1930s_Time_Machine Reviews

Good-Time Girl (1948)

As if we didn't have enough to be miserable about!

[7/10 · 8 May 2024]

England was in a terrible state in the late forties: the cost of the war had bankrupted the country, industry and employment was decimated and crime rates were through the roof. Not too different to America in the early thirties. So, to cheer us up - to give us some escapist entertainment Rank Films gave us this misery fest!

It's no GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933! Optimistic is not an adjective anyone would use to describe this but nevertheless it will keep you glued to the screen. It's not escapist fun, it's not sexy but it is beautifully made.

You'll be cringing as Gwen, 'the good time girl' played brilliantly by Jean Kent, makes stupid decision after stupid decision plunging her life spiralling down the toilet. Virtually every man she pairs up with is worst than the last one - indeed it doesn't paint a pleasant picture of men at all. What it does do is paint a picture of a land where the victory jubilation has given way to an utterly grim and cold reality.

If you've watched lots of pre-code Hollywood movies you'll be familiar with such plots but because it feels much more realistic than a lot of what Hollywood made during those lean years of the thirties, it feels more personal. You can really empathise with poor Gwen and think; there but by the grace of God go I.

Personally I think this would benefit from not having what feels like a morality lecture bolted on to the beginning and the end but the main body of this film is incredibly compelling. Unless you've just watched BICYCLE THIEVES, which manages to be even more relentlessly grim, you're not going to feel especially happy after watching this but it's very satisfying. It's a superbly well made film.

The Sea Wolf (1941)

I think I need a drink after that!

[9/10 · 7 May 2024]

What an experience! Michael Curtiz, the master of the action movie, the master of romance shows that he's also the master of drama with this magnificent and magnetic film which makes you think without you realising that you actually are.

You'll not hear the Amazon man knocking once you've started watching this. Margot Robbie could be banging on your door desperate for a night on the town with you but you'll ignore her advances until the final credits roll - nothing will drag you away from this fabulous picture. Right from the start you're hooked because you know you're watching something special.

It's a real dramatic drama but since it's made by Michael Curtiz and is a Warner Brothers picture you know not to expect it to be too high-brow or intellectually taxing. Expect in-depth and complex characters, emotions running at a hundred and ten percent, one of those scripts which make you feel like applauding for the beautiful and clever use of the English language, an exploration of what it is to be human and the meaning of society ...and as it's a Michael Curtiz picture, pirates (well, sort of)

I quite like Edward G Robinson but I've never really been a fan of his - in this however he's fantastic. He overacts like crazy but that's exactly what his character is like. He makes Captain Bligh seem as chilled out as The Fonz! Watching him is what I imagine it must be like jumping out of an airplane with a parachute for the first time. And as for John Garfield, I don't think I've ever seen him not overacting, even if he was ordering a Big Mac I'm sure he'd do it with such passion and intensity that at least half the people serving would have a breakdown. But again, his violent, reactionary temperament (similar to that in OUT OF THE FOG...although there's more fog, both real and metaphorical in this) fits in perfectly with the crew of The Ghost. In this film however, on this crazy other-worldly ship everyone overacting is the natural state of being. It sounds contradictory but all those intense emotions and passions, all that sheer hatred and unconditional love seems completely and utterly normal. Not everything Michael Curtiz did was brilliant, a lot was pretty poor but this shows his true genius in making this nightmare world, hidden in layer upon layer of fog so real. At times it reminded me of BETWEEN TWO WORLDS/OUTWARD BOUND inasmuch that that crew that captain, the way people just accepted their fate I thought to myself: I know what this is about - it's one of those films where you find out that they're all dead. This was much cleverer - death would be too simple for these people.

You probably know that Curtiz, Robinson, the film's writer Robert Rossen and not forgetting Jack Warner himself were all passionately anti-Nazi so the story was adapted to reflect the perniciousness of the Fascists overrunning Europe. That's as maybe but far more earth shattering is the fact that the song sung in that rough dockside bar at the beginning was 'Hello My Baby' - the song which that frog sung in the best Warner Brothers cartoon ever: ONE FROGGY EVENING!

The Devil's in Love (1933)

If you enjoy pre-code dramas, you'll love this.

[7/10 · 6 May 2024]

The first five minutes might make you think that this will not be your cup of tea - a Foreign Legion story, no thanks but stick with it. It's a proper in-your-face, full blown melodramatic storytelling from a master filmmaker, master storyteller.

Besides the genuinely engrossing story (yes, even ninety years later it'll keep you glued) what's thoroughly outstanding is the fabulous photography. William Dierterle's German expressionist heritage - which he'd exhibit amazingly a few years later his HUNCHBACK OF NOTE DAME is thoroughly evident here. The lighting, the shadows, the use of light and dark to express the mood is beautifully employed in this exceptionally well made picture.

It's just shame that like a lot of films from Fox Film, it hasn't been that well preserved. This means that a lot of the subtlety of the photography which is virtually a character in itself is sometimes lost. It also means that you can't fully appreciate the utter gorgeousness of Loretta Young as well as you should. She was surely the prettiest actress in the world! Her part however isn't that demanding and is only secondary to Victor Jory who is exceptional in this. Yes, Victor Jory is the romantic lead.

The more early thirties pictures I see, the more I keep finding him - especially at Fox Films where he was one of their leading men. After Fox went belly up, his star status slipped and he became a supporting actor on countless movies and to my amazement I have only recently realised that he was Wilkerson in GONE WITH THE WIND.

In this he's the principled and stoic if somewhat sanctimonious hero but shows real depth of character - people like this did exist... or at least after watching his superb authentic performance you'll really believe they did. A shame that as Hollywood grew, there wasn't room for him at the top but you see so many 'big names' from the pre-code days with minor bit parts just a few years later. Fame was very transitory back then.

A Tale of Two Cities (1935)

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

[9/10 · 5 May 2024]

This is the best and most entertaining version of one of the best and most entertaining novels ever written. Those who think a 1935 film will be old fashioned and creaky will be surprised by this. It's not just for old movie fans.

For some nebulous reason I love films from the 1930s but that's not why I love this - I don't really consider this just a 1930s film. Those early pictures have their own style: a kind of naivety, a sense of experimentation in terms of working out what the acting should be and what levels of emotion should be employed. There's nothing about this one which feels it could be improved on.

Most 1930s historical movies whether they're about QUEEN CHRISTINA or QUEEN VICTORIA all feel like you're watching something from the 1930s with people who look like, talk like and think like they're from that decade. It's the same with films from every decade - 1970s films are probably the 'worst' offenders for this! This however feels timeless - you don't feel like you're watching a product made with 1930s people- it feels like Dickens should feel. Wearing its heart on its sleeve, its explicitly emotional style which was common back then gives just the right tone for this story.

Some might say that this is too melodramatic but to say that is to ignore that Dickens himself was the king of melodrama. All his characters were larger than life - that's what his Victorian readers loved and it's what makes his stories so engaging all these years later. So Basil Rathbone is unbelievably evil, Mdm Defarge becomes a crazed inhuman monster, the doctor and his daughter are almost nauseatingly sweet but Dickens used such black and white characters to contrast with the real in-depth personality and nuances of his protagonist: the alcoholic, self-loathing lawyer who believes his life and indeed any life has meaning.

Ronald Colman isn't just perfect as Sidney Carton, he IS Sidney Carton. As we see his true personality break through we're there with him, feeling his every heartbeat. Selznick's big budget production along with Conway's dynamic direction make this not an art film or an intellectual exercise but simply great story.

The Rules of the Game (1939)

Dance on a Volcano

[6/10 · 3 May 2024]

It's not instantly engaging, the characters aren't that easy to like but somehow you get drawn into their lifeless and facile somnolence. It's thoroughly entertaining, it makes you think but it's not that enjoyable.

Renoir paints a pretty depressing picture of the society he was both an integral part of and also the outsider looking in on. It's hardly a loving reflection of the country's upper echelons but as we slowly get to know them (a bit too slowly in my opinion) we realise that they're all decent people, well meaning and very normal people - it's just that their own personal realities are different.

If you're expecting a comedy or 1930s style silliness you will be horribly disappointed. A screwball comedy, this ain't! There are some elements of slapstick and farce but the overriding sense of impending tragedy masks any humour. Nevertheless the upbeat mood is ever present and even in its most miserable moments such as the killing of the rabbits, you know that for every dark moment there will be some lightness on its way. Is it optimistic and uplifting? No, definitely not but neither is it depressing - it's just good drama, cleverly written, well acted and gorgeous to look at.

Director and writer Jean Renoir might not have been the world's greatest actor but he holds all this together. Not only does he link the dissolute upstairs and downstairs stories, his quirky and cheerful presence brings this to life. Without him, this would just be a well made but very dull and worthy film - like the world's most overrated film known as CITIZEN KANE.

You Can't Take It with You (1938)

For a Capra film, this is rubbish

[5/10 · 1 May 2024]

Speaking blasphemy like that, I'm now living in fear of being struck down by a thunderbolt. The Capra-Riskin partnership was responsible for some of Hollywood's greatest pictures ever....oh, and this.

Maybe it's because we expect so much from Capra and Riskin that this feels so sadly disappointing. All their usual tropes are in abundance - but in too much abundance - it's like they're pumped up on steroids. Most of characters are absurd stereotypical cartoon caricatures - so unlike real people you can't develop any empathy with them. The rich folk are just so ridiculously pompous, greedy and nasty and 'the little guys' are virtually saints living - somehow without needing money - in utopian bliss.

It's based on Kaufman's stage play which live was probably really great fun to see but as a film, where you've got time to take in the story, it's just stupid: annoyingly stupid.

If this was half the length and had half the characters it might have been really good. The scenes with Barrymore and Arnold are superb - they're exactly what you'd expect in a Capra film. The scenes with Stewart and Jean Arthur are fun and romantic but the film is ruined by being infested by countless utterly annoying stupid characters. It won't take you more than one minute to want to throw something at Essie, Jean Arthur's teenage sister who is constantly - and I mean literally constantly ballet dancing instead of walking. And as for her husband who plays the xylophone at every opportunity, he just makes you angry.

The bunch of misfits who live in Barrymore's house are meant to be quirky and idealistic. They're meant to show that you don't need to conform to what society expects, that you don't need to be a wage slave, that you don't need a job or money to be happy. Maybe to the unemployed masses of Depression stuck America in 1938 this stuck a chord but to us today they seem loathsome. If they'd shown this film at Woodstock in '69, I'm sure even the hippiest of hippies would have been shouting that this bunch of wasters would benefit from a spell in the army!

For a Cara film this is awful it, it sometimes feels like a parody of itself but being a Capra film and starring the great Lionel Barrymore being brilliant, it's still entertaining and worth seeing....once anyway.

Dishonour Bright (1936)

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels without any humour

[3/10 · 29 April 2024]

This is a pretty embarrassing failure. An attempt to make a Hollywood style romantic comedy in England. Tom Walls made this picture himself starring himself as a man totally irresistible to women - hmm?

Half way through I had to google this to confirm that it was indeed meant to be a comedy - you'd never guess. I'm a big fan of 1930s English comedies but this one is awful.

They hired space at Korda's studio to make this so it does actually look really good and professional but that's about all you can say about this which is positive. Tom Wall was a very funny character actor who had been in some very funny, very silly farces. He was marvellous in those but as a 'serious' actor albeit in an alleged comedy, he was as atrocious as he was a director.

He also looks about a hundred years old and yet he's meant to be God's gift to women. The word delusional springs to mind. Betty Stockfeld and Diana Churchill who are besotted with his dazzling good looks are just as unbelievable. Cecil Parker does his typical one dimensional upper crust caricature and Eugene Pallette, straight after filming MY MAN GODFREY clearly must have been kidnapped and forced to do this. His presence doesn't enhance it (especially with Tom Wall's flaccid direction) but makes you think how much better this would have been had it been made by a Hollywood studio or even here by Gaumont-British or Korda.

Some old films deserve to be lost films.

The Man Who Changed His Name (1934)

It's so bad, it's good...almost

[2/10 · 29 April 2024]

It's pictures like this which give English films from the early thirties such a bad reputation. Saying that however it's not without some charm - it gives you a similar feeling of excitement to seeing your little one in the school play and relief that she managed to get through it without forgetting her lines. I did watch it all the way through though so it can't have been that bad.

Julius Hagen's Twickenham Studios did create a handful of excellent pictures (particularly those made by Bernard Vorhaus) but the main purpose of his studio was to make the quota quickies, screen fillers to satisfy the legal legislation to ensure that a certain proportion of films shown in the UK were made in the UK. Quality wasn't important, speed and cheapness were. They would often see how much film they had and work out how many scenes they could take with that length and make a movie sometimes in a day.

This one however does have quite a clever story but Henry Edwards is certainly no Alfred Hitchcock and his actors are certainly not actors. Not fair because they were working under absurd conditions and the titular Man Who Changed His Name himself was the headmaster in GOODBYE MR CHIPS so he must have been able to act give a proper script/director/budget/salary! Sometimes you start to watch a old film and it's so bad you can't continue. I didn't get that urge with this - there was some sort of residual primal energy or enthusiasm from 1934 still there which kept my attention. Oh my God, I'm starting to sound like I actually enjoyed this aren't I!

Lady in Distress (1940)

I'm being serious - this is fantastic!

[8/10 · 28 April 2024]

You probably don't believe that an obscure English film from 1940 that you've never heard of directed by nobody you've heard of is worth watching. I didn't either until I saw this - what a surprise, it's great!

Let me qualify that 'great.' If you enjoy a good old fashioned gritty, film noir drenched in melodrama without any mushy sentimentality, you'll love this. All the characters are superbly realised with genuine personalities and back stories - they just seem so believable. You can engage with them all and empathise with their tangled and toxic relationships.

Nobody is particularly fun but Michael Redgrave (wearing a flat cap to make him working class!) is constantly cheerful, oblivious to the mayhem he's causing. He's a rather imperfect husband with a pretty wife who becomes infatuated with the wife of a third rate magician. She is played by Sally Gray who is so drop dead gorgeous it's quite understandable. Her husband is Paula Lukas and he's brilliantly over the top as paranoid, insecure utter failure as a magician, husband and man. I'd go as far as saying that this is one of his best roles.

Director Herbert Mason, hardly a well known name, doesn't have any particular style or tricks but succeeds completely in making this totally engrossing. His story was a tried and tested one as this is an English remake of a French film made a year earlier so he had the advantage of knowing the story worked. He really brings his talented cast to life. Lucas and Redgrave are excellent as you'd expect but so is Sally Gray. Whilst she's absolutely stunning, she's also a superb actress.

Although it's very English it has an almost similar feel to those gritty Warner Brothers pre-code movies but with the benefit of a decade's worth of technological advances in filmmaking. Its lack of sugar coating and sentimentality is also refreshing and the likeability of its imperfect characters makes this sublimely entertaining.

Dark Journey (1937)

Tales from Topographic Oceans

[8/10 · 27 April 2024]

A stylish and mature modern feeling espionage film with enough light and shade to keep you glued to the screen. ...and Vivien Leigh is simply stunning.

Like the YES album mentioned above, this picture is exceptionally well made, intelligent and thoroughly entertaining - but lacks a bit of heart. The romance element, which should be the hook of the picture doesn't quite ignite. That's quite understandable really since the protagonists are both cold hearted secret agents, not an occupation where wearing one's heart on one's sleeve is an asset. This unsentimental approach does however make the characters seem both relatable and believable.

Again like Tales from Topographic Oceans, its plot is a little over-complicated but hey, it's a spy film, you're not meant to understand everything! What does make it very confusing is the fact that the English, the Swedish, the French and the Germans all have exactly the same accent. I suppose with so many different nationalities, were everyone to try to do foreign accents it might make it sound a bit silly. Thank God for the Scotsman on one of those boats at the end otherwise you'd have no idea that was a British vessel.

The other odd thing is that although it's set in 1918 everyone is dressed in 1937 style clothes with 1930s attitudes. This was a peculiarly common practice in the 30s - it's weird but doesn't detract from the enjoyment because it's such a superbly produced piece of filmmaking.

Conrad Veidt (who was a genuinely great guy as well as a great actor) is phenomenal and Vivien Leigh (who is unquestionably the most beautiful woman who's ever lived) is mesmeric in this. It's directed by Victor Saville (who jumped ship from his own Gainsborough Pictures to Korda) with his usual flair and perfect pacing. Compared with his previous spy film, I WAS A SPY this is less heavy and more accessible - even though you've no idea who or what most of the cast are meant to be!

And just because I haven't said it for a few seconds - Vivien Leigh - wow!

Car of Dreams (1935)

So that's where they got the ending of GREASE from

[5/10 · 25 April 2024]

This isn't anything particularly special but if you fancy a fairly funny, good-natured and well made typical English mid-thirties rom-com, this is for you. It won't make you laugh but it will make you smile.

Don't worry that the story is completely crazy - nobody else involved does. The absurd silly humour feels typically English and yet this is actually based on an earlier Hungarian film. Perhaps that Englishness is because it was adapted for G-B by Stafford Dickens (no relation) who did a few Will Hay and Jessie Matthews comedies.

You're likely to forget this a couple of hours after watching it but - assuming you like daft old English comedies particularly silly farces and Will Hay as opposed to the slightly more sophisticated (and often un-funny) Ealing comedies - you'll enjoy it while you're watching it.

For what it is, it's absolutely fine and delivers a happy and cheerful mood straight into your head and into your heart. You also get to hear why you don't see John Mills singing in anything else! And one thing which does make this unique it it gives you a rare chance to see the former toast of Berlin's theatre scene (until the Nazis took over), Grete Mosheim in her only English speaking picture.

Angels with Dirty Faces (1938)

Sentimental Rubbish

[3/10 · 25 April 2024]

There are many reasons this overrated film is so unbearably horrible such as: corny story with corny characters (who are the most hackneyed clichéd stereotypes imaginable), the pathetic Dead End Kids who are relentlessly irritating, Pat O'Brien's saintly smugness, Bogart's absurdly unrealistic pantomime villain.....and a real waste of talent.

Admittedly the first ten minutes when we're introduced to Rocky and Jerry as kids is actually pretty good - ok, it's very good: gorgeous atmosphere, beautifully shot - you can almost taste the dust blowing up from those filthy stinking streets. The actors playing the younger versions of Rocky and Jerry are both brilliant - it's a shame they didn't stick around for the rest of the film because when the 'grown-ups' take over it just evolves into the most sickly sweet cliché infused mechanically written drivel you could imagine interspersed with segments from old gangster flicks.

Warner Brothers seemed to be trying to revive their own earlier penchant for gritty gangster films with this and their next offering the following year, THE ROARING TWENTIES but the originality, the sparkle and importantly the nearness in time to the actual events happening there and then had been lost (ROARING TWENTIES was however a fairly good attempt - unlike this!) In the early thirties their pictures had teeth, their message-infused in-your-face melodrama could chew out your heart and spit it into the gutter. Back then they had Daryl Zanuck driving the ship - by 1939 he'd moved on but could still punch us in the stomach with the likes of THE GRAPES OF WRATH. With this however Warners had lost their moral compass and were just trying to make a quick buck.

Besides Pat O'Brien doing one of those awful parodies of a clergyman taken up to level 11 on the sanctimonious scale, the truly worst aspect of this picture is the so-called Dead End Kids. They're simply terrible and seem to take up about 50% of the screen time. If you managed to endure the worst film of 1937 (DEAD END) which 'discovered' them then possibly you might disagree but if you are a normal human being, this bunch of jumped up pretentious yobs will annoy the hell out of you. I know that in reality they really were a rough and tough bunch but they were also stage actors (and not very good ones) so come across as exactly what they are: a bunch of drama school boys pretending to be Brooklyn street kids. Their affected shenanigans feel extremely patronising.

And another thing...did Michael Curtiz know Ann Sheridan was in this picture? Her presence is completely irrelevant. Her relationship with Rocky could have been an interesting one. There's hints that Father Jerry had 'reformed' her and that her growing toxic infatuation with Rocky threatens to reverse all the good the priest had done but that story goes nowhere. There's no spark or connection between her and Cagney whatsoever. Focusing on that could have made this a really interesting drama but Rocky doesn't seem interested in her at all, he seems more interested in hanging out with a bunch of teenage boys. There is however absolutely nothing sordid about that, he is simply a big kid himself so is comfortable to be in the company of similarly immature people.

And finally to Mr Cagney.... In this he's playing Jimmy Cagney the gangster movie star - he's not a real person so you can't care anything for him. This particular character has got no distinctive characteristics at all - he is just doing a turn for his fans doing what they wanted to see. The relationship he has with Father Jerry, his childhood friend is also unbelievable. You'd expect better from Michael Curtiz but compare its execution with the brilliantly realistic relationship we see between Tony and his brother Frank Jr., the priest in SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER and this feels so amateurish and contrived.

Even the famous ending makes you feel nauseous as Father Jerry looks up to heaven and smiles as the sound of angelic choirs are heard. How audiences back in '39 lapped up this sickly vile treacle completely astonished me (and that's by someone who cries at the end of GOODBYE MR CHIPS!!!)

Love Is News (1937)

One of the best

[8/10 · 23 April 2024]

Not knowing this, I approached it with trepidation thinking : Oh no, not another loud un-funny so-called Screwball Comedy. But wow - this is actually brilliant. Guaranteed to make you smile for 80 minutes!

If only all Screwball Comedies were this good I wouldn't have avoided them all my life. I love BRINGING UP BABY and IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT but loathed the plethora of all those formulaic copy cat movies. They're all essentially drivel .... or so I thought until finding this - the third best 1930s Screwball Comedy!

Admittedly I confess that I only watched this for of the pleasure of seeing lovely Loretta Young for an hour and a bit - undoubtedly the most beautiful young woman who's ever lived. I'm so glad I did and not just for opportunity to seeing my bird. It's surprisingly genuinely funny from start to finish. Perfectly directed at a perfect pace (again by the hugely underrated Tay Garnet), it's witty, well acted and professional.

It's hardly an original story, a cynic might call it a complete rip off of IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT but what makes this special is the likeability of its cast. Apparently these comedies legally required a prescribed cast of a ditzy heiress, a mischievous rakish reporter, a newspaper editor on the verge of a nervous breakdown and a gruff but wise old parent. OK, it is a rip-off but Power, Young and Ameche seem to be having such genuine fun together and are just so nice, you can't help but love them all and love this wonderfully sweet, sparkling and silly film.

They Drive by Night (1938)

A stunning psychological film noir

[7/10 · 23 April 2024]

Anyone who likes film noir, murder mysteries, Hitchcock type adventures about a wrongly accused man on the run from the law or just superbly made 1930s films should watch this.

This isn't set in the care-free, art-deco festooned sunny London seen in most 1930s pictures. This is reality, a dirty smelly reality with real people - at times it almost looks like a documentary but it's not one of those miserable dark and dingy films when nothing happens - a lot happens in this: murders, rapes, kidnapping - plus a bit of comedy to make it palatable. In this it just feels like it's happening to real people making it seem real to you.

For starters, the cinematography is amazing. As film noirs go, this has to be one of the most visually impressive. Expressionism is expressing the feelings of the protagonist through what we see on the screen. Every scene with Emlyn Williams' Shorty is in murky disturbing shadows and as his situation gets worse, that darkness increases and contrasts with the bright lights of Molly's optimism. It's a clever and beautifully made film.

It's a magnificently evocative picture. It immerses you into late 1930s working class life and into London, a proper working class city. A city not of top hats and walking canes but of pubs, petty criminals and prostitutes. We learn there were two groups of prostitutes: dance hall girls (taking their work home) and lorry girls who entertain lonely lorry drivers - those who drive by night.

It's not all darkness however, Ernest Thesiger whose character is the opposite of a nice chap is both horrendously creepy but also hilariously funny. His very dark humour makes this film even better.

Only Angels Have Wings (1939)

It's not about planes - it's about people.

[8/10 · 21 April 2024]

Like all of Howard Hawks' best pictures, the story isn't its the most important aspect - it's about the characters. Like all of Howard Hawks' best pictures, this is about how a disparate bunch of people, trapped together cope with adversity.

Hawks' magic was to take a story, usually a macho action story like this (ideally about his first love, aeroplanes) and make it into a brilliantly sensitive study of how we interact with each other. There's no arty-farty pretentious in his films, but they delve as deeply into the nature of humanity as anything featuring a moody Frenchman staring at his cigarette burning for an hour and a half.

Not just because of the aeroplane connection, this has a very similar feel as another classic about friendship, loyalty and duty: TWELVE O'CLOCK HIGH.

This is Howard Hawk's world - you can imagine him strutting through the airfield, cigar in mouth probably kicking chickens out of his path. Its no-nonsense script doesn't telegraph its message, what isn't spoken often says as much as what is said. This is best exemplified by the character Richard Bathelmess, one of Hawks' lading men from the early days who makes such an impression with only a handful of terse lines.

What makes this so intriguing is its peculiar miscasting. Besides bringing back Barthelmess, Cary Grant plays the typical ultra macho Clarke Gable type role - indeed, he's virtually playing Clark Gable's character from RED DUST. Surprisingly his charm works making his character completely genuine. It's often easy to forget that Cary Grant wasn't just Mr Suave - he was a superb actor.

Jean Arthur is the least likely person to play a Jean Harlow type role but she's virtually Vantine from RED DUST. Jean Arthur does not look like or sound like a sleazy showgirl yet you absolutely believe she is. OK, she might not be everyone's favourite actress but she's excellent here.

Back in the 30s and 40s there were things loosely called 'women's films' (usually with Kay Francis looking glum). They were sentimental emotionally charged melodramas providing an emotional outlet for women's feeling. Films for men were tough action stories since of course men didn't have feelings back then! What Hawks did was to surreptitiously show that men too, even the most hard-boiled macho alpha males also had feelings. In this, he doesn't just create perfectly that other reality, a reality which was one he himself felt at home in but immerses you into it.

I Like Your Nerve (1931)

An A.I. program would write garbage like this these days.

[3/10 · 20 April 2024]

A year earlier, 19 year old Fairbanks and 17 year old Young stared together in LOOSE ANKLES. Considering that one was made at the advent of sound, it was still ten times better than this poorly written drivel.

So what's wrong with this? It's about an arrogant over-entitled rich American laughing at foreigners who are of course all ignorant, corrupt with silly accents and rules.....oh and because he knows best, he decides whom their chief minister's daughter should marry - him of course!

Doug Fairbanks (sans moustache but with some unnerving lipstick instead) has to unenviable role of trying to make this obnoxious brat the hero of the picture. So how does he go about this? Mainly by smiling at the camera which unsurprisingly doesn't quite cut the mustard.

Unlike most studios, WB-First National's output in 1931 was actually for the most part, consistently high in terms of production quality. Loretta Young and Doug Fairbanks were both great actors on their books. This is no exception.... except that the story is absolutely pathetic, the script unconvincing and the characters one dimensional. OK it is an exception, it's nowhere near Warner's usual standard for that year. There is however a spark of naïve charm intrinsic in these Warner pre-codes which gives you a sort oh high and that's still evident even in this nonsense.

You'll keep wanting to switch this trash off but just as your finger approaches the off button, onto your screen comes the unbelievably beautiful Loretta Young. It is physically impossible not to gaze, open mouthed in utter amazement at the impossibly pretty Miss Young so you keep watching. Curse you Loretta! This however is hardly a picture Loretta Young fans would cite as an example of her work but nevertheless..... boy, she sure is pretty!

A Night of Terror (1937)

Could have been better

[5/10 · 20 April 2024]

Since it's from the mind of Agatha Christie, it's not quite as straightforward as you first think. In the hands of Alfred Hitchcock however this could have been something really special but as it is, it's just ok.

As soon as Basil Rathbone shows up you know he's a bad'un. This role is perfect for him and he gives a spectacular performance. Ann Harding however is as bland as she usually is but that mousy naive character is necessary for the story to work. It does however make it difficult to sympathise too much with her so it's not as gripping as it should be. I think it would have been better to have given the lead to Binnie Hale who had a lot more oomph but in this she doesn't really have much to do. Surprisingly she's also uncharacteristically quite frumpy which is a shame.

To set the scene, the start is very slow and although the tension really builds up half way through, by then you're losing interest. As I said, this is the type of story which Hitchcock would have got the pacing just right unlike Rowland Lee who's direction feels too inconsistent.

The production is first rate - it's a big budget affair from Max Schach (made at Korda's state of the art studio), the script and performances are believable but the actual story isn't really that engrossing. Maybe it wasn't so clichéd back in 37 but this isn't classic Christie.

Sing and Like It (1934)

The Emperor's New Clothes?

[1/10 · 19 April 2024]

Is the joke on us for watching this? I suspect the big wigs at RKO thought it might be amusing for them if they deliberately made an appallingly bad film but told their audience it was meant to be ironic.

The plot of this film surely must be the true story of how this dreadful picture was made. The plot concerns a gangster whom upon hearing a dreadful song sung awfully by Zasu Pitts forces a producer to make her the star of a musical comedy written excruciatingly badly by the gangster and his pals. He then forces the critics to say how great she is and how funny the jokes are. There is no other explanation I can think of as to why this exists.

Max Steiner's background music (yes, Max Steiner) reminds me of a Laurel and Hardy film. It creates that similar mood but without any humour whatsoever. In these types of films, cartoon characters can sometimes work but in this case without any sense of irony it's simply terrible. THE MIDSHIPMAID (1932) used the same idea - that was also pretty awful but at least that had the divine Jessie Matthews in it.

The problem with this film is that it is not funny at all. Nat Pendleton and Zasu Pitts are usually tolerable in small doses as comedy relief but they're not really actors. There's no attempt to make these cardboard characters seem even slightly real and since THEY ARE NOT FUNNY you're just looking at a couple of people reading their lines for an hour and a half. EE Horton and Ned Sparks do their best but with such a weak script, they're fighting an uphill battle and you just feel sorry for them having to do such rubbish. RKO was known for it's sparkling comedies in the 1930s but in 1934 there was a lot of turmoil with the management there and the company temporarily lost its direction. If someone who'd never seen a 1930s comedy were to watch this, they'd never watch another one again - it' that bad!

Johnny O'Clock (1947)

Siberian Khatru

[7/10 · 15 April 2024]

I've listened to SIBERIAN KHATRU, the utterly fantastic YES song for about forty years yet it still makes no sense. Likewise, this picture is so deliberately confusing that you've no idea what's going on either - but it's still absolutely great.

Like all good film noirs, this features those characters who only exist in that surreal dream world of shadows. The weary cop, the flash criminal tempted either to the dark side by the scheming femme fetale or to the light by the nightclub singer who's trying to be a good girl. We've got murders galore which everyone just accepts as perfectly normal, something that you forget about five minutes later, occurrences no more unusual than the constant rain. We've got a slimy gangster, a double-crossing rat in fact everything and more you could ever want in that unbelievable yet weirdly familiar colourful black and white world.

If you're used to seeing the 1930s Dick Powell, this 1940s Dick Powell takes a while to acclimatise to but he's so good at playing this role you can see why he became so successful in this second career. He's smart, sleek and convincingly dangerous - hard to believe he's the same person. His love interest is pretty Evelyn Keyes and she is also perfect in this role, it seems like she was born into this nether-world.

The story tries and succeeds to be even more confusing and convoluted than THE BIG SLEEP. Its script sounds almost like a loving parody of Raymond Chandler and every trope and cliché of the genre is there. It's a perfect example of a film noir - even though it makes as much sense as: 'Gold stainless nail, torn through the distance of man...'

Don't Bet on Blondes (1935)

If you know who Warren William was, you might just about enjoy this.

[3/10 · 12 April 2024]

Clive Hirschhorn describes this as 'pathetic' in the Warner Brothers Story. That's maybe a little unfair. For it to be pathetic implies it evokes feelings of pathos in the viewer whereas this evokes about as much feeling as looking at beige wallpaper. But it's Warren William doing what he always does so I watched it anyway - it was OK.

This picture highlights the problem with the old studio system. Today when a film-maker decides to make a movie he or she employs a writer and gathers a cast together, in the 1930s, movies weren't conceived like that, they were just product a film factory made. Warners and the other majors had a salaried standing army of writers, film-makers and actors all contracted to work 9 to 5 on whatever tasks their bosses gave them. Like the other majors, Warners owned a lot of cinemas and they all had an insatiable appetite for reels of celluloid to keep them alive. The quality of that food-stock didn't matter too much provided it encouraged their customers to sit in the comfortable heated picture houses rather than in their depression riddled garrets.

This is exactly the output of a studio just colouring in the rolls of celluloid with something the punters will look at. It feels like whichever actors weren't doing anything on one particular Tuesday got sent over to stage 7 with the instruction just to be in that picture until Friday then you're on stage 5 making the viking picture. Director Robert Florey was clearly not looking busy enough either as he was made to direct this - he made some reasonable movies but he was no superstar - especially when just making something so bland and unimaginative as this. The actors corralled in here were the fabulous, although somewhat predictable Warren William and some other people. Guy Kibbee is reasonably personable but the big problem is that the leading female is Claire Dodd who is just not cut out for lead and seems unable to generate any chemistry with Warren William or indeed with any of her suitors (including that young Australian bloke). The whole thing is just flat and lifeless.......but if you like this sort of rubbish like I do, it's tolerable.

If for no reason you can logically explain, you like watching pre-code or even mid 1930s movies - particularly those from Warner Brothers so they're not too polished, not too long, definitely not too sentimental or mushy, not too up themselves like some of those snooty Paramount films, then you will probably enjoy this although you'll be aware watching it that it's pretty terrible. As a comedy it is not funny and as a romance, it doesn't even try to do that. It's just a moderately fun hour of 1930s Americana.

Oh, Daddy! (1935)

A proper 1930s comedy musical!

[7/10 · 10 April 2024]

Just when you thought you'd seen all the good 1930s musicals you discover this fabulous fun film. Whilst it's not quite FOOTLIGHT DAMES OF 1933 level, it's got that similar feel and a million times better than the lame WB musicals of the late 30s.

Like DAMES, the plot concerns a group of killjoys called The Purity League who are taught the error of their ways when they encounter a sassy sexy showgirl. Over in America the real Catholic Legion of Decency had just imposed the puritanical censorship of the Hays Code on all of Hollywood's output so it was left to England to keep the flag of saucy fun flying. Yes, we could still make silly and irreverent films with very scantily clad chorus girls as this demonstrates.

This is an absolute joy. The story is engaging and still genuinely funny all these years later. The script is witty and the acting is natural with likeable characters you feel you can get to know. The cast are perfect: Robertson Hare is hilarious, music hall star Leslie Henson is fantastic - what a shame he made so few pictures and Frances Day is stunningly sexy with a refreshingly real personality. Coupled with dynamic direction and exceptionally high production values, this is an absolute must for fans of those original Warner musicals.

Why the production is such high quality is because of 'sibling rivalry.' In 1935, Michael Balcon ran both Gaumont-British and Gainsborough. At Gaumont, Victor Saville (who actually founded Gainsborough with Balcon and Graham Cutts a decade earlier) made the classy, big budget musicals such as those with the world's most beautiful actress (Jessie Matthews) whereas Graham Cutts at Gainsborough made the B movies. Cutts wanted to show Balcon that he too could make pictures just as classy as those his former colleague made down the road at Gaumont and really succeeded with this....even without the divinity that was Miss Matthews!

Britannia of Billingsgate (1933)

Possibly the most boring film of 1933

[1/10 · 9 April 2024]

This is terrible. It's moderately interesting to see the workings of a major 1930s studio but it's no MAKE ME A STAR or WHAT PRICE HOLLYWOOD. The characters are just so one dimensional.

Even Gordon Harker, who's usually quite engaging is void of any personality. You're unable to relate to any of these cardboard characters and because you can't get to know them, you can't care about them. You have to force yourself to sit through this!

It was envisaged as a vehicle to re-launch the career of Violet Lorraine. She had been incredibly famous a couple of decades earlier. In 1916 she duetted with George Robey to record one of the most popular songs of World War I: 'If you were the only girl in the world.' Having been retired for over ten years, Michael Balcon thought that she was just what the audiences of 1933 would like. For those who remembered her, this was probably wonderfully nostalgic for them (maybe like the 2007 Led Zeppelin reunion?) Unless you're a fan of Edwardian music hall however you're not going to be enamoured by Miss Loraine. Don't expect a 1930s style musical!

Gaumont-British made some great musicals in the 1930s but this isn't one of them.

Windbag the Sailor (1936)

One of the top five Will Hay films

[8/10 · 9 April 2024]

Of all the 1930s English comedies, Will Hay's films are the ones which appeal most in a modern audience. Silly, gentle, nostalgic and always uplifting. Although most of his films are virtually identical, this is one of the best.

This was made immediately after WHERE THERE'S A WILL with the same team but with one notable addition: Moore Marriott and Graham Moffatt as Harbottle and Albert who would repeat their roles in Hay's next five pictures. These three are simply magical together.

Although his gentle humour; laughing at loveable incompetence is akin to that of Laurel and Hardy, I find the mood of Hay's films, that sense of teetering close to the close to the cliff edge between blissful ignorance and anarchy closer to that of early Marx Brothers. Maybe it's also because they inevitably have a Margaret Dumont equivalent, a wealthy trusting and naïve patron who can see only the good in Will Hay/Groucho - in this picture, like the previous ones that's Norma Varden who looks and acts suitably matronly despite only being 36! A film like this ostensibly looks childish but what it's doing is appealing to our base emotions and there's nothing wrong with that - after all, you couldn't call SPONGEBOB sophisticated but it's still funny.

It takes real genius (Hay was famously quite the intellectual) to make something which appears so childish so engaging to grown-ups.

Rainbow Over Broadway (1933)

I've seen worse

[4/10 · 5 April 2024]

You just have to keep watching to find out what the hell this is about..... Well, it's an hour later and I'm still none the wiser but loved the trip. It's a pretty poor picture: lousy acting, lousy production but illogically I think I enjoyed it.

Get the feeling most of the cast were established comedians with whatever their characters were, shoehorned into the story. There was a trend in the 70s where seemingly every tv sitcom was transformed into a cinema film. This feels like an early prototype of a tv movie and Don Hope a 1930s equivalent to an actor-comedian-game show host might get a part in a big movie.

The two leads were big hopefuls of Chesterfield Pictures. Don Hope (tries too hard) and Joan Marsh (cut price Jean Harlow...but prettier in my opinion) made reasonable careers for themselves but the real winner from Chesterfield was director Richard Thorpe who must have impressed Mr Thalberg with this because he subsequently got the MGM gig where he stayed for decades.

This picture is more entertaining than in reality it should be. Like BIP's quota quickies, there's often a peal, albeit a misshapen, cloudy plastic one amongst all the rubbish with these 'poverty row' pictures as well and this might just be one of them?

Inspector Hornleigh (1939)

Routine but entertaining

[5/10 · 4 April 2024]

Firstly, Miki Hood - what a beautiful young lady! I wonder why she never made it big because she's absolutely lovely. She looks like a Disney princess who could be another sister of Loretta Young.

This film is based on a long running popular radio show, with professional cockney Gordon Harker as the personable sleuth. With a long track record of good scriptwriting, the story used for this is intelligent and intriguing. Eugene Forde - never heard of him - directs this adequately and ensures the tension ramps up at a good pace.

Like another other forgotten detective series: Philo Vance, it's the plot rather than the characters which the Horleigh stories rely on. Harker does however give his grumpy old copper a bit of personality which makes this a hundred times better and engaging than the tiresome Vance movies. It's hardly Hitchcock or Holmes, Poirot or even THIN MAN but although it's not super-original, it is professionally made, well acted and well written.