OldFilmLover Reviews

Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves (1943)

The Best of the Montez-Hall Movies

[9/10 · 28 July 2017]

Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves is the best of the Montez-Hall movies, ahead of Arabian Nights, which perhaps deserves an 8, Cobra Woman, which deserves a 7, and White Savage, which deserves only slightly over a 6. My 9 rating is perhaps a bit high -- maybe 8.4-8.6 would be more accurate -- but I give it a 9 in protest against the ridiculously low IMDb average.

What sets this above all the others is the script; both plot and dialogue are superior. The performances are also livelier, the acting better (both of the leads, Hall and Montez, and of the supporting cast), and the feeling of forward movement in the story much greater.

In fact, I rank this film third, all-time, among classic adventure films in which only normal human beings with normal human powers are involved (no genies, dragons, gods, animated skeletons, Jedi knights, etc.), and which are not at least part tongue-in-cheek (like the Indiana Jones films). Only The Adventures of Robin Hood and The Mark of Zorro are better in this category. (Though The Black Swan, The Most Dangerous Game and a few others come close.)

Kurt Katch turns in a great performance as the evil Hulagu Khan. To the 7-to-13-year-olds who crowded the Saturday matinée in 1944, Katch's Khan would be the classic portrayal of the tyrant. Of course, to adult eyes, Katch's performance is over-acted, but films in this genre have to be judged with their intended audience in mind.

Special mention should go to Turhan Bey, and to Frank Puglia as Montez's sycophantic father. The only performance which could be thought a flaw in the film is that of Andy Devine, as the fat "comedy relief" thief. The "cowboy humour" he brings from his other roles seems a bit out of place in a basically high-toned, medieval-flavoured tale about the Muslim and Mongol Middle East. I could have done without him. Still, he was doing what the part called for, so really any blame should be assigned to the writer and director rather than Devine himself. And again, we have to consider the primary audience for the film (though adults can enjoy it, too) was the kids -- and that sort of comedy relief would be what many 40s kids liked.

The music, camera work, and Technicolor are all first-rate. The film is polished. When 1940s Universal did one of its rare, big-budget "A"-list movies, it could do it very well.

Love, courage, nobility; a despicable Oriental tyrant and a people groaning under his heel; the transformation of thieves into patriots; action, glamour, spectacle, and a rousing climax -- this film is a perfect piece of sheer entertainment.

I watched this movie with my kids over and over again when they were young. They loved it. It's a great family movie if you have pre-teen kids who have not yet been jaded by the modern emphasis on loudness and special effects, and can still accept the older styles of acting and storytelling because they have the openness of childhood. If you start them out on Indiana Jones and Star Wars, it may be impossible for them to go back later and really enjoy these older-style adventure movies. Give them this experience while they can still enjoy it.

Psycho-Circus (1966)

Circus of Fear, in the Original 91-Minute Version, is a Good Movie

[8/10 · 31 May 2017]

I'm stunned by the low average (5.4) given to Circus of Fear by IMDb voters. I've just watched the 91-minute colour version put out on DVD by Blue Underground, and found it absorbing throughout.

My guess is that many of the reviewers have seen only the truncated 1965 American version (65 minutes); naturally, missing 26 minutes of a 91- minute film, one will see only a very imperfect version of what the filmmakers intended. To get a true sense of the film one has to have the uncut version.

Despite the advertisements of the time, which played up the film as a horror movie (cashing in on the fact that horror icon Christopher Lee was the star of the film), this is not a horror film. There are some frightening moments, but this is essentially a whodunit, and a fairly good one. The slight "horror" tinge to the film (with its hooded lion- tamer, murders by skillfully thrown knives, screaming circus starlets, vicious circus lions, etc.) add atmosphere, but the story remains a whodunit.

It's also a caper film, insofar as it opens with a well-filmed money truck heist in broad daylight on the Tower Bridge in London. (It was filmed on location for that part.) But there ends up being some kind of sinister and unclear connection between the heist and goings-on at a circus, and it takes the whole film to make clear exactly what the connection is.

Leo Genn is brilliant as the Scotland Yard detective. He has a smooth, beautiful, calm acting manner reminiscent of Herbert Marshall's, and is a joy to watch. The excellent dialogue he is given doesn't hurt. The movie also has good performances by a number of very good British and German actors of the 1960s (it was a German-English co-production).

Christopher Lee is good in the part of the hooded lion-tamer with an ambiguous past. He shows his ability to act in non-horror parts here.

The opening and closing theme music is good, with a 1960s British flavor, but the film itself has only incidental music, with many parts of the story unaccompanied. This works well for this type of film.

The colour photography is beautiful.

This movie is definitely worth more than a 7 out of 10. Maybe it's not quite worth an 8, but to compensate for the ridiculous 5.4 average, I give it an 8 anyway. That's less misleading than a 5.4. A 5.4 says, "Don't waste your time watching this movie", but this movie is very much worth watching, for Genn's performance alone, not to mention its other merits.

Charlie McCarthy, Detective (1939)

Delightful Universal Comedy/Mystery, with a Great Supporting Cast

[8/10 · 9 May 2017]

After a long wait, I finally got hold of a copy of Charlie McCarthy, Detective (1939), a Universal mystery/comedy directed by Frank Tuttle (known for Philo Vance and other crime-oriented films).

First of all, the running time currently listed on IMDb for this film (as of May 8, 2017) is incorrect. It says 65 minutes, and one of the reviewers here concurs, saying the film runs barely over an hour. But the reviewer, and whoever supplied the 65-minute time, must have seen a shortened edition. My version runs at 74:39. If you have seen only a 65-minute edition, you've missed some of the plot. (Note: I have submitted a request to correct this running time.)

This is a delightful film. It's a murder mystery, of course, with Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy taking a break from their nightclub act to work on the case. But before that, we get to see some of the nightclub act, and it's some of the best Bergen/McCarthy stuff on film, even including a "title song" with Charlie dressed up Sherlock Holmes, announcing his brilliance as a detective. Working with Edgar and Charlie in the act is Constance Moore, whose character sings two pretty romantic songs, apparently written especially for the film. There is also plenty of witty repartee between Bergen and McCarthy throughout the film, and several bits of comedy relief by Mortimer Snerd, who is also better than normal in this film.

This film is a treat for fans of old films who love to see their favourite character actors pop up in odd places. Here we see, in major and minor roles, Louis Calhern, Samuel Hinds, Harold Huber (as a comic-bookish gangster), Warren Hymer, Edgar Kennedy, Grace Hayle, Charles Lane (as a doctor!), Milburn Stone, and (for only a quick look) the pretty Universal contract player Anne Gwynne (as one of Lane's nurses). And oh, don't forget, Bob Cummings has a major role in the film, and second-string romantic lead John Sutton (as the love of Constance Moore's life) has a substantial role as well.

As a mystery, the story is only so-so, but that's hardly the point in this film. The point is to combine the genre of murder mystery with Bergen/McCarthy/Snerd clowning, and it's done very well.

I don't go out of my way to catch Bergen/McCarthy films, but this one is worth seeing at least once. It deserves at least a 7 out of 10, and maybe more. My rating of 8 is a bit too high, perhaps, but the 6.4 current average is way too low. It's not a superb comedy, but it's a breezy, entertaining one. If you can get a good copy at the full running time, and if you have no objection in principle to Bergen and McCarthy, and if you love 30s/40s film casts, you won't be disappointed with this one.

They Made Me a Criminal (1939)

An Unheralded Treasure from Busby Berkeley

[8/10 · 4 March 2017]

They Made me a Criminal is a film I never heard of until a couple of months ago. I bought the 92-minute Alpha Video print (which is quite good, by the way, except for some minor shaking in the credits) and I watched it today. What a wonderful surprise!

I don't go out of my way to collect Dead End Kids movies. I really liked their first one, Dead End, with Humphrey Bogart. The next one I have is the celebrated Angels with Dirty Faces, starring Jimmy Cagney and Pat O'Brien. That is also a good film, but I actually like They Made Me a Criminal better. Angels with Dirty Faces is well executed, but the moral issue about Cagney's reputation as either tough guy or coward is, to me, handled in a loud way, as if to say, "This is a movie with a message about how to wean kids from involvement in gangs." They Made Me a Criminal is more low-key, less a message movie and more just a warm human story.

It has a boxing component, with John Garfield as the boxer. It might seem impossible to find any original variant on a boxing film, since scores of them have been made, but this one has its own twists, and a clever and satisfying plot.

Garfield is simply superb in the film. Ann Sheridan and Gloria Dickson are both perfect as his romantic interests. Claude Rains, despite his protests to Warner against doing the part (for which he thought he was unsuited), turns in his usual professional performance, and I quite liked it. Why couldn't an American cop be an immigrant from England and have an English accent? No reason, and Rains is effective. Not at his greatest, perhaps, but the role calls for a low-key performance and he delivers it. The usual excellent supporting and bit-part cast (drawn from Warner and other studios) is on hand to provide a delightful mix of characters: among those deserving mention (too many to list) are May Robson, Robert Gleckler, Barbara Pepper, William B. Davidson, Ward Bond, Robert Strange, and Louis Jean Heydt.

The Kids themselves are in fine form, with Billy Halop as the sensitive leader and the others with their usual personalities. However, though they are important to the film and their scenes are all good, this is really Garfield's film.

The ending caught me by surprise, but I liked it.

The direction by Busby Berkeley is perfect for the story. Berkeley apparently had talent for directing more than musical extravaganzas. The musical score by Max Steiner is good, adding effects here and there and not intrusive. Another great Warner picture.

Sergeant Madden (1939)

Well-executed Low-key Crime Drama

[7/10 · 1 February 2017]

This is a good movie. It's not one of the great all-time movies; it's not even one of the great all-time crime dramas. But it's a good movie. The current IMDb average of 5.9 for this movie does it a gross injustice. It deserves at least at 6.8, and maybe as high as 7.1.

The pacing of the story is good; it never drags. The camera work is good, and the atmosphere in the night scenes is good. It's a visually pleasing film.

The acting is good. Wallace Beery, who can ham it up with the best of them, could have overdone the sentimental Irish cop routine, but he restrains himself to present a well-balanced and credible character, no mere cartoon version of a New York cop. In fact, it is one of the better performances I've seen Beery give. All the other actors, in roles either major or minor, are good in their roles as well. Laraine Day shines, and Alan Curtis is very good as well. Marc Lawrence gets a larger-than-normal supporting part and does very well with it. Mary Field, who often plays domestics with only trivial speaking lines, gets a meatier role here (though it lasts only one scene), and shows she can act.

If the film has any major fault, it lies in the script. Alan Curtis does a good job (especially in the final scenes) with what he is given by the screenplay, but the origin of the chip on his character's shoulder is never really explained, and there aren't many nuances in his hard-edged character throughout most of the film. This makes it hard to sympathize with him in any way, or even to understand what Laraine Day ever saw in him. We feel more sympathy even for Marc Lawrence's gangster leader than for Curtis's angry young cop. Had Curtis's character been better fleshed out, this would have been not merely a good movie but a very good one.

To its credit, the film makes no pretensions of greatness; it never gives the impression that it is telling a more important story than it is. Its story is told in a low-key manner. Perhaps for that reason, it doesn't stand out among the movies of 1939 with their grand themes and larger-than life characters (Hunchback or Notre Dame, Wuthering Heights, Gone with the Wind, Gunga Din, and so on).

I get the impression that this film is given a lower ranking than it deserves because fans of Josef von Sternberg were expecting something else from it. They would have liked it to be more like his earlier, highly stylized films which they consider classic. It's as if the film is being punished, not for being a bad film, but for being not Sternbergish enough. A similar thing happens with Alfred Hitchock's film Jamaica Inn, which is generally ranked very low despite the fact that it's quite a good film (though properly seen only in the restored Cohen edition); it is belittled because, stylistically, it's not Hitchcockish enough. Yet if one watches Jamaica Inn without prior expectations of what a Hitchcock film should be like -- or better still, if one watches it without realizing that it was directed by Hitchcock -- one will almost certainly enjoy it. The same is true, I submit, for Sergeant Madden.

Again, this is not a great film -- the director could have insisted on a better script, or rewritten parts himself. But it's a solid film. It was not deserving of any Academy Awards, but it is deserving of far better than a 5.9.

Doomed to Die (1940)

The Worst of the Karloff Wong Series

[5/10 · 12 November 2016]

I've just recently watched, in chronological order of release, all five of the Boris Karloff episodes of the Mr. Wong series. The fifth entry in the series, *Doomed to Die*, is definitely the worst of the bunch, by a big margin.

The film starts out reasonably well, with a good character conflict between two business rivals setting up an apparent murder in which no one is sure quite how the killing was accomplished, but the obvious suspect is the son of the murdered man. But within a short time the film spirals into mediocrity, and at points approaches the abominable.

First of all, the journalist girlfriend of Captain Street, "Bobbie" Logan, though supposedly played again by Marjorie Reynolds, whose combination of perkiness, sweetness, and feistiness did so much to lift the two previous entries in the series, doesn't sound at all like the same actress. Her voice is different -- lower and harsher in tone, and less delicate and more lower-class in speaking style. It's almost as if another actress's voice has been dubbed in; one wonders if Reynolds had laryngitis or something, necessitating a substitute. But it's not just her voice. In many scenes, especially as the film progresses, she even *looks* different from the way she looked in the earlier two films. Her hair is darker; her hairdo is different; her facial expressions are very much unlike those in the earlier films. Again, one suspects that in some scenes the actress had to be replaced due to illness or for some other reason.

Even the expected humorous banter between the girl reporter and the detective doesn't seem as good. Sometime it is not bad, but other times it seems harsher, less witty than in the previous two outings. It's as if the writing staff changed, or the regular writer dashed off the screenplay in a hurry.

The direction of the film is poor. It is almost as if the nominal director William Nigh passed off the job to some uncredited assistant director on his first assignment. The scene where Wong goes to his Tong friends for advice is particularly badly done. The head Tong man at the table is at first the same guy who spoke for the group in an earlier Wong film; but then, when it goes into close-up, one can see that they have switched actors! The guy Wong speaks to has a much longer moustache, and his cap is differently shaped. It's as if they used stock footage for the opening, and then shot a new scene with a different actor. More generally, the Tong consultation is lamer and weaker than in the previous film.

The print I watched (and I have the six-film set put out by VCI) is extremely dark. I don't know if the film was shot that way deliberately, or whether it is just a defective print. The darkness works out not too badly in the scenes in the old warehouse district, but other times it is irritating. However, the music in the film is atmospheric, and in many scenes fits in with the dark film atmosphere. But it's pretty sad when in order to find something good to say about a detective mystery one has to cite the music rather than the plot, script, or acting.

From the perspective of the viewer, the exposition is flawed. Whereas in the previous Wong movies, the information released is sufficient that the viewer has at least a reasonable chance of guessing who the culprits are, in this one important information (including the existence of an important household member) seems to be deliberately withheld until late in the film, and even in the wrap-up the motivation of some of the folks involved is never tidily explained.

Mr. Wong also acts out of character at one point, arrogantly bypassing Capt. Street by withholding information from him -- something never before seen in the series. Further, whereas in earlier films Wong tried to maintain a neutral, bemused stance toward the bickering between Bobbie Logan and Street, in this one he seems to lower himself in dignity by abandoning neutrality and deliberately teaming up with Bobbie against Street. When you combine this new partisan and superior attitude of Wong with the generally less pleasant execution of the female reporter's role, the overall effect is negative. Indeed, this is the first Wong movie where I was actually more sympathetic with the bellicose Street than with either Wong or "Bobbie"!

Most of the earlier Wong films had several good supporting actors beyond the three leads. (E.g., *The Fatal Hour* had Charles Trowbridge and Frank Puglia.) The supporting actors in this one are mostly weak and unimpressive.

The IMDb voters have given this one an average of 5.6. Normally I find IMDb voters stingy, but in this case they may be too generous. I'm giving this one a 5 out of 10. (By comparison, I give most of the Motos and Torchy Blanes 7s, and some of the Charlie Chans 8s.)

Clearly the director, the writers, and Karloff were walking through this one on autopilot. I suspect that Karloff was bored with the series by this point, because he left the series after this one and Keye Luke played Wong in the final film. I haven't seen the Keye Luke film yet, but it's hard to imagine that it could be worse than this one.

If you want to sample the Mr. Wong series, do yourself a favour and don't watch this one first. It will turn you off the whole series. Any of the first four films would be a better introduction.

Anthony Adverse (1936)

Greatly Underrated on IMDb

[8/10 · 27 March 2016]

I just watched the Warner Archive DVD-R of this movie last night. I want to say that it is a good movie and much underrated by the IMDb score of 6.6. It deserves at least a 7.6; I give it an 8.

It is beautifully filmed, the sets are gorgeous, and the cast of actors is stellar and does a good job with the material. Even the players with smaller roles are well-known actors, and they deliver their short moments with just the right emphasis. If you're an old film fan, you can't watch the movie without seeing a score of faces that you know and love.

The two main complaints I see here are that Fredric March is too old to play a convincing lover for De Havilland, and that the movie is somewhat pedestrian and dragging.

On the first point, yes, in some scenes the age difference in visible, but in others, March is made up to look younger than his biological age, and is convincing as a younger man. But the key thing is that March is *good* in the role. If you overlook the physical signs of his age, and concentrate on his characterization, delivery, etc., you can see he is acting thoughtfully, trying to do justice to his complex character. I think it's an excellent performance.

Pedestrian and dragged-out? Well, the film is long, as these epic-type films tend to be. Yet I did not find that my interest flagged. The film deals with years of the lives of these characters, and it needs to be long to get in all the complex background of European history and the changes in the lives of the characters (not to mention the important back-story of Anthony's birth).

One more thing: some commenters thought that Gale Sondergaard did little to earn her Oscar for this one. I thought she was very good. Normally she plays the sinister villainess in a very broad manner that telegraphs how evil and sinister she is; in fact, she was often hired because she was so good at that kind of thing (see her many Universal horror and mystery films). Here, she shows a bit of that sinister character, but underplays it greatly, to very good effect. She would never have earned an Oscar had she played the role in her heavy Universal style. I think it's the subtlest performance I've seen her give.

The sound on the Archives DVD-R is at first a tiny bit harsh, especially the booming orchestra with the grand Korngold score; this I noticed especially near the beginning of the film, and was worried it would spoil the film for me. However, the sound seemed to become a bit gentler about 10 or 15 minutes into the movie -- or maybe I just got used to it. But the volume of characters's speeches was definitely a bit uneven in the first few minutes. That happens, with movies this old. Perfect prints are rare, and DVDs reflect the imperfections. Overall, however, the DVD was quite watchable and the audio was clear and adequate.

I recommend this as a historical epic. Not one the greatest epics, to be sure, but quite a good one, and admirably executed. Maybe not a must-see, but certainly nothing you will regret seeing. I will watch it more than once, I think.

The Charge of the Light Brigade (1936)

A Beautiful, Polished Epic

[9/10 · 16 November 2015]

The Charge of the Light Brigade (1936) is a beautiful, polished epic film.

The cast is superb, and the script and editing are so well-done that even at over 115 minutes the film never drags. This is one of Errol Flynn's best roles, and one of Patric Knowles's best roles as well. Flynn is brave and daring as usual, but without the flippant characterization of some of his other roles -- and the more serious performance is suited to the gravity of the story. The supporting cast of fine British and American actors is just right, with Spring Byington turning in her usual sparkling performance, and Nigel Bruce, C. Henry Gordon, David Niven, Donald Crisp, and Henry Stephenson making real contributions as well. Olivia de Havilland is fine in her role as the love interest of two brothers, doing as well as her role allows in a film which is basically a film about men.

The photography, set design and music in this film are beautiful, state of the art for the time, making the experience of watching it enjoyable even if one is not paying much attention to the plot or dialogue. The final battle scene is stunning.

Why this film was not nominated for more Academy Awards, I have no idea. I'm also stunned that its IMDb average is only 7.1. A grade of 7.1 implies mediocrity. This is not a mediocre film, but a great one. Anything less than 8 out of 10 would be a gross injustice, and a case could be made for 9 out of 10. It was the equivalent in its day of the "blockbuster" films of our day, but unlike those of our day, it did not rely on computerized special effects, but on fine craftsmanship in every aspect of the film-making. In a vacuum, I would probably rate this film as an 8.1 or 8.2, but I give it a 9 here as a sort of counter-balance, because 7.1 is ridiculously low. It would help if IMDb allowed half-stars; in that case I would have gone for 8.5.

The film is available in a slim-case DVD edition in one of the 5-DVD Errol Flynn collections. This edition has the full 115+ minutes of the film, as well as some interesting period extras in the Warner Night at the Movies feature. The image and sound in this edition are very good.

The Gentle Touch (1956)

Better than 5.4 out of 10

[7/10 · 13 June 2015]

This film was called "The Feminine Touch" in England, "The Gentle Touch" in the USA, and "A Lamp is Heavy" in Canada. (The Canadian title apparently came from the book on which the film was based.)

The film has an unreasonably low rating here of 5.4 out of 10. I cannot understand this. True, as the first reviewer here states, this film is a conventional melodrama about student nurses in England in the postwar period. However, given the many positive things about the film with the reviewer concedes, the reviewer seems to rates it a little too harshly, giving it only 5 out of 10. The reviewer's concessions of quality to me make the film worth more than that. To me 5 out of 10 means "poor" and 6 out 10 means "weak"; this film is mediocre in terms of originality of plot, but it's well-done, and it surely deserves better than a 6.5, so I give it a 7.

To be sure, being much like the episodes of a competently done "doctors and nurses in a hospital" television show, it does not strike one as particularly fresh in contents; but if we weren't saturated with decades of such TV shows, we would probably judge the film more leniently.

That said, I would not advise anyone to go out of the way to buy this film by itself, but it is available with 3 other films in one of the inexpensive 4-film Ealing rarities sets (PAL format, Region 2 DVD), and as one of the films in the set is the spritely romantic comedy *Young Man's Fancy* (1939) by Robert Stevenson, you get this film thrown in essentially for free, so it's a no-lose proposition to try it out.

Hotel Imperial (1939)

Atmospheric Half-A, Half-B 1939 Film Entertains but Doesn't Quite Work

[7/10 · 9 May 2015]

The 1939 Paramount version of Hotel Imperial is an enjoyable film, but a flawed one.

Its greatest virtue is its atmosphere. You really feel you are in a little town in Eastern Europe during WW I, as the Russians and Austrians battle for possession of it. The limited battle scenes, the narrow streets, the muddy roads in the rain, the dark night scenes, the scenes in the inn (complete with Russians singing and dancing), are all very well-filmed.

The story is interesting: A woman whose sister committed suicide -- by delicate implication due to her sexual mistreatment by an unknown Austrian officer -- seeks revenge on the perpetrator and sticks around the Hotel (despite the risk of the imminent capture of the town by the Russians, with the likelihood of her own imprisonment or death) to find out who the cad was. I won't say what happens, as it would spoil the plot, but there are two or three twists or turns in her quest.

I don't think the final screenplay did justice to the plot, and so the execution of the film doesn't live up to the promise. I don't mean the story is incoherent; the events unfold quite logically; but it is not nearly as surprising or suspenseful or emotionally powerful story as it could have been, with more focused writing that was not in such a hurry to establish a romance and stuck more to developing the main plot ideas. (I believe this film had difficulties in production, with stars and directors in and out until the last minute, and that is probably why it ended up with a screenplay that was less than polished.)

Director Robert Florey had done one or two horror films for Universal; perhaps that is why the small-village Eastern European setting is so well done! Ray Milland is reasonably good as the Austrian officer, though I think the slightly stiff script cramps him. Isa Miranda, who appears to be offered as a Greta Garbo clone in the film, is good, and very attractive, and even does a musical number for the Russian officers. However, again the weak script makes her less effective than she should be; her romance with Milland isn't really built up to properly, and the emotional darkness of her quest for vengeance isn't played up enough in the writing, so she doesn't get a chance to shine as a serious dramatic actress (as opposed to a light romantic lead). Gene Lockhart is, as always, good in his humorous character-actor part. J. Carrol Naish is good in his non-humorous role as well, though again, an anemic script doesn't give him a chance to show his full range as an actor.

The main problem with this film, other than the weak script, is that it doesn't seem sure whether it wants to be a comedy or a drama. A drama can of course have lighter moments; they help to set off the serious parts. But there is fair bit of clownery with Lockhart and his assistant at the hotel, and the Russian general, a central character, is played largely for laughs (reminiscent of the father of the princess in Korda's Thief of Bagdad). Thus, there is a clash between the dark character of the basic plot (a tale of a woman's vengeance on a morally debased officer that she can't yet identify), and the generally grim wartime goings-on (Austrian prisoners being shot by the Russians and so on), and the attempt make several of the characters lovable buffoons. The movie lacks a consistency of mood and tone.

I certainly enjoyed watching the film, and probably will watch it again, to enjoy certain moments; but it remains stuck between the A-film aspirations of the plot and a B-film formulaic execution. The current rating of the film on the IMDb is 7.1 out of 10, and I have to admit that it doesn't deserve much higher than that. For photography, sets, and atmosphere, maybe an 8 would be justified, but in all other respects the film is a B-minus effort.

I add that while the IMDb and Leonard Maltin both list this film as 67 minutes -- a short length which would not be likely for a Paramount film of this type in 1939 -- it was in fact originally longer, and a nearly 80-minute version exists (Loving the Classics); my review here is based on that version. (If any shorter, 67-minute version actually exists, it would only exacerbate the problems of the longer version, since even at 80 minutes the story suffers from underdevelopment. Cutting out major scenes would add discontinuity to script weakness. So if you can, get the 80-minute version. And no, I'm not working for the vendor; I just hate shortened versions of films and like to let people know when fuller versions exist.)

Rulers of the Sea (1939)

Rulers of the Sea is a Forgotten Gem of 1939

[8/10 · 1 March 2015]

I can't believe that Rulers of the Sea receives only a 6.6-star average on the IMDb.

This is a really good film. The acting of the three leads is fine, the sets are wonderful, and the way the story deals with the technical (the conquest of the Atlantic by steamships), the personal (the hardships of the inventor and his daughter, and the love between the daughter and the young captain who helps her father), and the political (the machinations of the various shipbuilders, machine shop owners, and capitalists who have interests for or against the new technology) is quite skillful.

It's not a fast-paced film, and so for people who want lots of action, it may seem dull. But it's a thoughtful film about a serious economic and humanitarian issue, with great actors in the leads and dozens of veteran character actors in the smaller parts.

I have a watchable but not very good quality copy on DVD-r which I purchased from an ebay merchant who had obviously pulled it off a television broadcast. If any company would put this out on a proper DVD I would gladly buy one, because the films looks impressive visually even on the DVD-r and would look spectacular in a cleaned-up edition.

1939 was a great year for films, and everyone knows of the big 10 or 15 films of that year. What most people don't realize is that there were just as many films in that year that were almost as good, or as good, as the more celebrated ones. Two 1939 comedies which are almost completely overlooked, Bachelor Father and Midnight, can hold their own with any screwball comedy. And there are many good dramas that hardly anyone hears about: In Name Only with Cary Grant; Juarez with Bette Davis and Brian Aherne; The Four Feathers; Rulers of the Sea, and many more.

Rulers of the Sea is a very competently executed story of early steamship travel. Lloyd knew his business as a director.

Drums Along the Mohawk (1939)

Good Period Atmosphere, but Dull Plot and Wooden Dialogue

[6/10 · 11 January 2015]

Drums Along the Mohawk is pretty dull fare. The scenery and historical period activities (clearing forests, barn dances, etc.) are all well done, but otherwise, this is a dull movie. There is no plot to speak of, just a string of raids and battles of American patriots against Tories and Indians. The villain (John Carradine) is undermotivated in the script, and is not given enough screen time to make him into a character worthy of either admiring or hating. Fonda and Colbert are miscast -- neither is suitable for the part, especially Colbert. This error was due to the "star system" which caused studios to "milk" their big names by putting them in every conceivable movie. (Warner Bros. similarly miscast Errol Flynn as a Western hero in Dodge City in the same 1939 year.)

The dialogue and delivery is mostly wooden. Only Edna Mae Oliver comes across as a real human being. (I actually have relatives like that!)

The message of the movie -- "Gee, wasn't life tough in those pioneer days, and how brave young brides had to be to cope with these hardships" -- is pretty trite.

1939 was a year of great films. Drums Along the Mohawk is not one of them. I know that will outrage those who think that anything directed by John Ford is automatically good, but the fact is that this is one of Ford's clunkers. Great camera work and accurate period flavor do not make a great film. The makers of "Barry Lyndon" in the 1970s should have learned that lesson from this 1939 dud.

Instant Love (1964)

Surprising Near-Unknown 1960s Cosmopolitan Romantic Comedy

[8/10 · 8 January 2015]

I had never heard of this film (English title on DVD: "Instant Love"), and I have it only because it came as the 4th item in a set of four Romantic Comedies in a Turner DVD set. The other 3 comedies were all from the 1940s, in black and white; this one, in color and from 1964, was a good change of pace.

The atmosphere of the 60s pervades this film. With the scenes of jets and international travel, the beautiful shots of the Brazilian cityscape and harbor and mountains, the breezy upbeat music, the great color photography, the bouncy theme song by Neil Sedaka and the actual appearance of Sedaka in a nightclub act in one scene -- this has that light 60s feel all the way.

Rhonda Fleming, an underrated actress often spoken of primarily for her stunning beauty rather than for her dramatic talent, shows that she is more than a pretty face in this film, and does a wonderful job as the American woman who marries a Brazilian man on "love at first sight" without taking into account the possible cultural differences between Brazilian and American males.

The film balances its treatment of the serious side of marriage (especially intercultural marriage) with light romantic comedy, with the comedy element predominant. It is not primarily physical comedy (though there is some of that), but more a comedy of manners and of situation. Fleming's nerdy American would-be lover is nicely contrasted with her macho Brazilian husband.

There is nothing deep about this film, but it's entertaining -- beautifully filmed, with perfect period music and great costumes etc. -- and the story is paced briskly and therefore keeps up one's interest. It holds its own with much of the medium-quality 1960s romantic comedy filmed in America, Britain, France, etc. It surely deserves at least a 7 out of 10; the 4.9 average currently showing on the IMDb is ridiculous. You give a 4.9 to a cruddy low-budget 1950s sci-fi flick, not to a polished, urbane romantic comedy like this. Probably a 7.2 would be a more accurate estimate of the film's quality.

The Black Swan (1942)

The Greatest of All Pirate Movies

[9/10 · 17 December 2014]

It's beyond me how the IMDb average ranking of this film is as low as it is. This film is no 7 out of 10! In the pirate movie genre, it's more like a 9 out of 10 -- the greatest pirate movie ever made (with the possible exception of Captain Blood). The vivid Technicolor, the stirring music, the sets, the costumes, the beautiful tall ships -- everything is perfect for this kind of adventure film. And the plot is original, and the script is snappy. At only 85 minutes, the film does not drag, but keeps up its brisk pace, and leaves you hungering for more at the end.

Power and O'Sullivan are wonderful as the pirate and the noble lady in the love/hate relationship, the equal of Flynn and De Havilland in a similar relationship in Robin Hood. George Sanders is suitably malevolent as the villain -- a much livelier and more dashing villain than he usually plays. Anthony Quinn is there in an early role, George Zucco makes his usual excellent contribution (and not as a mad scientist this time), and Thomas Mitchell as always is wonderful in his semi- comical supporting role.

But the big surprise for me, the first time I saw this film, was Laird Cregar -- a little-known actor nowadays, who only acted in films for 5 years before his early death, but was very good in almost every film he was in. In this film, the very first I saw with Cregar in it, he is stellar as a former pirate turned governor and required by duty to put his former pirate friends out of business. Indeed, after Power and O'Sullivan and Sanders, he is the most striking actor in the film.

The movie does exactly what it is supposed to do -- entertain you for an hour and half, with adventure, sword-fights, gorgeous ocean and island scenery, humour, and romance. I don't see how anyone could give it less than an 8 out of 10, and 9 is closer to the mark. This polished gem was what the studio system at its best produced throughout the 30s and 40s.

Risky Business (1939)

George Murphy and Eduardo Ciannelli Shine in Overlooked 1939 Crime Drama

[7/10 · 10 November 2014]

Risky Business (1939) is a reasonably well-crafted crime fiction from Universal, directed by Arthur Lubin. It stars George Murphy and Dorothea Kent. Murphy, the only person in the cast who would qualify as a major star at the time (and even he wasn't all that major), is convincing as a radio journalist who, jaded by years of writing harsh film reviews, decides to make the rescue of a kidnapped heiress the cause of his career. He is aided by his secretary "Dexter" (Dorothea Kent) who loves him, though he himself feels only friendly camaraderie toward her. The main villains in the piece are Leon Ames and Eduardo Ciannelli. Ciannelli, in his few scenes, manages to steal the show. This would not be hard in a film populated exclusively by character actors (other than Murphy), but Ciannelli is malignantly villainous. After Murphy and perhaps Kent, he is the most impressive actor in the film.

Despite the lack of A-list stars, the film moves along quite nicely for its 67 minutes, carried by a decent plot, adequate dialogue, reasonably good performances by the supporting cast, and a strong performance by George Murphy. I see that it currently has a rating of 7.4 on IMDb; this, I think, is slightly higher than warranted for this "B" crime drama, but it definitely rates a 7, maybe even a 7.2.

I don't think the film has ever been available on VHS or DVD. Perhaps it occasionally shows up on late-night television. At least one ebay merchant has DVD-Rs of the film. I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys crime dramas, not as a "must-see" (from the same year, a "must see" is The Roaring Twenties), but definitely as "worth seeing."