Reviews

If anyone questions whether knighthood values could adhere in the Ming dynasty, let him check out this complex action film. A formidable hero with sword skills that allow him to survive battles against huge mobs somehow loves a delicate woman with artistic skills and has the courage to protect her, but she is at once a dubious love object -- treacherous, devious, and loving another, but finally capable of a measure of devotion. The two live in a world of rampant political corruption that would put the Borgias to shame as amateurs. A lot of time you watch the film wondering what is going on, who are the good guys, are there any good guys, how can one survive in this double dealing universe, and finally wondering whether the hero proves to be a true knight who will be rewarded for his bloody efforts and whether the heroine will escape despite death sentences against her. Well, the conclusion wrapped up in less than two minutes of screen time (it seems) resolves the questions. This movie explodes into action from time to time with somewhat unbelievable escapes amid many a hacked victim. Warning: It is bloody in parts, but mild compared to the films of Miike, for one, but not like the Zaotichi films in terms of bloodlessness. Did they really have that arrow weapon that is shown back then? Musket firing rifles, I can believe, swords, spears, and arrows inflict their damage, but it seems a terrible lack of training led to many deaths of the grunts and the failure of the bad guys to snuff the good guys which they would have in a realistic film. So much for suspension of disbelief. The film runs for two hours, and the actor who plays the lead is very capable and looks heroic enough to be a leading actor in other Asian action films featuring sword play. The heroine is lovely to look at with her incredible complexion, but she seems the epitome of "La Belle Dame Sans Merci." Worthwhile to watch.

Previous reviewers of this film damn it with faint praise if that, but I found it noteworthy as yet another chapter in the Wyatt Earp saga as viewed by Hollywood. The real Earp hung around Hollywood till his death around 1929 and got to know some of the movie makers. Stuart Lake's biography was published in 1931, and Clarence Kelland's TOMBSTONE on which this movie is supposedly based, according to the screen credits, was well known. Well, Hollywood and history are only kissing cousins when it comes to factual matters, and this movie brushes along a lot of truths. But the one thing it does well is the depiction of the legendary gunfight at the OK Corral. The actual fight occurred in a very short space and took a very short time totally unlike the depictions in John Ford's MY DARLING CLEMENTINE and the Burt Lancaster/Kirk Douglas GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL. The depiction here comes closest in the movies to every film and TV version (such as the "You Are There" version) to the actual event as detailed in the many recent histories of Wyatt Earp. It also depicts the murder of Morgan Earp very well since that event occurred soon after the gunfight. As a movie, however, it meanders a lot probably because it tries to tell too many stories at the same time. Earp has to contend not only with unruly cowboys and outlaws but also political corruption at the highest level. The horrendous time waster is spent on Earp's attempt to save a totally fictional person, a young man called Johnny, from a life of crime and to promote the guy's romance with a girl who follows him from Kansas. The antagonist for much of the movie is Curly Bill, played by Edgar Buchanan with much juicy relish, and he has his minions in Ike and Phin Clanton and Indian Charlie, who were real people in Earp's life, but who had no such fates as described in the movie. The shoot out at the end following an abortive robbery of a silver shipment provides an exciting climax, but has no relation to actual events. Sadly, Kent Taylor as Doc Holliday has very little to do to show his acting skills, and Richard Dix as Wyatt Earp is sometimes so low key as to seem he is sleepwalking through a movie he finds boring. Because this film is seldom seen, and has some worthwhile parts to it for western movie fans and for Wyatt Earp fans, I recommend it -- not for its historical accuracy, but for its contribution to myth making.

First things first: available DVDs of this film do not have great picture quality. This is one of the Paramount films of the '30's now owned by another studio with no interest on issuing a "restored" version. So you can only get copies of films recorded on TV years ago. So you have to put up with all the flaws that such copies upon copies have.

Previous reviewers of this film have rightly pointed out the differences between the screen portrayal of "Nero Wolfe" and the depiction presented by Rex Stout in his many novels and short stories. Some might remember that the Saturday Evening Post used to publish some of the later Stout stories and provide illustrations of the detective which fed readers' imaginations. All portrayed a very large man, said in an early novel to be 1/6 of a ton and in later novels to be 1/7 of a ton. In any case like an NFL lineman today. Well, the actors who portrayed Wolfe on the screen all fell far short of the scale, and none conveyed the seriousness, dignity, and gravitas of Stout's conception. Wolfe was not a mirthful man given to jovial humor and feigned laughter. So Walter Connolly as Wolfe with his always cocked sideways head and chuckles does not meet the physical criteria.

Anyway, some reviewer mistakes a big fact about this movie: the league of men did make compensation to their injured classmate, paying his way through Harvard and providing a stipend afterwards. It's all there in the unrolling of the movie. Archie even castigates the accused for being "ungrateful."

There are two comments that have to be made from a motion picture perspective. 1. Stander, who would go on after his career blackball, played a much more sympathetic role as helper and associate to Macmillan and Wife. Here he is abrasive, small minded, and annoying -- totally unlike the smoother Lee Horsley and Timothy Sutton who would play "Archie" in later TV versions of Nero Wolfe. 2. Ciannelli was a very intense actor whose presence on the screen always compelled attention even in the minor but title role as villain in a Republic serial "The Mysterious Dr. Satan." Watch him as the riveting leader of the Thug rebels in "Gunga Din" (the Cary Grant movie) for one of his memorable roles.

Huge plot holes can be found, including the mystery of the box left in a bookstore, how a murder could be committed in a lights out room where the murderer grabbed a gun from the victim and shot him while knocking down a third person who inadvertently entered (err, wasn't there light from the hallway?), and exactly how did Wolfe solve the puzzle, other than guesswork, and why the crazy hoax was devised in the way it was since there was no foreseeable conclusion to it. Why hoax given the deaths that had taken place?

As a previous reviewer said, this movie is for those who want completeness in their search for dramatic portrayals of Nero Wolfe, but good luck in trying to track down English versions of the various Russian and Italian films which IMDb identifies.

Can you believe: a film made in 1924 with the drama, excitement and interest of a film made a century later. Yes, there are creaky passages and actors more used to the theater than film. Oh, you know: the wide distended eyes and flaring nostrils, the standing still wrapped up like a mummy, and the signs of histrionics; but you get past that stuff and focus on the plot. There's a powerful story line that carries along the viewer over many a hump. I didn't know the basic plot of the Nibelungen saga. My knowledge of Wagner's opera actually spoiled an appreciation of this movie since the stories took different directions. But I found myself chasing down the history on Wikipedia that gave rise to the story lines which the movie tries to hew close to. The folks in the era who saw the original film knew what the movie was talking about, so they could appreciate the depiction of fabled events around AD 450. As for the movie, the opening scenes will entice the modern viewer with the hero's encounter with a dragon. Maybe not as good as the first KING KONG in terms of special effects, but still amazing for its time. Once hooked a viewer has to see more.

I saw part one of the two part movie which takes well over four hours, and was intrigued enough to watch part two. The story takes up after the first phase of the rebellion by the aborigines on Taiwan against the Japanese invaders. Historically, the events depicted in the film took place in 1930, well after the Japanese acquired Taiwan by treaty and started to colonize it and began exploiting its natural resources, especially its lumber. The occupation was brutal, and the native population, which was distinct from the Chinese (the Han) who had migrated there, had much to grieve about. The Japanese, like the Spanish in the Philippines, attempted to impose its culture on the natives whom they considered "savages"; and in some cases they were successful in converting the people. Some tribes were converted and remained loyal, and they fought the rebels. But many fierce natives remained unconverted and resentful. Led by a compelling tribal leader, the natives mounted a terrible rebellion that resulted in the massacre of a Japanese community, women and children not being spared. The depiction of the events leading up to the massacre is in part one of this epic. Now, in part two, the movie goes on to describe the events that followed. The rebels knew they could not succeed and were doomed, but they believed that their actions would merit a glorious afterlife. So began a tale of death, destruction, and reprisal. The movie becomes an unending depiction of the horrors that can occur after a rebellion -- shootings, decapitations, ambushes, drownings, suicides, executions of the innocent, bombings from aircraft, poison mustard gas. As a movie, it becomes hard to tell the characters apart since the inter-cutting of scenes is consistent. There are so many deaths that any sympathy gets suspended. Only the main character, the leader of the rebellion, remains the focus of attention and memorable. What happens to him is not really made clear, and whether he ever crossed his mythic rainbow to his promised land is a mystery that the movie does not reveal. There is no joy in this movie, no sense of triumph or accomplishment, just an overwhelming sense of loss.

As other commentators have noted, this is not a prime not-to-miss musical. Don Ameche and Jack Oakie make the best of trite material, but I think the real star of the show is Janet Blair. Just skip the first 50 minutes of the movie to get to the musical numbers. There is a weird Asian number where the chorus girls wear head coverings that look like Chinese coolie hats. Then Janet Blair comes on to shimmy and shake with serpentine dexterity. Later on in the movie, she sings Cole Porter's "You'd Be So Nice to Come Home To" with Ameche joining in. It's not a big production number, just tossing off and downplaying one of Porter's better songs. As a matter of taste, the production numbers are small scale, compared to the lavish dances in the early Astaire/Rogers films of the 30's. Did I count only 20 or so chorus members? The camera begins by taking a long view of the stage, and it tightens up to focus on mid-level action with few if any close ups. No Busby Berkeley shots. Nonetheless, Blair is charming, fetching, and very attractive. She went on to a middling career on TV in the 50's/60's, but she never became a big star like some ladies who worked for MGM. Too bad since she was a good performer who deserved more recognition.

I bought the Legend edition which presents both the colorized version and the original black & white from 1935. Seymour Hicks is among the first actors to play Scrooge on sound films and remains one of the more successful. A look at IMDb reveals a Homeric catalog of great actors who have played Scrooge over the years on TV or in film: Fredric March, Basil Rathbone, Albert Finney, Tim Curry, Michael Caine, Patrick Stewart, Jim Carrey, among many others. Alistair Sim in the 1951 version, and Reginald Owen in the 1938 MGM version, of course, stand out amid this panoply. Lionel Barrymore was supposed to do the MGM version, but became unavailable for health reasons. Still, he went on to do many a radio version of Scrooge which can be heard today on cassette or CD. About the version by Hicks: he was 64 when he made the film, younger than the 51 of Sim and Owen when they made their versions, a more appropriate age for the role. He had played Scrooge on the stage for years beforehand, but he never quite shuffled off the theatrical acting style he was used to. Note how he rolls his eyes in his bedroom scenes when the ghosts come visiting. Still, he does a masterful job of portraying Scrooge as a miser. He is probably the most disreputable, dirty looking Scrooge you will ever see, a shambling wreck of a man, badly needing a bath, haircut, and a new wardrobe. Eating his cheap meal in a restaurant, he takes his change and doesn't leave a tip, much to the scorn of the waiter. It's amazing that he has a housekeeper who serves him his breakfast. Even some misers have their indulgences. I recommend this film as I would a Shakespeare play performed by different actors. Each actor brings something new to the familiar story, each production brings something novel and interesting. The Dickens story is timeless.

The first MGM Arsene Lupin sound movie featured John and Lionel Barrymore as mighty antagonists, master thief and super cop. The RETURNS movie builds up the contest of similar seeming antagonists, a successful G-Man, forced to resign because of his self-promoting publicity, and a legendary thief who seems to have come back from the dead. The beginning of the film builds up the character of Warren William as a sleuth on the trail of a thief calling himself "Arsene Lupin." In short order, William is in France where he meets an aristocratic lady (the beautiful Virginia Bruce) with four young Boston terriers, which we never see again, and Melvyn Douglas as her friend. Douglas apparently has a country estate with various farm animals running around. Then begins the apparent duel -- William versus Douglas, one man suspecting that the other is the real thief who escaped death and the other thinking that he has to evade suspicion for committing a crime and maintaining his life style. The two dance around each other with their witty exchanges, while paying attention to the lovely Bruce. Douglas has to contend with the unexpected appearance of two buddies from his past (Clive and Pendleton) who think that their old life style has returned. Meanwhile, a formidable French police officer (George Zucco) is on the trail. Then begins a succession of events, all centering around a $250,000 emerald necklace, amid a flurry of misdirections, red herrings, shadowy figures, safe cracking, and a deadly shooting, until the satisfying conclusion is reached. A nice touch: the "confetti" thrown at the end. William is as suave as he is in his role as Perry Mason, Douglas is as debonair as he is in his films with Garbo, Bruce is more gorgeous than she is in BORN TO DANCE, even Zucco is more believable than he is in his horror films of the 40's. Also, watch for noted screen chewer Vladimir Sokoloff in his much younger years. One of the better crime films of the '30's with witty repartee, handsome actors, and a clever plot.

So I was 12 or 13 when I saw this show on TV, and I was not sophisticated about crime dramas on TV. In 1955 I knew DRAGNET and PERRY MASON, but nothing about what the Brits were doing in one of their prime specialties. Seeing a French detective show in the USA was more than novel. I recall watching more than a few episodes when the program was shown on our local TV station. My Mom thought Jourdan was especially handsome, having liked Charles Boyer when she was much younger and he was the great French heart throb in that era. Jourdan replaced Boyer in my Mom's heart, and he would go on to greater fame in GIGI and other films after this TV syndicated show. But, as far as I recall about Paris PRECINCT, Claude Dauphin was the lead 'tec in the programs, and Jourdan was the aide. Dauphin was not physically attractive like the handsome Jourdan, since Dauphin was somewhat short and doughy, but the two characters would eventually solve their cases or come to a final resolution. The other things I recall about this series on American TV are (1) its visual graininess and lack of sharp focus and (2) the sense of grayness that seemed to hang over Paris constantly. I think the shows were filmed during the off season in Paris before tourists invaded -- that is, during the late fall, winter and early spring before Paris put on her makeup. Might be worth trying to find DVDs of the show, but remember it's the 50's and film quality may not be the best. Also, for those mystery/detective story fans, it's a police procedural, not a cozy mystery, not in the who-dun-it tradition.

I just watched Julia McKenzie in the recent adaptation of the Christie novel, inserting Miss Marple where she was originally absent. I clicked on the IMDb and Amazon to learn more about the production and found that there had been a 1971 movie which hewed more closely to the original. A purchase of a used DVD gave me pleasure for my money. It's interesting to see how different script writers turned and twisted the basic story lines and how the movies surprised and shocked the viewer. I won't repeat the comments that have already been said on this forum about this '71 film, but I will emphasize the value of seeing the opening minutes again to pick up fat clues that might be missed on first viewing -- the footsteps heard in the Van Gogh museum and the statement of the mother later that her son had experienced something significant. The movie just seems to sail along making one wonder what the mystery is, what the crime was, until the revelations that suddenly come toward the end. Talk about the technique of the unreliable narrator in mystery stories! By the way, Jon Tuska in his great critical work THE DETECTIVE IN Hollywood casually dismisses this movie as not very good. He's wrong.

Donald Woods plays the detective in this film. He has the distinction of being among the few actors to portray at least two fictional sleuths on film or on TV. Woods played Perry Mason in 1937 in the movies, and Craig Kennedy in 1952 on TV. Hollywood sees certain actors playing detectives and casts them in roles that may seem at odds with the character known in books. Warren William as Perry Mason, Philo Vance, and Sam Spade; Wm Powell as Philo Vance and Nick Charles (The Thin Man). Bogart as Sam Spade and Philip Marlowe. The fictional Ellery Queen is a hard role to cast since the character in the books by Dannay and Lee changes over time as the series proceeds over nearly 40 years. The first several books which feature the word "mystery," a derivative of a country, and a common noun ("Dutch Shoe," "Greek Coffin," "French Powder," etc.) feature a detective as esthete, erudite and epicene as Philo Vance and Peter Wimsey. Then EQ is "humanized" and becomes more of a regular guy, but along the way he becomes faceless and without much character. He loses his pince-nez glasses and no longer drives a Duesenberg. He becomes just a problem solver with less than compelling personal problems. So he is then a mere great mind who can be played by any actor, and as time has gone on he has been -- Ralph Bellamy, Lee Bowman, Hugh Marlowe, George Nader, Jim Hutton, and whoever. None of these actors had the distinct personality to create a character on screen like Suchet did with Poirot or Brett with Sherlock. Cumberbatch as Sherlock, too. So Woods is a cipher as a character and as Ellery Queen. The most interesting thing about this oh-hum movie is wondering why Helen Twelvetrees didn't make better movies.

Spoiler if you believe the two films shown in this short are "His Desperate Deed"(1915) and "The Prospector's Daughter" (1912). TCM ran MAKE MINE MEMORIES (revised title of FLICKER FLASHBACKS) early on September 30, 2013. The heroine in both films is Blanche Sweet as stated by the narrator, but Blanche is not in either of the reported films. A check of her credits on the IMDb reveals that the first film with Harry Carey and Henry Walthall is "Broken Ways" (1913) and the second with Dorothy Bernard and Charles West is "The Goddess of Sagebrush Gulch" (1912). In any case the snippets are interesting to see movie making in comparatively primitive times; and it is interesting to see one of the early screen "goddesses" in action.

Some SPOILERS may follow: Most movie watchers remember Erik Rhodes from his performances in two Astaire-Rogers movies. The jewel was THE GAY Divorcée in which he played Tonetti, the co-respondent in the divorce, one of the best supporting roles in all the Astaire films of the 30's. Here, in this musical short, produced by MGM and written by the Burton-Jason team (who wrote the popular standard "Penthouse Serenade"), Rhodes plays a dual role, totally unlike his Italian impersonations. He is supposed to be "the Canary,"a prisoner with a gifted singing voice. The daughter of the warden, played by Virginia Grey, is trying to get a group of inmates to sing beautifully so they can compete in a singing contest over the radio involving prisoners. (We eventually see a women's trio and a group of African-Americans performing songs.) The Canary makes his escape from prison, and three guys set out to find him. They think they see him as a member of a chorus in an opera, grab him, and drop him off at the prison. The Canary is ostensibly captured, and he and the warden's daughter find a kind of wonderful harmony. Well, eventually, the real Canary gets wise to the situation and breaks into prison to set things right. Some knocking on the heads of two Canaries ensue. Eventually events lead to a resolution bringing a happy ending. We are left with the image of Rhodes as a would be leading man given the chance to sing a romantic song to a lovely blond in a prison filled with the most gentlemanly inmates in the world. Pure fantasy, of course, especially depicting the men interacting with the warden's daughter, and a failed experiment in creating a different more romantic image for a man who was a superb comic actor. Worth a look you like Rhodes as an actor, but clearly not unless you want your preconceived expectations of his performance to be jarred.

Charley Chase is best taken in small doses since his brand of comedy can lead you to push the fast forward button as you watch him on video. Still, this film shows him in one of his most representative roles.

Comic pratfalls, absurd situations, outrageous mugging, jokes relying on props (including a Capucine monkey), authority figures like a ship captain reduced to straight men. Yet, here you see his vaudeville side -- his comic singing, his "straight" musical numbers, his dealing with a younger and very pretty Thelma Todd (whose version of a French woman comes out of Broadway, not Paris), and, of course, his funny faces on a mug that looked like an accountant or a more mature Harold Lloyd.

Sometimes, he can be really funny; but normally you want to beg off watching him, because he grabs you by the arm like a high pressure salesman wanting you to appreciate a joke he just has to tell you.

This isn't a great comedy short. I had the feeling that the production studio wanted to do something after the untimely death of Thelma Todd back then. So Thelma's partner Patsy Kelly was paired with another blond, Lillian Miles, who appeared as a singer in an Astaire/Rogers musical. Miles does a nice number as a Little Egypt type dancer in the traveling vaudeville show that Patsy heads, going from town to town in a ramshackle wagon with the law not far behind. I was reminded of a much better, much longer W.C. Fields movie which also featured a traveling road show just one step ahead of the authorities.

A lot of minor acts take place, including a segment involving Indians that is more embarrassing than funny.

Still, if you like to look at blonds who can shake their hips, even for a few seconds of screen time, here is a nice short. Just close your eyes to the non-PC segments involving Indians, and close your ears to the very loud Patsy Kelly. She really needed a contrasting personality, and Thelma Todd was perfect in all the shorts they did.

Benny Rubin is an embarrassment, of course, not just the black face, but also the Russian Jew figure. Still, he provides a view of why Jolson, Cantor, and Jessel were more highly acclaimed on Broadway and vaudeville as black face and comedy performers. Those guys had more energy, more personality, more charisma than Rubin had.

But pay attention to the two featured performers: Marion Harris, who was fired by her recording company for wanting to sing Handy's "St. Louis Blues," is generally acclaimed as the first white woman to sing black blues back in the '20's. Here, she sings a radically alternate version of the Richard Whiting-Neil Moret standard "She's Funny That Way." She sings a dark, very bleak version called "I'm Funny That Way." I can't tell whether Whiting wrote the lyrics, and I can't find the song on any lyrics/song sheet collection on the Net. Still, this now forgotten singer conjures up images of other torch singers of that era -- Helen Morgan and Ruth Etting, for example. She does not come across as second rate by any standard.

Then, there's a couple of songs by the Brox Sisters. Three girls who predated the close harmony of the Boswell Sisters, the Perkins Sisters, the Andrews Sisters, the McGuire Sisters, etc. The song that stands out is "Just You, Just Me" which Woody Allen found good enough to include in his film "Everyone Says I Love You" (1996). Nice to hear how that song might have played way back when. It's still very easy on the ears.

Really, this film short, as shown on TCM, is very much worth watching. Not just for historical purposes, but for the delight of hearing two interpretations of songs that have now become standards.

A European songwriter with classical pretensions meets an American songwriter interested in popular music. He falls madly and impetuously in love with her, while neglecting his private audience before an impresario who could give him his Big Chance. He eventually plays before him, but the older man is more interested in the girl friend. Complications ensue. The girl's song becomes a big hit, and the young man has to make his mark on his own. For a time he seems to have the help of an Older Woman, but she chooses not to ruffle her husband's feathers. A stage performance of his musical is saved by the American's intervention, performing the lead role. He wins the girl's love, after all, despite many disruptions and her last minute spurning of her older benefactor who is by now her official fiancé.

This is a painful movie to watch. Novarro plays a very annoying, very stupid character. How any woman can fall in love with him strains belief. Even a casual moralist might have trouble with the empty headed antics of the major figures. This movie may have been made before the Hays Office censors forced cuts, for the movie makers wanted to be naughty or salacious in the story line.

As for the actors, Ramon Novarro may have been able to sing, but he is not a Nelson Eddy, much less akin to any of Eddy's successors on screen (Allan Jones, Tony Martin, Howard Keel, John Raitt, etc.).

Jeanette Macdonald is wonderful. She has been a favorite of mine since I saw her on stage at Kansas City's Starlight Theater (an outdoor stage in KC's Swope Park), playing the Gertrude Lawrence role in THE KING AND I sometime in the early '50's. The music is really only so-so. "The Night was Made for Love" is the big hit, and it's laughable. Jerome Kern gets the credit for the score, but Cole Porter and Irving Berlin composed better screen music overall.