; proved the existence of the blood-brain barrier; originated the concepts of “autoimmunity” and “chemotherapy” and conducted groundbreaking research in these new fields; and won the Nobel Prize.

Wow. He did all this, and apparently fought many uphill battles to do so. Of course, any dramatization of a person’s life will necessarily be that — a strategically crafted dramatization — but it seems there’s enough of the “truth” incorporated here that one can watch with reasonable assurance that we’re learning about a critically important figure in medical history.

Robinson’s performance is indeed top-notch; he ages 35 years throughout the film, and does so seamlessly (kudos to the make-up department as well).

Ruth Gordon, sadly, is given much less to do in her gratuitous role as the “supportive wife behind the scenes”, who gets to make statements like: “There must be something we can do. There must be!” Cinematographer James Wong Howe films the entire affair with atmosphere, and the screenplay — co-written by John Huston — effectively humanizes the illnesses Ehrlich and his colleagues worked so diligently to cure. It’s refreshing to see (uncredited) Wilfred Hari as Ehrlich’s research partner, Nobel Prize-nominated bacteriologist Dr. Sahachiro Hata, though he’s given an unfortunate line about how Dr. Ehrlich is the one doing “all the thinking” (!).

So it goes when one attempts to immortalize a single man.

Trivia: According to TCM’s review, director William Dieterle’s “talent let him get away with some bizarre habits, such as never starting a film unless his astrologer cleared it, and always wearing white gloves on the set.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Edward G. Robinson as Dr. Ehrlich
  • Several suspenseful sequences of medical breakthroughs
  • James Wong Howe’s cinematography

Must See?
Yes, once, simply for Robinson’s performance.

Categories

  • Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

High Sierra (1941)

High Sierra (1941)

Comments 1 comment

“Of all the 14-karat saps! Starting out on a caper with a woman and a dog.”

Synopsis:
Ex-con “Mad Dog” Roy Earle (Humphrey Bogart) — sprung from prison by an ailing friend (Donald MacBride) — connects with a pair of hoodlums (Arthur Kennedy and Alan Curtis) and their luckless moll (Ida Lupino), who are collaborating with a hotel clerk (Cornel Wilde) to stage a heist. Along the way, he meets and befriends an impoverished man (Henry Travers) who is traveling to California with his wife (Elisabeth Risdon) and beautiful granddaughter (Joan Leslie). Lupino falls for Bogart while Bogart falls for Leslie, hoping to woo her through paying for an operation to fix her club-foot. Meanwhile, the heist goes awry and “Mad Dog” is on the lam once again with Lupino and a bad-luck mutt known as “Pard”.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Arthur Kennedy Films
  • Ex-Cons
  • Gangsters
  • Heists
  • Humphrey Bogart Films
  • Ida Lupino Films
  • Joan Leslie
  • Love Triangle
  • Raoul Walsh Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Raoul Walsh directed and John Huston co-scripted this “gangster classic” — based on a novel by co-screenwriter W.R. Burnett — which allowed Humphrey Bogart to become “a full-fledged leading man”. Peary writes that “Walsh really takes a classic western story and transposes it to the gangster genre”, noting that Walsh later refined the story in his gangster flick White Heat (1949) and remade it as an actual western, Colorado Territory, in 1949. Peary argues (and I agree) that the subplot about Bogart’s friendship with Travers, Risdon, and Leslie — despite allowing “Earle to display his good heart and Bogart to reveal a side of himself that hadn’t been seen yet on film” — “weakens the otherwise tough drama”. Though Bogart’s desire to turn over a new leaf and marry a fresh and “innocent” new girl makes sense on some level, it’s incomprehensible that he believes he can hide, sugarcoat, or excuse his past — especially given how notorious he is across the nation. Meanwhile, why would Leslie happily allow Bogart to take her hand romantically (during a key scene) if she has no interest at all in him “that way”?

Other concerning elements of the film include William Best’s caricatured role as a rolling-eyed African-American “assistant” and Henry Hull’s cartoonish “Doc” Banton, whose wig and make-up are distractingly inauthentic.

With that said, there is still much to recommend in this film, which is generally acknowledged as an early example of “gangster noir” (the cinematography by Tony Gaudio is wonderfully atmospheric). According to DVD Savant, it’s notable as the film that “officially marked an end to the five-year ban on sympathetic gangster characters”. Walsh makes excellent use of on-location shooting in Lone Pines, California, and Lupino gives a nuanced and highly empathetic performance as a down-on-her-luck gal desperately in love with clueless Bogart. It’s certainly worth viewing by all film fanatics — and more engaging than its decent but unexceptional western remake.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Ida Lupino as Marie
  • Humphrey Bogart as “Mad Dog” Earle
  • Tony Gaudio’s cinematography


  • Effective live-locale filming in the San Bernadino mountains

Must See?
Yes, as a dated but historically impactful gangster flick.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

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

Links:

Hitch-Hiker, The (1953)

Hitch-Hiker, The (1953)

Comments 1 comment

“You guys are going to die, that’s all — it’s just a question of when.”

Synopsis:
Two pals (Edmond O’Brien and Frank Lovejoy) on a fishing vacation in Mexico make the mistake of picking up a homicidal hitch-hiker (William Talman).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Edmond O’Brien Films
  • Hostages
  • Ida Lupino Films
  • Road Trip
  • Serial Killers

Review:
Helmed by one of the few female directors of her era (Ida Lupino), this no-holds-barred thriller begins on a tense note and maintains a high level of suspense throughout its 71-minute running time. After watching cleverly shot and edited opening sequences of a faceless hitch-hiker murdering two sets of victims (Talman gives an eerily effective performance as “Emmett Myers”, based on real-life Billy Cook), we’re introduced to O’Brien and Lovejoy, who casually pick up Talman without a second thought. Talman is hidden in shadows in the back seat until we’re finally given a glimpse of his face — which would be somewhat menacing under any circumstances, but is especially so given his paralyzed right eye.

Because Talman is indubitably a cold-blooded psychopath with no scruples whatsoever, we’re kept in as much terror and suspense as the two luckless fishing buddies. O’Brien and Lovejoy’s performances are spot-on as well: we can see the wheels turning in their heads as they debate on a moment-to-moment basis what risks they can take (or not) in their perilous situation, as their masculinity and sense of agency are repeatedly debased.

The screenplay — co-written by Lupino and her producer-husband Collier Young, and based on a story by blacklisted author Daniel Mainwaring, who wrote Out of the Past (1948) — is peppered with multiple tension-filled moments for possible violence, as well as various refreshing encounters with respectfully-presented Mexican citizens.

Nick Musuraca’s atmospheric cinematography is a definite highlight as well.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Strong performances by all leads


  • Nick Musuraca’s cinematography
  • A consistently tense, finely directed script:

    “My folks were tough. When I was born, they took one look at this puss of mine and told me to get lost.”

Must See?
Yes, as a nifty little thriller. Be sure to catch this one!

Categories

  • Genuine Classic

Links:

Light That Failed, The (1939)

Light That Failed, The (1939)

Comments 2 comments

“Painting is seeing, then remembering better than you saw.”

Synopsis:
A British painter and former Sudanese-war correspondent (Ronald Colman) pines after his childhood sweetheart (Muriel Angelus), who prefers to pursue her own painting career. Meanwhile, Colman’s eyesight — damaged during an attack while protecting a fellow soldier (Walter Huston) — begins to fail him, and he is determined to finish a key painting of a Cockney model (Ida Lupino) before he’s completely blind; but will Lupino’s anger at Colman for squelching her relationship with Huston get in the way of Colman’s final artistic accomplishment?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Artists
  • Blindness
  • Historical Drama
  • Ida Lupino Films
  • Revenge
  • Ronald Colman Films
  • Walter Huston Films
  • William Wellman Films

Review:
There are quite a few “classic” (i.e., older) films that may remain beloved by a few, but by and large have passed their prime. Such is the case with this adaptation of Rudyard Kipling’s pro-British, pro-Colonialist, classist novel, which will likely only appeal to fans of Kipling’s era-specific work. There simply isn’t much here to hold our interest, other than Lupino’s feisty portrayal as a woman of few means — a “dissolute little scarecrow, a gutter-snippet and nothing more” — who sees an opportunity for betterment and latches onto it (though she’s essentially villainized for this attempt). It doesn’t help matters that Colman’s portrait of her — upon which the entire storyline hinges — seems like far from masterpiece material:

which I suppose is a problem for any film centering on a pivotal piece of art (viz. The Picture of Dorian Gray — though that movie, despite its own flaws, is infinitely more nuanced and interesting).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Ida Lupino as Bessie Broke

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

Links:

Thunderbolt (1929)

Thunderbolt (1929)

Comments 0 Comment

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

“There’s a dame behind every guy in this joint.”

Synopsis:
A wanted gangster named “Thunderbolt” (George Bancroft) refuses to let go of his long-time moll (Fay Wray), even though she’s in love with a hard-working banker (Richard Arlen) who wants to marry her. Bancroft eventually gets sent to jail, and is soon joined by Arlen, who has been framed for murder — but will Bancroft confess to playing a part in Arlen’s unjust imprisonment before he’s put to death?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Fay Wray Films
  • Framed
  • Gangsters
  • George Bancroft Films
  • Josef von Sternberg Films
  • Obsessive Love
  • Prisoners

Review:
Made between The Docks of New York (1928) and The Blue Angel (1930), this Josef von Sternberg flick — starring Oscar-nominated George Bancroft — isn’t listed in Peary’s GFTFF, but is mentioned in his Alternate Oscars, which is why I’m quickly reviewing it here. Unfortunately, it deserves its status as a “Missing Title”: there’s little here to keep one’s attention or interest, other than occasional evidence of von Sternberg’s visual talent. As noted in Time Out’s review, the director’s “first talkie suffers from painfully slow pacing, poor performances, and gobbets of excruciating sentimentality.”

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fine cinematography

Must See?
No; skip this one unless you’re a diehard von Sternberg completist.

Links:

Sea Wolf, The (1941)

Sea Wolf, The (1941)

Comments 3 comments

“I’m obeying the law, Mr. Van Weyden — the law of the sea!”

Synopsis:
When a writer (Alexander Knox) and two fugitives (Ida Lupino and John Garfield) find themselves aboard a ship run by a tyrannical captain (Edward G. Robinson), they hatch a plan for escape.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • At Sea
  • Barry Fitzgerald Films
  • Edward G. Robinson Films
  • Fugitives
  • Ida Lupino Films
  • John Garfield Films
  • Michael Curtiz Films
  • Mutiny
  • Ruthless Leaders

Review:
Michael Curtiz’s adaptation of Jack London’s 1906 novel (his follow-up to Call of the Wild) remains an atmospheric if at times overly literary tale of sociopathic power run amok. After a brief introduction to some key characters on land, the majority of the film takes place on board “The Ghost”, a hulking ship most sailors know well enough to stay away from, given that its captain, ‘Wolf’ Larsen (Robinson), rules with an iron fist, using both physical and verbal intimidation.

He hits, kicks, and slaps at will, but also uses his shipmates’ weaknesses against them psychologically: he appears to be supportive, then sucker-punches them either literally or metaphorically, as occurs with both a tippling chef named Cooky (Barry Fitzgerald in particularly vile form):

and alcoholic Dr. Prescott (Gene Lockhart).

Even the protagonist — soft-spoken but resolute writer Humphrey Van Weyden (Knox) — gets caught in Wolf’s snare.

Less susceptible are a pair of perennially-suspicious fugitives (Garfield and Lupino) who will clearly do anything to escape and remain independent; they’re not swayed by Wolf’s snake-like charisma.

Ironically, the split focus between the four central characters, while likely faithful to the source material, diffuses the film’s impact somewhat. We know who to hiss at, but we’re torn between paying attention to Knox (appropriately subdued in his role) or Garfield (whose character is somewhat undeveloped). Meanwhile, Lupino’s character — the only female — is so intriguing we wish we could learn more about her. Regardless, The Sea Wolf remains a strongly directed drama featuring fine performances, and is well worth a one-time look by film fanatics.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fine performances from the entire cast



  • Atmospheric cinematography

Must See?
No, but it’s certainly recommended. Listed as a Personal Recommendation in the back of Peary’s book.

Links:

Star is Born, A (1937)

Star is Born, A (1937)

Comments 1 comment

“The tense is wrong. You’re not slipping: you’ve slipped.”

Synopsis:
An aspiring actress (Janet Gaynor) falls in love with a famous but alcoholic actor (Fredric March), and soon their fates begin to shift.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Adolph Menjou Films
  • Alcoholism and Drug Addiction
  • Aspiring Stars
  • Fredric March Films
  • Hollywood
  • Janet Gaynor Films
  • Rise-and-Fall
  • Romance
  • Star-Crossed Lovers
  • William Wellman Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary writes that this “William Wellman classic” — an earlier version of George Cukor’s celebrated 1954 musical starring James Mason and Judy Garland — is a “rare case” when the original “stands up to the remake”. It’s been well-noted that both versions ironically feature a reversal of stances, with Gaynor and Garland actually near the end of their real-life careers, and March and Mason near the peak of theirs. To that end, Peary writes that this film “appropriately capped Gaynor’s brief but impressive career”, and that “because Gaynor’s playing her, we can believe the sweetness, selflessness, and inner strength that characterize Esther/Vicki”. He adds that “March is surprisingly and effectively subdued in a role in which other actors (i.e., John Barrymore) might have chewed up the scenery”.

I’m in agreement with Peary’s review. While the remake is undeniably more masterful on every level — with Mason and Garland giving Oscar-worthy, gut-wrenching performances — this earlier version is enjoyable, well-acted, and affecting. In his Alternate Oscars, Peary writes that while “we are told Janet Gaynor’s Esther-Vicki has talent in the 1937 film, Garland proves her star talent” — and yes, it’s less obvious that Gaynor’s Esther/Vicki “deserves” the fame she wins through her lucky break. But this is essentially a melodramatic fable, so the reversal of fortunes experienced by March and Gaynor comes across as almost archetypal in its swiftness and simplicity. The star-crossed lovers’ romance feels both genuine and doomed.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Fredric March as Norman Maine
  • Janet Gaynor as Esther Blodgett/Vicki Lester (nominated as one of the Best Actresses of the Year in Alternate Oscars)
  • Fine Technicolor cinematography

Must See?
Yes, as a classic melodrama, and for its status as an Oscar winner (for original story, with script written in part by Dorothy Parker). Nominated as one of the Best Pictures of the Year by Peary in his Alternate Oscars.

Categories

  • Genuine Classic
  • Oscar Winner or Nominee

Links:

Stranger on the Third Floor (1940)

Stranger on the Third Floor (1940)

Comments 1 comment

“I’m not guilty — the stranger killed him!”

Synopsis:
When a reporter (John McGuire) testifies against a man (Elisha Cook, Jr.) seen leaving a diner after its owner (Charles Judels) is killed, McGuire’s girlfriend (Margaret Tallichet) is distressed that his testimony may be responsible for sending an innocent man to jail. Soon McGuire realizes a mysterious scarf-wearing man (Peter Lorre) likely killed both the diner owner and McGuire’s annoying neighbor (Charles Halton) — but as someone present at both crime scenes, will the murders be tagged on McGuire instead?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Elisha Cook, Jr. Films
  • Falsely Accused
  • Journalists
  • Living Nightmare
  • Morality Polics
  • Peter Lorre Films

Review:
This obscure B-level horror-drama by unknown Latvian director Boris Ingster presents a Kafka-esque living nightmare of sexual repression, moral condemnation, shadowy strangers, and rampant corruption, running in some truly surreal directions while building a storyline predicated on noir-esque voiceovers and explanatory flashbacks-within-flashbacks. McGuire is an “everyman” who simply wants to marry his girl, but needs money to get out of his claustrophic boarding house, where his shrewish landlady (Ethel Griffies) and self-righteous neighbor (Charles Halton) won’t give him a break — even the sound of his typing annoys them. His conscience is at first fine with the fact that his testimony against a cabbie (Cook, Jr.) is pivotal in a laughably inept court case while also conveniently providing enough sensational news to afford him financial freedom as a reporter; but his girlfriend has a very different take on the situation, and soon he’s plagued with guilt and insecurity. Lorre’s rat-like character (check out those teeth) lurks in the corners, and — naturally — turns out to play a pivotal role in the proceedings, though not without plenty of suspense in the meantime. (Does McGuire’s righteous anger at his neighbors represent thinly-veiled hostility that may be “outing” itself unconsciously?) The film’s memorable highlight is McGuire’s Expressionist nightmare, with all elements of his recent existence showing up in stylized fashion to literally haunt his dreams and spur him to “do the right thing”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Nick Musuraca’s cinematography

  • Creative direction

  • The truly surreal Expressionist dream sequence

Must See?
Yes, for its visual ingenuity and narrative creativity. Listed as a Sleeper in the back of Peary’s book.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant

Links:

Dead End (1937)

Dead End (1937)

Comments 1 comment

“Never go back; always go forward!”

Synopsis:
In the New York tenements, a woman (Sylvia Sidney) secretly in love with her childhood friend (Joel McCrea) — who in turn pines for the beautiful mistress (Wendy Barrie) of a rich man — tries to protect her brother Tommy (Billy Halop) from being arrested after he injures the father (Minor Watson) of a snobby rich kid (Charles Peck). But the arrival of on-the-lam gangster Baby Face Martin (Humphrey Bogart) — in town to visit his mother (Marjorie Main) and former-girlfriend-turned-prostitute (Claire Trevor) — causes Halop and his friends Dippy (Huntz Hall), Angel (Bobby Jordan), Spit (Leo Gorcey), T.B. (Gabriel Dell), and Milty (Bernard Punsly) to view a life of crime as a lucrative ticket out of poverty.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Claire Trevor
  • Class Relations
  • Fugitives
  • Humphrey Bogart Films
  • Joel McCrea Films
  • Juvenile Delinquents
  • Play Adaptations
  • Sylvia Sidney Films
  • William Wyler Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary points out that this “successful adaptation of Sidney Kingsley’s play” — featuring a “tough script by Lillian Hellman and strong yet sympathetic direction by William Wyler” — led “to a wave of juvenile-delinquent dramas”; indeed, it’s perhaps best known for kicking off a series of films featuring “The Dead End Kids”.

Because producer “Sam Goldwyn wouldn’t let Wyler film on location”, we “don’t get a sense of the grit, grime, claustrophobia, and heat of the slums” — but Peary argues that “the clean studio sets with their painted backdrops act much like a Brechtian alienation device that forces us to realize that this story isn’t self-contained but rather is representative of many tragic real-life stories of the urban poor”.

These days, Dead End comes across as an undeniably stage-bound but still compelling drama featuring fine cinematography and potent direction: each scene is expertly crafted, with dramatic black-and-white shadows metaphorically highlighting the abject distance between the river-bound slum and the wealthy tenants who literally look down on its residents. Bogart is well-cast in a role he first inhabited on Broadway:

and Sidney is appropriately doe-eyed yet stoic:

But the best performance is by Oscar-nominated Claire Trevor, who only appears onscreen for about five minutes yet packs a quietly devastating wallop.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • William Wyler’s direction

  • Gregg Toland’s cinematography


  • Claire Trevor as Francie

Must See?
Yes, as a strong outing by a master filmmaker and for its historical relevance in introducing the “Dead End Kids” to the silver screen.

Categories

  • Historically Relevant
  • Important Director

Links:

Silent Night, Bloody Night (1972)

Silent Night, Bloody Night (1972)

Comments 1 comment

“Someone keeps calling — with a message for my father.”

Synopsis:
A woman (Mary Woronov) whose father (Walter Abel) is mayor of a small town reflects on the gruesome history of a house inherited by a man (James Patterson) who sends his lawyer (Patrick O’Neal) and O’Neal’s wife (Astrid Heeren) to try to sell it, with bloody results.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

  • Horror
  • Murder Mystery
  • Old Dark House
  • Patrick O’Neal Films

Review:
This wintertime slasher flick — once a drive-in film, then a staple of late-night-TV — is primarily known for featuring a cast of Andy Warhol’s “superstars” (including Mary Woronov, Ondine, and Candy Darling):

and for offering a gory alternative to the sanitized cheer of holiday films like White Christmas (1954). The storyline is somewhat convoluted, but that’s beside the point: what’s really on display here is plenty of atmospheric mystery and suspense in the midst of bloody murders, all as snow falls gently outside in a small east coast town with a heavy history (it was filmed in Oyster Bay, Long Island).

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

  • Some effective imagery

Must See?
No; this one is only must-see for its cult followers.

Links: