The Saint in Palm Springs (1941)

Posted on August 19, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #65
Jack Hively | 63 mins | TV | 4:3 | USA / English | PG*

George Sanders is the Saint for the final time in a film that isn’t the series’ best, nor its worst. It also marks the final appearance by Jonathan Hale as Inspector Fernack, and third-and-final turns from both Wendy Barrie and Paul Guilfoyle. For those keeping track (or not), that’s the same four leads as the last picture! Same director too, as Jack Hively helms his third (and, of course, final) Saint adventure.

By this point Fernack seems to have reconciled himself to Simon Templar being on the side of the angels (he is a Saint after all) and actually offers him a mission. A friend of Fernack’s needs some immensely valuable stamps escorted to Fernack’s friend’s daughter in Palm Springs, but being out of NYC that’s outside Fernack’s jurisdiction — but nowhere is beyond the reach of the Saint. Or something. Anyway, he agrees, but it goes quickly awry when Fernack’s friend’s brother is murdered; but the Saint, being the fundamentally decent adventure-seeker he is, agrees to take the stamps on to Fernack’s friend’s brother’s niece anyway.

Points are scored here for a change of format. Rather than racing back and forth around the same city, here the Saint sees action in New York, on a train, in a holiday resort in Palm Springs, and in the desert surrounding it. Somehow it feels different, more layered. That said, it gets a bit repetitive. The stamps are contained in a locket that is repeatedly stolen, recaptured, stolen-but-empty, recovered, rinse, repeat. Still, there are inventive spots along the way, and for once it manages to pull out a genuine twist — the culprit is obvious throughout, as per usual, but then… well, that would be spoiling it.

Hale isn’t in it nearly enough unfortunately, especially considering this is his last outing. Guilfoyle has the sidekick role and at least his and Sanders’ relationship is a fun substitute. Barrie is, for once, simply the ingénue and not some form of criminal mastermind. Don’t worry, there’s another girl for that: Linda Hayes, who seems a promising match for the Saint but, though prominent early on, is ultimately disregarded. The highlight for both women comes when they get invited along for a horse ride with the Saint and have a good bitch at each other. It’s a pickle quite unlike the ones Templar usually finds himself in! I have nothing against Barrie, but quite why they sought to use her repeatedly I don’t know. And, to be frank, she worked best in her first appearance.

The Saint in Palm Springs isn’t a grand send-off for this repertory company of Saint series filmmakers, but then I don’t imagine it was ever intended to be. At least it still has most of the fun and charm that characterise this era of the Saint’s adventures, something that is sorely missing as the series continues under new leadership.

Read my thoughts on the four other films to star George Sanders as the Saint here and here.

* As with many of the Saint films, this has apparently not been passed by the BBFC since its release in 1941. Nonetheless, it’s available on DVD, rated PG. ^

The Saint Takes Over (1940)

Posted on August 19, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #64
Jack Hively | 67 mins | TV | 4:3 | USA / English | PG*

The first RKO Saint film to not be based on a story by the Saint’s creator, Leslie Charteris, is actually one of the better mysteries in the franchise. Sort of. The downside would be that the solution is glaringly obvious. For a mystery you might imagine that would be a major problem, but the process of investigating is nicely done. A bit more work might’ve been done to obscure the culprit, a character who we meet at the beginning and then more or less disappears and so will inevitably return somehow, but I had so much fun I don’t really care.

The reason it’s so fun is the setup. Inspector Fernack has been suspended from the force, implicated in taking bribes from gangsters. He hasn’t of course, but the criminals he just failed to put away want to see him discredited. Naturally his BFF Simon Templar swings by to help. What ensues is a 180 from the usual formula of the Saint movies: rather than Fernack constantly suspecting the Saint of being the actual perpetrator of the crimes he claims to be solving, here every murder (each of them a man who was conspiring against the inspector) occurs while the Saint is out of the room, but while Fernack has plenty of opportunity to commit it. Much fun ensues as Templar teases his chum.

One of the highlights of the first Saint movie, Paul Guilfoyle, makes a re-appearance here as a different henchman (having (spoilers!) bit the dust in his first appearance). His role is bigger — he’s in the con-turned-manservant role, essentially — though not as independently memorable. Paired with Sanders and Hale, however, they make an entertaining team. The starring cast is rounded out by a return appearance by Wendy Barrie of The Saint Strikes Back. She plays a new character, this time brunette, but still a bit of a femme fatale. She’s underused, but hey-ho.

The Saint Takes Over is, on balance, not my favourite of the series, but still one of the best it has to offer.

Read my thoughts on the four other films to star George Sanders as the Saint here and here.

* As with many of the Saint films, this has apparently not been passed by the BBFC since its release in 1940. Nonetheless, it’s available on DVD, rated PG. ^

The Saint’s Double Trouble (1940)

Posted on August 19, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #63
Jack Hively | 64 mins | TV | 4:3 | USA / English | PG*

After two fun adventures, here RKO’s series turns in my least favourite film to star George Sanders as the Saint.

In the first film to not be directly based on a Leslie Charteris book (though he did contribute the story, according to the opening credits), the Saint arrives in Philadelphia to meet an old friend, only to get entangled in a series of murders that he may or may not have perpetrated. And that’s fine, but the way events unfold feels like no one paid a huge amount of attention to the plot. It all just about makes sense, if you care to think about it, and some of it is deliberately confusing — the “double trouble” of the title is a criminal who’s the spitting image of the Saint, meaning there’s occasional confusion about who we’re watching. But I don’t think that excuses everything; instead, I believe it’s structured to sweep you along from one bit of derring do to the next. I’ve noted before that I feel like I’m not adequately following some these films, and again I did worry I was being outsmarted, which feels somehow preposterous. I’ve come to the conclusion that a couple of them just don’t hang together as well as they could, and this one in particular.

It also runs foul of being a bit samey. Inspector Fernack is roped in by coincidence — it’s always entertaining to have Jonathan Hale and his double act with George Sanders along for the ride, but here Fernack happens to be visiting police force friends in Philadelphia when the Saint happens to turn up in town. Ugh. Then there’s yet another pretty young blonde who’s in love with the Saint but will never pin him down — Helene Whitney is fine in this role, but her character’s not a patch on The Saint Strikes Back‘s Val Travers or The Saint in London‘s Penny.

Sanders is as slick as ever, even if it can be hard work differentiating between the Saint and his doppelgänger even when they’re in the same scene. When we’re not meant to be able to tell, that’s fine; when we are, it’s sometimes tricky. I’m pretty sure the difference is entirely held in one wearing a dark-grey-and-black suit and one wearing a black suit, though even now I can’t remember which was which. A bit more effort in establishing who was in which suit wouldn’t have gone amiss. Either way, Sanders isn’t given quite as much wit to work with as normal. There’s some fun to be had when the henchman don’t realise whether they’re talking to their lookalike boss or the man he looks like — their frequent misunderstandings naturally mean Hilarity Ensues — but the rest of the film doesn’t have the same knowing edge as normal.

Almost every film series has its duds, and I imagine churning out two or three a year is only likely to increase that likelihood. Fortunately the remaining two films to star Sanders — both of them again directed by Jack Hively, incidentally — would be better than this.

Read my thoughts on the four other films to star George Sanders as the Saint here and here.

* As with many of the Saint films, this has apparently not been passed by the BBFC since its release in 1940. Nonetheless, it’s available on DVD, rated PG. ^

The Scarlet Claw (1944)

Posted on June 21, 2012 by badblokebob

2012 #46
Roy William Neill | 71 mins | DVD | 4:3 | USA / English | PG

According to Wikipedia, “David Stuart Davies notes on the film’s DVD audio commentary* that [The Scarlet Claw is] generally considered by critics and fans of the series to be the best of the twelve Holmes films made by Universal.” That’s always a bold kind of assertion to make (it’s never trouble-free to define an entire fandom’s favourite), but I can still believe it’s true: The Scarlet Claw is marvellous.

When looking it up before viewing I was surprised to find it had a spot on the Top 500 Horror Movies (voted by users of IMDb’s horror boards, apparently), where it had a place in the lower 300s. I was surprised — Holmes is a detective series, not one I’d think of nominating for such a list. But there is one arguable exception to that — The Hound of the Baskervilles, of course — and it’s clear that Scarlet Claw draws significant inspiration from that preeminent entry in the Holmes canon. Lists of similarities are available for them that wants them, because I think Scarlet Claw does enough to merit consideration in its own right.

And it really is a horror movie too. There’s not just the elements of occult in the myth of the Canadian town Holmes and Watson find themselves in almost by chance, which you always know will be debunked in a Sherlock Holmes plot, but also the way the production is staged. Indeed, the film’s scariest sequence occurs after it’s revealed that the killings are being committed by a mere human — a properly chilling murder scene, quite out of step with the film’s age and PG certificate.

A lot of this is thanks to director Roy William Neill. On a previous review of mine, Ride the High Country’s Colin noted that Neill “turned out some quality low-budget stuff for Universal. He had a real knack for creating a spooky and mysterious atmosphere that’s evident in his horrors and thrillers.” This film demonstrates that fact more than any Holmes yet. His direction is incredibly atmospheric, from a wonderful mist-covered opening scene, replete with an incessantly tolling bell, to regular instances of shadow-drenched photography afterwards; not to mention various pleasing camera angles and moves.

The story — in which townsfolk believe a mythical beast has returned to murder its residents — presents a well-constructed mystery all round, though as it moves into the second half some of its twists become all too guessable. There simply aren’t enough supporting characters to provide any meaningful sense of having to ponder who the villain might be (because, as I noted, you know it’s not really a beast). There’s also a hefty dose of coincidence that everyone involved, both on screen and off, conveniently ignores.

If we’re looking at the flaws, there’s a return for the painful closing speech from Rathbone, this time a Churchill-quoted ode to the wonder of Canada. Ugh. Still, you half expect it from this series, and it’s very easy to ignore.

The other little niggles may stop the film from being perfect but, like the similarities to The Hound, while they’re certainly there, they’re easy to overlook in the name of a rollicking good horror-mystery-adventure.

The Scarlet Claw merited an honourable mention on my list of The Best Films I Saw For the First Time in 2012, which can be read in full here.

* I could verify this for myself, but I haven’t, so… ^

The Spider Woman (1944)

Posted on January 15, 2012 by badblokebob

2011 #96
1944 | Roy William Neill | 60 mins | DVD | U

It’s the second season finale of the brilliant Sherlock tonight, so what better time to post a review of another Holmes adaptation that’s based in part on the infamous The Final Problem…

The seventh feature starring Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Dr John Watson is the first since Hound to drop Holmes’ name from the title and, at under an hour (59 minutes 33 seconds in PAL, to be precise), is the shortest yet.

It’s previously been asserted (in this blog’s comments) that The Spider Woman is “one of the best of the series”, and it’s certainly a strong effort. Screenwriter Bertram Millhauser (who also wrote the previous two films, and would go on to pen two more) skillfully mixes elements from various Conan Doyle tales — while I spotted two or three, Wikipedia says the full list includes The Sign of Four, The Final Problem, The Adventure of the Empty House, The Adventure of the Devil’s Foot and The Adventure of the Speckled Band.

As they’re combined here, the story sees Holmes fake his own death to help tackle the Irene Adler-esque titular woman, apparently his intellectual match, who’s somehow causing a spree of suicides. Several of these borrowed elements — the faked death and The Woman — lead to some delicious scenes, such as when Holmes reveals he’s alive to Dr Watson, offering one of those occasions where Bruce’s comedic rendition of the role actually works; or when an incognito Holmes meets the woman, who is actually aware of his true identity. Indeed the woman, played by Gale Sondergaard, is so good that they crafted a sequel around her, albeit Holmes-less. I’ve not seen it and don’t own it, so I’ve no idea what that does for its quality.

The mystery itself is solid enough, but that’s not necessarily the point of these Holmes adventures. They’re not play-along puzzles like an Agatha Christie adaptation, where there’s a set of definite clues and a finite number of suspects, but rather exciting tales that whip you along their incredible path — adventures indeed. You can certainly see the (deliberate) tonal link between these ’40s films and the modern-set Sherlock, or indeed the pair of Robert Downey Jr. films.

At the halfway point of the Rathbone-Bruce films (it’s only taken me four years to get this far), the series is still producing exciting, good-quality re-arrangements of Conan Doyle’s works. And I’m assured there’s more to come. Fantastic.

The House on 92nd Street (1945)

Posted on September 28, 2011 by badblokebob

2011 #76
Henry Hathaway | 84 mins | TV | 4:3 | USA / English | U

Here’s an unusual one from the pantheon of film noir. These days we’d probably call it a docu-drama, though thankfully there are no talking heads, but there is a factual voiceover narration. The story, we’re told, comes from the FBI’s files and is based on a real case — IMDb tells me the original title was Now It Can Be Told and it’s “loosely based on the case of Duquesne Spy Ring headed by Frederick Joubert Duquesne and the work of real life double agent William G. Sebold.” So there you go.

The story we actually see centres on Bill Dietrich, an American student of Germanic descent who’s approached by someone with an offer to train in Germany. This being set in a period when Hitler was on the rise, Bill toddles off to the FBI, who inform him that he’s being recruited to be a Germany spy… and so they encourage him to go and become a double agent. On his return to America, he infiltrates a group who are stealing weapons secrets and things progress from there. And they’re based in a house on New York’s 92nd Street, hence the title.

What this all really allows for is a film of two halves, though thankfully it’s not obviously divided up that way. On the one hand we have a double-agent spy thriller, which has a noir-ish tinge but isn’t the most representative film of the genre; on the other, a fairly factual look at the contemporary workings of the FBI. Many of the smaller parts were played by real FBI agents and a lot of time is put into showing how they really work and investigate a case. At the time I imagine this was a fascinating procedural; now, we’re all a bit more familiar with how such things go, but it still works as an historical document.

The tone is very reverent toward the Bureau, but as it was made while the US was still at war with Japan (it was released a week after their surrender; we’ll come back to that in a moment) that’s understandable. I don’t think it goes too far — they’re certainly shown to be faultless good guys, but at the same time they’re not superheroes. Plus none of this really gets in the way of the more straightforwardly thriller-ish side of the story, which has suitable amounts of tension and an all-action climax, plus a decent twist/reveal for who The Man Behind It All is.

Two final things, then: first, another bit of trivia from IMDb that I found interesting and so will quote more-or-less in full:

The movie deals with the theft by German spies of the fictional “Process 97,” a secret formula which, the narrator tells us, “was crucial to the development of the atomic bomb.” The movie was released on September 10, 1945, only a month after the atomic bombs had been dropped on Japan, and barely a week after Japan’s formal surrender. While making the film, the actors and director Henry Hathaway did not know that the atomic bomb existed, or that it would be incorporated as a story element in the movie. (None of the actors in the film mentions the atomic bomb.) However, co-director/producer Louis De Rochemont and narrator Reed Hadley were both involved in producing government films on the development of the atomic bomb. After the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Hadley and screenwriter John Monks Jr. hastily wrote some additional voice-over narration linking “Process 97” to the atomic bomb, and Rochemont inserted it into the picture in time for the film’s quick release.

Well there you go, eh? Don’t get much more timely than that.

Secondly, from Wikipedia: “Although praised when released in 1945, the film when released on DVD in 2005 received mostly mixed reviews. Christopher Null writes, “today it comes across as a bit goody-goody, pandering to the FBI, pedantic, and not noirish at all.”” I think I’ve addressed most of these points already, but it’s the last one that gets me. Essentially he seems to be moaning that “they didn’t make a good enough film noir!” Might be because no one ever knew they were making a film noir, eh? How can you expect something to conform to a set of rules that were only defined after the fact? Hathaway and co didn’t fail at making a noir, they just made a film that doesn’t fit the later-defined template as well as the films used to define said template. I know, four words from some other online critic hardly merit a whole paragraph, but it does bug me when people write daft things like that.

Anyway, back to the point: The House on 92nd Street is not the best example of film noir one could find, certainly, but it is an entertaining and informative documentary-ish spy-thriller.

The House on 92nd Street is on More4 tomorrow, Thursday 29th September, at 10:30am (and, naturally, on More4 +1 one hour later).

The Locket (1946)

Posted on September 4, 2011 by badblokebob

2011 #68
John Brahm | 82 mins | download | PG

This review contains major spoilers.

If The Locket is known for anything, it’s for a plot structure that places flashbacks within flashbacks within flashbacks. There’s always the potential for good fun in that kind of structure, though it’s usually the kind of thing that sounds more complicated than it is — the straightforward ‘concentric circle’ arrangement here makes them a doddle to follow; so straightforward, in fact, that it would be easy to miss how it was so structured.

Some rich chap is about to get married to a gal named Nancy. On the big day, a doctor turns up asking for a word. He begins to relate a tale stretching back to before the war, of the guys Nancy has conned before, including himself. Is he making it all up for some reason? In the doctor’s tale, he begins dating Nancy only for an artist (played by Robert Mitchum) to turn up one day to tell him all about his past with her. Has the doctor made this similar situation up to sell his story? Or is Nancy really a serial con artist?

The story is, largely, a passable melodrama. We’re presented with plenty of evidence that Nancy is definitely a tricksy operator, but then is the man telling the tale an unreliable narrator? I don’t know if the filmmakers were even aware of such a concept. Maybe that’s unkind; maybe they just didn’t want him to be one; but the ending we do get is very pat, and I’m not sure it quite makes sense. It might have been more interesting if the doctor had been making it all up; or if it had been left open ended, with Nancy set to ruin someone else’s life. That could well have worked, leaving the audience to come to its own conclusions, etc. Considering the film’s age, however, I’m sure there were demands we see this thief and murderess brought to justice.

Despite pre-dating Hitchcock’s reportedly groundbreaking film by almost two decades, the deployment of psychology in Nancy’s motivations reminded me of Marnie. A burgeoning field at the time, I believe, which makes it both attractive to filmmakers and liable to be weakly applied. The film isn’t that similar to Marnie — other than the female lead with the event in her past that explains her criminal activities in the present, that is — but perhaps the reliance on psychological jiggery-pokery that I didn’t quite buy brought it to mind.

Nancy is made most complicated by the final scene, when the truth is more or less revealed. Her subsequent breakdown suggests that, maybe, she isn’t completely the manipulative criminal it seemed all along, but instead a damaged individual doing these things involuntarily. This isn’t the wholly nonsensical part of the film — her apparently-accidental marriage to the son of the house she grew up in would be that bit — but I preferred it when she was just a villain. Psychologically it holds relevance, but at the same time she’s rather taken it to extremes. Or maybe I was just fed up by then.

Generally, the film is a bit too melodramatic and half-conceived for my taste. There are some good bits — the ultimate conclusion to Mitchum’s story is neatly directed and surprising (hence I shall say no more here). As if that painting wasn’t freaky enough by itself… But, overall, this isn’t one for the “forgotten classics” pile.

Sorry, Wrong Number (1948)

Posted on June 13, 2011 by badblokebob

2011 #32
Anatole Litvak | 85 mins | TV

A film noir screenwritten by Lucille Fletcher, “based on her famous radio play” — I love how old movies have credits like that. It sounds like pure hyperbole, but in this case seems to be justified: the original play was broadcast in May 1943 but was so popular they chose to re-stage it with the same lead, Agnes Moorehead, a total of seven times up to 1960. Seven!

It’s easy to see how it would work on radio: the plot is primarily characters talking on the phone, though in this case there are flashbacks and visuals to flesh it out. And there are flashbacks within flashbacks too, just to keep us on our toes. Naturally it’s based around a series of mysteries related to our bed-ridden heroine, who overhears a threat on someone’s life and begins to wonder if it’s actually about her. So we wonder, what is her illness? Is it relevant? Is her paranoia a symptom? All are well played, mixed up with possible reasons and motives for her being murdered, which also shift around neatly.

Barbara Stanwyck portrays a not-very-sympathetic lead character, which makes the viewer question how we feel about her possibly being murdered. We should be against it, but she’s not nice, but she is ill, and her whole life’s falling apart down the phone… As if keeping us guessing wasn’t enough, our feelings are shifting in this respect too. Arguably it unravels a little late on — when Evans is explaining his part to her, it’s getting a bit implausible — but it’s all redeemed by the finale.

The film concludes with a hair-raising final sequence. I reckon it must be among the most tense, scary and chilling sequences in all of cinema, certainly that I’ve seen. It’s not so much the performances, or the shadow on the wall, or the screeching music — though they all contribute — as the fear of the actual situation: your home, your personal, private, safe space, being invaded, and the first you know of it is an all-too-solid shadow on the wall, coming up the stairs to get you… It’s horridly brilliant.

Most of Sorry, Wrong Number is very good. If that wasn’t enough, the finale cements it as a memorable must-see.

Cloak and Dagger (1946)

Posted on April 6, 2011 by badblokebob

2011 #27
Fritz Lang | 106 mins | TV | PG

A World War II espionage thriller about the OSS — spies, basically, and the forerunner to the CIA. Despite all the thrills this should elicit, especially when directed by Fritz Lang, I wasn’t particularly impressed.

The film has its moments. A fight between star Gary Cooper and a Nazi security chap towards the end is quite good — rather brutal, scrappy and realistic for the period — and the final shoot out is effective too, even if it precedes a bluntly curtailed ending. I don’t know if Lang’s preferred (but rejected by the studio), longer original ending would be any better, but it might not feel so abrupt. There’s also some nice details of how the OSS operated, feeling quite realistic and grounded in truth. This is probably the benefit of being based on a non-fiction book.

A needless love story slows down the middle, however. Nothing wrong with a love story, but this one’s a bit dull. Aside from that and the few flashes of goodness, the rest was a bit pedestrian and lacklustre; certainly not up to the other Langs I’ve seen from his time in Hollywood.

Cloak and Dagger featured on my list of The Five Worst Films I Saw in 2011, which can be read in full here.

Miracle on 34th Street (1947)

Posted on January 16, 2011 by badblokebob

2010 #120
George Seaton | 92 mins | TV (HD) | U

I saw the Richard Attenborough-starring remake of Miracle on 34th Street when I was younger and, while I don’t remember a great deal about it, I enjoyed it well enough at the time. As usual, however, all the People Who Know These Things say the original is much better.

I can’t compare (I don’t remember a great deal about the remake, remember), but I can say this version is a great Christmastime film, requisitely magical and heart-warming. The court case finale (or “second half”, more or less) is particularly enjoyable, not least The Bit With The Post Bags. I do like a good court room victory.

Edmund Gwenn is a marvellous, twinkly, thoroughly plausible Santa; John Payne a suitably lawyery lawyer, in the tradition of other crusading screen lawyers both before and since. And he looks so much like someone I could’ve sworn I’d seen him in something else; but I haven’t, so I’ve no idea who he looks like.

It’s wrong to post a review of such a Christmassy film in the middle of January — though not as wrong as the original release date which, at the insistence of Fox’s head Darryl F. Zanuck, was in May (May!) with promotion that played down the Christmas setting. Which, considering the whole story is about a man who thinks he’s Santa Claus, and whether or not he really is, is an impressively underhand piece of marketing.

Still, my January timing may explain the brevity of these remarks, but I’m not hanging onto this review for 12 months (Inglourious Basterds bugged me for most of last year, even if I only had myself to blame) — so, if you’ve not seen Miracle on 34th Street, do try to remember it come this year’s festivities — I believe they begin in about six months, knowing shops these days — because it’s worth a watch.

100Films.co.uk

100% movies. Except when it's about TV.

Category Archives: 1940s

The Saint in Palm Springs (1941)

The Saint Takes Over (1940)

The Saint’s Double Trouble (1940)

The Scarlet Claw (1944)

The Spider Woman (1944)

The House on 92nd Street (1945)

The Locket (1946)

Sorry, Wrong Number (1948)

Cloak and Dagger (1946)

Miracle on 34th Street (1947)