Meet Me in St. Louis (1944)

The Smith family lives in idealistic 1903 St. Louis, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have problems. Serious problems like how can Ester (Judy Garland) get the boy next door to propose if they haven’t even been introduced? And can sister Rose get her boyfriend to propose over that new-fangled tele-phone contraption? Also, where has Tootie buried all of her dead dolls?

Meet Me in St. Louis is a nostalgic, feel-good, high production piece of fluff. Therefore, it was a huge success. The big song is Judy’s Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas which, unlike the others, has real meaning in the story. Here also is where The Trolly Song comes from, later made famous by the Sweeney Sisters.

The inciting incident comes past the halfway point. With a variety of personal issues in play, dad announces that they will move to New York City. Why live in a gorgeous Victorian in picturesque St. Louis when you can live in a Manhattan tenement? It’s a great opportunity, after all. Everyone must come to terms with this change while celebrating their last Christmas in St. Louis. This is the context of Judy’s song. Tootie doesn’t respond well.

Mary Astor plays Mom and she was hard to recognize, both in appearance and manner. Marjorie Main (Ma Kettle) played the maid. She wasn't hard to recognize. June Lockhart and Hugh Marlowe had tiny roles, but we must talk about Tootie.

Margaret O’Brien at 6 was already an established child star, so her momager decided the studio should pay her accordingly. The studio immediately responded by announcing that the part would go to the daughter of an electrician. The O’Brien’s held out and ended up with the contract they wanted. The electrician responded by dropping lighting equipment from a catwalk near where Margaret was standing. Hollywood is such a warm and inviting place.

The investment in O’Brien certainly paid off for the studio. She just about steals the show and was awarded a juvenile academy award. The same movie framed around her character would have been very interesting. The Halloween segment was, well, quite unexpected. The kids of the town are left to their own devices where they build a bonfire with stolen patio furniture, and throw flour in the face of adults they hate. The talk of hate and blood and murder from the youngest two Smith daughters was delightfully out of place.

But this is Judy’s film and a big hit for her, despite her hairstyle looking like she is hiding horns. And her acting ... wasn’t terrible. Perhaps the lack of gravity in her performance was masked by the mannered style of period costume dramas. The film has only slightly more realism than Oz. Her difficulty on set is an early example of the pill problem that would eventually take her life. At 22 the lines in her face were starting to appear. In the end she pulled out some pretty good performances and would go on to marry the ugly director, twice her age.

Meet Me in St. Louis is the kind of film that it is. Everything is perfectly lit, the colors supersaturated, and all characters, regardless of the circumstance, are impeccably costumed, styled, and made up. But the morbidity of the two youngest sisters is shockingly out of place. Out of place, but oddly not unwelcome. Were it all glitzy confection, it would have less appeal. As such, AMRU 4. It is a delightful piece of fluff.

“It'll take me at least a week to dig up all my dolls in the cemetery.”

Mädchen in Uniform (1931)

Young Manuela is sent to a stern boarding school where all of the girls are infatuated with the stunning headmistress von Bernburg. Manuela takes her infatuation a bit too far, and this can not be tolerated in a school for “the daughters of soldiers, and God willing, mother of soldiers too”. Does our headmistress reciprocate these feelings?

Mädchen in Uniform is in part a statement about the rise of authoritarianism in post-war Germany. As such, it would be banned outright when the Nazis take power a couple years later. They destroyed every copy within their grasp and may even have executed the author of the play it is based on. Or maybe they didn’t. Research is hard.

But more than a statement on authoritarianism, it is remembered as a landmark film embracing the “great spirit of love, in all its forms”. It would have been banned in America had Eleanor Roosevelt not spoken up for it, and went on to become a hit.

But as important as it has become to members of a certain community, I have difficulty getting past the fact that Manuela was fourteen. This is fine in the context of an adolescent awakening and infatuation, but things become problematic when read as a budding romance between student and teacher. In reality the actresses are only a few months apart in age, but change the context to priest and choir boy and the conversation takes on a whole new meaning. The film leaves some of this to interpretation.

The story, while sometimes wonky and episodic, is entertaining. Hertha Thiele is adorable and the movie was well photographed. Unfortunately the Kino version has some serious tape hiss, but I suppose we’re lucky to have it at all. AMRU 3.5.

Pardon Us (1931)

The boys hatch a plan to brew their own beer and sell what they can’t drink. Unfortunately they sell it to a cop and are sent to jail. It’s prohibition, remember. What was supposed to be another two-reeler, ended up their first feature-ish length film when they failed to edit out the boring parts. Or, in actuality, thought it was all good enough.

An early indication of efficient storytelling is how they go from concocting their brewing plan straight to being carted off to jail. No beer brewing antics, no arrest or trial bit, just “Let’s brew beer” to the close of the prison gates. But in reality they just wanted to do prison bits, so that’s all they did. Plus a scene in a cotton field wearing blackface. Yea, that was a thing.

Unpopular opinion: Laurel and Hardy’s comedy does not hold up. The big gag here is that Laurel has a bad tooth that causes him to make a rude mouth sound after every sentence. He can stop this by poking the side of his face. See him offend people when he forgets to poke his face! See him forget what side of his face he needs to poke! See him forget how blankets work! Pardon Us is rife with innovative punchlines like “Oh, yea?” and “Say, what is this?”

My hot take can be greatly influenced by mood, my company, and where I am in my film education. I fully acknowledge this. I don’t wish to dismiss a performer or performance too hastily and I should watch each film a second time before opening my big fat keyboard. But this is my third Laurel and Hardy film, one of their highest rated, and it, like the others, stunk.

I’ve rated higher films with more things wrong with them. Bad acting, bad editing, bad camera work, bad dialog. Here there is only one flaw, but it’s a fatal one. Pardon Us is uninteresting. Just a lot of pointless running around and goofy reaction shots. I have never before watched a film this short that felt so long. AMRU 2.

Saboteur (1942)

An airplane factory is set on fire, and Barry’s (Robert Cummings) buddy is killed. When it is discovered that his fire extinguisher was filled with gasoline, Barry is suspected. To clear his name he flees the police to search for the suspicious Frank Fry (Norman Lloyd) who was clearly responsible.

No train here, but man does it hit all the other Hitchcock points. Innocent man on the lam with a hot blond (Priscilla Lane) he can’t trust? Check-a-roo! That’s four in one sentence. Much of the film was reminiscent of The 39 Steps.

Hitch was disappointed with this one mostly because he couldn’t get any of the actors he wanted. Robert Cummings was more of a light comic actor and Hitch felt he didn't bring the sense of danger the role demanded. I thought Priscilla Lane was great but you know how particular Hitch can be with his hot blonds. She played Cary Grant’s fiancee in Arsenic and Old Lace a couple years later then faded from Hollywood.

Hitch was almost impossible to see in his cameo. Apparently his first attempt was cut because of a rude hand gesture. Old friend Ian Wolf appears again, the thirteenth time we’ve crossed paths. Tony Randall has a small speaking part that I had to go back and search for. Another I felt compelled to search for was Will Lee. He was a minor character actor and would rise to fame as the owner of a store on some street. Robert Mitchum is rumored to be in a crowd scene but I never saw him.

Allegedly Barry’s ill-fated buddy was played by an electrical assistant who looked the part. Best I can figure, that would be Jeffrey Sayer, who at 40ish seemed too old to be the boyish character. The woman playing his mom was three years older. That said, Sayer appeared, mostly uncredited, in 516 films! Including TV, he has over six hundred screen credits. I suppose if he is already on set working the gaffers tape, it is easy to pull into a background scene. This is our twenty first film together, which is comically small, considering.

The real saboteur was played by Norman Lloyd in his first feature role. Remembered mostly for St. Elsewhere, he seem to be forgotten when discussing remaining actors from Hollywood’s golden era. Norman turned 106 last month. Give the man a little respect. He was a delightfully slimy villain.

Saboteur is what I would describe as a Worthwhile Lesser Hitchcock. At its heart it is a World War II fifth-column film of which there are a few. Bogart’s All Through the Night is a recent example. But it’s better than most. The plot is a little convoluted, has a few hokey scenes, and drags for a bit, but it is engaging enough and well worth your time. Classic Hitchcock. AMRU 3.5.

Baby Face (1933)

Young Lili (Barbara Stanwyck) works as a barmaid in her father’s speakeasy. Everyone treats her horribly except a kindly older gentleman who tells her that she is better than all this. She has potential. She should screw her way to the top. Wait, what?

Of all the pre-code films, Baby Face just may be the pre-codiest. Cut to ribbons before release and again at each location it was exhibited, we are lucky to have a pre-censored version. Pretty but never gorgeous, Stanwyck showed that she can turn on the sex appeal when needed.

For those unfamiliar, there once was an agreed upon moral standard that Hollywood movies must adhere to. Formally, the Motion Picture Production Code, it mandated stuff like the bad guy must get caught (or die), the avoidance of overt sexuality or violent themes, and of topics like prostitution, abortion, or homosexuality. The so called “per-code era” is a span of four or so years after the studios agreed to this standard to when they actually started following it. During this time many films were released that directly flaunted these rules. While none of these movies could be described as explicit, they do raise eyebrows.

Another subversive aspect of Baby Face is that Lili has a black maid who is also her friend, played by the adorable Theresa Harris. Although a side-kick character, she didn't play the racial stereotype. She would be relegated to maid characters throughout her career. Someone who’s talent wouldn’t be wasted is a young John Wayne. He was already an established B western star and had a small role here as a stepping stone. Second billed George Brent didn’t appear until well past the halfway mark.

While not shocking by modern standards, Baby Face did have quite a few “Oh, crap!” moments. It is strongly implied that Lili was more than just a barmaid to her father’s customers, nudge nudge. Played as the story of a woman using her sexuality for her benefit rather than others, there will be a variety of opinions on this. I'm sure it provoked many viewers back in its day. Assuming they knew what was going on after all the edits. AMRU 4.

I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1932)

James Allen (Paul Muni) returns from the Great War a hero and doesn’t want to return to his old desk job. Wanting to be an engineer, he goes out looking for his dream job. But work is hard to find and he ends up living as a hobo. Wrongfully convicted of a petty crime, he ends up on an old-timey chain gang. Spoiler alert: he becomes a fugitive.

I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang is an indictment of the chain gang system which is apparently not just a Looney Tunes trope. And it is a pretty brutal depiction, as only pre-code Hollywood could do. In small part it’s the Midnight Express of its era. There are also frank depictions of prostitution, premarital sex, and infidelity. Into shirtless men being whipped? It has some of that as well.

In the second act a young woman utters a confounding line, one I’ve heard a couple times before. Expressing that she is beholden to no one, she says “I'm free, white, and twenty one”. I suppose that’s just something white Americans with means said back in the day. I don’t think the filmmakers had purpose behind the line, but earlier a black man on the chain gang wasn't being released because he was too good of a worker. The context of the film makes the line especially callous.

The story is based on the real life imprisonment of Robert E. Burns, who collaborated on the film while on the lam! Unlike many films that dabbled in exploitation, Fugitive is not played with a wink and a nod. This is real social commentary that helped reform the criminal justice system, and earn Burns his eventual freedom.

FW21 aside, Fugitive is a very compelling film, entertaining and eye-opening, and Muni was fantastic. Some of the acting is a little dated and truth be told, the story does drag for a bit. But I think I would like to see it again if I could share it with someone who liked movies like this. AMRU 4.

Where the Sidewalk Ends (1950)

Obsessed with putting the pinch on a big time hood, Detective Mark Dixon (Dana Andrews) sometimes steps over the line. When investigating the murder of a whale, he accidentally bumps off the suspect. He covers up his mistake and becomes infatuated with a witness (Gene Tierney).

Based on the novel Cry Night and not the Shel Silverstein poem, we are treated to a dangerously unstable protagonist. Demoted for shaking down suspects, he seethes with anger and daddy issues. Tierney’s Morgan is the sweet girl with a taste for bad men. Both starred in 1944’s Laura and their characters share some similarities.

Gary Merrill is our decongestant-addicted mister big. He played a very different character this same year in All About Eve. There he got his comeuppance when he decided to marry Bette Davis. In real life, that is. What was he thinking? Smooth, smart, and ruthless, he makes for an excellent villain. Karl Malden is the straight-laced detective, but let’s talk about screenwriter Ben Hecht.

Hecht has writing credits on 135 films (according to IMDb) ranging from Hitchcock to horror, Marx Brothers to Gone With the Wind. He had his hands on so many films, so many great films (and some stinkers too) that he deserves his own keyword. I’ll need to find a bio of him someplace. His characters are rich and the dialog rings true. He has two academy awards and four other nominations.

With attitude and atmosphere, Where the Sidewalk Ends is an excellent film. Again, well written background characters leave an impact. The diner owner almost deserves a film of her own. Not often recognized in the top of the genre, it deserves to be in the conversation. It is better than some that are. AMRU 4.

“Look at ya! You're all bunged up like a barrelhouse vag!”

I Love You Again (1940)

Boring businessman Larry (William Powell) gets konked on the head during a water rescue and wakes up as George (William Powell), a charismatic con man who lost his memory after a similar konk nine years earlier. Larry was a tight-fisted t-totaller who chairs community organizations, leads scout troops, and stuffs wildlife. George is as appalled by this as wife Kay (Myrna Loy) is bored with it. He goes about trying to fleece his former life and hometown, and to patch things up with his hot wife.

Not too bad of a premise for a rom-ish comedy, and Powell and Loy’s on-screen chemistry is second to none, Tracy/Hepburn included. Powell’s Larry/George cleverly navigates his mysterious former life, looking for scams to pull, and trying to re-woo his wife.

Edmund Lowe played Larry/George’s co-conspirator from his previous con-man life. He was in a ton of things but I only saw him as the luke-warm hero from the otherwise interesting Chandu the Magician. But let’s talk about his other co-conspirator Doc, played by Frank McHugh. He too was in an absolute ton of things and I remember him from a few of them. He was the go-to guy for a particular type of wisecracking sidekick. He was great in this role and I must pay closer attention in the future.

Two Little Rascal actors had small roles as scouts. Carl Switzer, better known as Alfalfa, and Robert Blake, better known for murdering his wife. Carl would be killed at age 31 over a $35 argument. Blake beat his murder charge and is pushing 90. There is no god.

I Love You Again is a charmingly good member of the genre, if not among it’s very best. We know Powell will be witty, Loy will be adorable, and both will be charming. We care about the leads and thus about their situation. It was reasonably funny and a very enjoyable watch. AMRU 3.5.

“Boy! Eighteen days alone on a boat is certainly a long time to be alone on a boat for eighteen days!”

The 39 Steps (1935)

Regular everyman leaves a show when someone fires a gun. In the rush a strange woman asks to go home with him, and she does. Turns out, she is some sort of spy and needs to hide out for the night, safe in his apartment. Well, maybe not too safe. Our hero travels to Scotland based on her vague explanation. Cops want to arrest him, bad guys want to kill him, and the nation’s security hangs in the balance.

Hitch’s follow up to his successful Man Who Knew Too Much, The 39 Steps solidified his reputation as a hit maker. Similar in tone, both films feature the ordinary man in extraordinary circumstances, a theme he would repeat many times. Also on display is his love of trains and hot blonds.

Hitchcock directed 58 films including a few collaborations and an incomplete film. This is my twentieth and I have maybe five more recorded, so running out of Hitchcock films is not a far off reality. Many of his early silent films, if not lost, are hard to find.

The 39 Steps has a more than passing resemblance to It Happened One Night, both featuring a couple who don’t care much for each other, travelling with some danger. The story is different but the vibe is similar. Happened is clearly the superior film but 39 Steps is also fun to watch. There are a couple plot holes that I admit vexed me while watching, but I got over it. AMRU 3.5.

Winchester ‘73 (1950)

Dodge City is holding a shooting competition and the winner gets a Winchester rifle. But not just any Winchester. One in a thousand Winchesters comes out so perfect that it would be a shame to sell it. Instead they give it away. Makes perfect sense.

Lin McAdams (James Stewart) enters the competition because he knows it will attract Dutch Henry Brown, a man he needs to kill. He can’t kill him in town, so … there’s a plan someplace. Anyhow Lin wins the rifle, Dutch steals it, and off they go again.

Lin wants the MacGuffin but really needs to kill Dutch. But along the way is a hot dance hall girl (Shelley Winters) engaged to a coward with a heart of gold, Dutch’s criminal gang, and those terrible injuns! I felt the Indians were actually depicted somewhat respectfully, by 1950 standards anyhow. They were murderous warriors and the leader was played by Rock Hudson, but still. It could have been a lot worse.

Wyatt Earp was played by Grandpa Walton. A young Tony Curtis played a cavalryman. Shelley Winters didn’t think much of her role as all the men were desperate to get their hands on some gun instead of her bod. This is not entirely true, but as she is almost the only female ever on screen, she isn’t entirely wrong either.

A strength of the movie is it’s background characters. Dan Duryea is a compelling secondary villain, maybe a bit too charismatic to be the principle. He is despicable but almost likable. The cavalry sergeant, the indian trader, Marshal Earp, and many others are fully fleshed out minor characters that fit perfectly in the story’s world. Also, the details of Lin/Dutch grudge are slowly revealed changing the context of earlier conversations. Early on they both aim their rifles in the same quirky way implying a shared history.

Stewart credits Winchester ‘73 with reviving his career. He built his career in romantic comedies but that role fit him less and less. Westerns did not seem a natural fit for his erudite city-boy persona but it worked and he was reinvented. His best work was to follow.

Winchester ‘73 is essentially a revenge/man hunt film with all the Western trimmings. There is a certain awkward directness to the dialog but that’s not to say it’s poorly written. While parts are cringeworthy cliched, most is quite good. It is quite odd how everyone immediately recognizes the gun as something rare and priceless. Way sexier than Shelley. AMRU 4.

At The Circus (1939)

Zeppo-analog disinherits himself so he can run a circus with his horse singing love. He is robbed of the ten grand he needs to buy it outright and Antonio (Chico) enlists the help of a lawyer (Groucho) to save the day.

I am growing tired of bits where Chico and Harpo just clown around with no real comedic inventiveness. Here, the boys search for the money in the strong man’s quarters while he sleeps. Nothing particularly funny happens and it doesn’t advance the story. Along with the reintroduction of musical numbers, At the Circus tends to be a little tedious.

That said, it does bring back a little of what Room Service lost. Margaret Dumont for one, if in a lesser capacity (and past the 50 minute mark), and Groucho is his wisecracking self, at least to a degree. Room Service was a non-Marx Brothers film starring the Marx Brothers, and it was clear how well that worked. Circus felt like it was their film, though you can sense that their heart really wasn’t into it anymore.

A young Eve Arden has a sizable role. Older audiences will remember her as Miss Brooks, but she will always be Principle McGee to me. Famous gorilla performer Charles Gemora played a gorilla. He had a thirty year career mostly playing apes or ape-like monsters, including The War of the Worlds and Island of Lost Souls.

While At The Circus does not stand with the best of the Marx Brothers films, it’s not among the skippables either. It contains no fondly remembered comedic bits, but it’s funny enough and very watchable. Cut a couple of the songs and it would be more so. AMRU 3.

The Blob (1958)

“Teenagers” see a shooting star that is revealed to contain some sort of growing mass, a “Glob” if you will, that attaches itself to flesh and dissolves its victim. Local authorities won’t listen to our heroes because they are “teenagers”, not that they did a terribly good job trying.

A half step above the regular sci-fi/horror drive-in fare of the era, The Blob is remembered mostly because it was Steve McQueen’s first starring role. I don’t myself as a McQueen fan but there is something about his performances that draw your attention.

Another thing that makes The Blob stand out is the uniqueness of a non-Newtonian monster. I can’t think of a precedent. The low budget special effects were quite good. The only problem points are the cringe-worthy scenes where “teens” try to behave like teens. Once past that, we have a fairly good paranoia monster movie with a pretty good climax.

The Blob rises above its budget and makes for an enjoyable watch. Maybe it would not be a classic if not for the casting, but it's fun and we do get very good performances from McQueen and the prettiest girl in Mayberry. AMRU 3.

Manos: The Hands of Fate (1966)

A family on vacation gets lost and mistakenly stays at a cult leader’s compound. Low budget antics ensue.

Insurance salesman Harold Warren bet that he could make a film on an extremely small budget. Say what you will about this turd, it most definitely is a film. Low budget and no talent permeates all corners of it. The script, story, acting, score, and photography were all terrible. The actors didn’t seem to know how to react in dramatic scenes, or even where to look. Their community theater troupe would totally have fired them.

A classic amateur writing mistake is to have characters repeat points the writer feels are important. This happens throughout. Also, as the film was shot silent and dubbed later, some of The Master’s wives made exaggerated motions figuring dialog would be inserted later. Yea, that would have been a good idea. But probably most damning is the speed at which the film was edited. When it takes three hours to digitally edit a twenty minute youtube video, it is quite revealing that it took only “three to four hours” to edit a 70 minute, 16 mm film. Clearly Manos wasn’t as much edited as stitched together.

I was annoyed that the Dad character was easily twenty years older than his very pretty wife, but later realized he was the director, so that made sense. Also, he was a real dick, declaring he will stay at the cult compound despite the caretaker being against the idea, his wife's protests, and enough red flags to cancel the Nascar season. Then he orders poor Torgo around like he’s their servant. That man’s poor knees! Dad deserves to die, just saying.

But let’s not focus on the negative. What about this film wasn’t the absolute worst? Well, the narrative was understandable. That’s a plus. There was a theme. It’s hands! Also the ending was somewhat satisfying.

Manos: The Hands of Fate would have faded into obscurity had it not been featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000. There really is no enjoyment to be had here other than to goof on it. That said, it wasn’t the worst film in the world. It’s fourth. AMRU 1.5.

The Little Shop of Horrors (1960)

Klutzy flower shop worker Seymour grows a bizarre plant to impress a pretty co-worker and save his job. Turns out the plan thrives on blood. Oh, and it talks.

Ah, Roger Corman. His films feel like twisted art experiments. But instead of trying to reinvent narrative or challenge the tropes of cinema, he tried to complete each film as quickly and cheaply as possible. There are many Corman stories. Having finished The Raven early, he shot The Terror on the same set, with the same actors, and without a script. Going on location is expensive, so why not shoot two films? The script for the second film wasn’t finished so he brought the writer along and made him a principal character.

Here, Corman had a better than fair script. It felt like a stage play adaptation, and I thought it was. The sets were reused and the actors well rehearsed therefore principle photography took only two days. That’s right, 48 hours. I like a low budget quickie maybe a bit more than the next guy, but come on Roger. You’re taking the fun out of it.

Jack Nicholson has a very small role as a masochistic dental patient. All of the performances were good if two dimensional, but it felt rushed. We could have gotten to know the Joe Friday-esque detective and the hypochondriac mother better had the pace been allowed it to breathe. Not that I would argue for a much longer version.

Overall, The Little Shop of Horror isn’t bad. Silly, rushed, and not as funny as it could be. I suppose I need to see the remake now. AMRU 2.5.

Invisible Ghost (1941)

Seeing the wife who ran off on him, standing in his lawn causes Bela Lugosi to go into a trance and kill people.

Let me get this straight. The rich and influential Charles Kessler is so traumatized by his wife leaving him that he won’t leave the house in case she returns. Even though people are being murdered inside the house! Next we learn that the gardener is secretly hiding her in the garden shed for who knows what reason. She was hurt in a car accident that killed her lover and is now in a semi-vegetative state. So each night she leaves the shed and stands in the lawn, magically compelling Bela to the window, causing his murderous trance.

That’s not a spoiler. This is all established early. And he is Bela Lugosi after all.

None of this makes any sense. But taken as read, how terrible must the cops be if multiple people are murdered inside a house and none of the occupants are even suspected? There were at least two murders prior to the film’s beginning. No checking for forced entry, securing perimeter, nothing that even resembles police work. Just “Gosh, we’re stumped!” In fact Bela and another possible suspect seem to drive the investigation, finding evidence and deciding how to proceed.

It took me a while to realize that I’ve seen this one before. The year before my blog I watched a bunch of films that were never covered. This was one. It should be no mystery how I forgot about it, this being squarely in Bela's Nick Cage phase of role selection.

Invisible Ghost lacks atmosphere, mystery, and runs short on drama. It really feels like they started filming with a partial script and were winging it much of the time. The best thing I can say is that it is short and isn’t painful to watch. In fact, Bela as a genuinely nice guy who has no idea he’s the murder is a unique angle. I just wish there was a story to go along with it. AMRU 2.5.

The Cat Girl (1957)

Pretty Leonora is summoned by her uncle to his country mansion regarding her inheritance. She is told to come alone, but traumatized by her time there she brings her husband and some friends. On her way she crosses paths with her old Dr. flame for whom she still has feelings. Turns out Leonora also inherits the family curse, where she is somehow connected to this leopard that kills when she is angry. Good thing Dr. flame is a shrink.

Cat Girl has a certain Cat People feel but it isn’t a direct remake. There is a pretty girl, a curse, a cat, and violence, but the story is very different. And not to Cat Girl’s credit. While the former is taught and compelling, this is quite plodding.

Our good doctor Marlowe is our hero analog, but he is a poor one. He has science and wants to help poor Leonora but he does a terrible job. He is pretty harsh to her and makes terrible decisions. Then, at her darkest time, he decides she should leave the sanitarium and spend time with his wife, alone, even though she has been openly hostile towards her. What the hell, man! Plus actor Robert Ayres mumbles all of his dialog. And, it seems their romantic backstory occurred when she was a teen and he was in his mid-thirties.

I try not to impose Hollywood values on English films, but they can be so stiff and formal that they feel like a TV adaptation of a stage play. This being a prime example. Everyone here is pretty rude and even our protagonist turns into the monster. Also, much of the dialog is downright wonky. Cat Girl has a fair amount of atmosphere, some good ideas, and is pretty short, but that doesn’t keep it from being dull. AMRU 2.5. Watch Cat People instead. Not the Nastassja Kinski one.

The Green Slime (1968)

An asteroid is headed straight towards Earth, so an emergency plan enlists the dashing and handsome Commander Jack Rankin to save the day. First stop is a space station commanded by his former friend, Vince Elliott. I wonder if a hot, Italian red-head has anything to do with their personal problems.

Anyhow, our team takes another rocket to the meatball ... I mean asteroid, to carefully place explosives into a six inch hole they dug. You can’t just put them anywhere. I mean, science and all. The mission is a success, but a drop of green goo is carried back to the space station. But this is no ordinary green goo. Energy of any kind causes it to grow at an alarming rate. Wiggly rubber monster mayhem ensues.

This film is notorious for it’s campiness. Released the same year as 2001: A Space Odyssey, it was never going to get much respect from the Sci-Fi crowd. Burdened with a very 1950’s story and done at a sliver of 2001’s budget, this is a film out of time. Knowing this I think the studio intentionally targeted the camp angle. The film’s title and matching theme song clearly don’t take the material seriously, but there is no indication that the cast and crew were in on the joke. They played it straight and the set pieces and corresponding miniatures were interesting and well designed, although they would occasionally look like they were made by a high school theater troupe on a craft store field trip.

Which takes us to the film’s biggest problem. A space station being menaced by Japanese children in green rubber suits. This might fly in a 1955 drive in, but science fiction was now an artform. Audiences would, at best, giggle at this. I think the filmmakers tried to make a serious film, but they didn’t have the material, the monster, or the timing. And there are more problems here. The character’s confused and annoying backstory, for example. Interestingly, this was a Japan/Hollywood collaboration and the Japanese release omitted the tedious love triangle, shortening the film by about twelve minutes. This could not have been a bad choice.

I wanted to like The Green Slime. But even while ignoring the shadow of Kubrick, we still don’t have a terribly interesting film. It didn’t bring nothing to the table, but still, it didn’t bring a whole lot. It could have been so much closer to mediocre. AMRU 2.5.

Danger Signal (1945)

A charming scoundrel charms women, kills them, then steals their money. Now he charms the charming Hilde, then charms her charming little sister because she has money coming. Whatever shall they do?

Danger Signal is, I guess, a lesser film-noir. That is to say, it checks enough noir boxes to fit the category. Still, it lacks the attitude and atmosphere I come to expect. Think Hitchcock’s Shadow of a Doubt. But unlike Doubt, there are no big names attached to this project. Just studio contract players.

Faye Emerson plays the pretty but not too pretty Hilde, who succumbs to Ronnie’s charms, and Mona Freeman is her adorable little sister. Also here is Richard Erdman who went on to a much longer film and TV career, and is best remembered as that guy who reviews snack foods on youtube.

I’ve heard it say that Danger Signal would be better known had it’s cast some star power, but I’m not convinced. I’ve loved films with no stars or even budget and left cold by films with an impressive marquee. Looking at you, Honeymoon! I wonder if casting stars makes everyone believe in the picture and thus try a bit harder. I don’t know. Danger Signal had some good ideas and solid performances, but the script and story were just blah. Plus the ending was terrible. AMRU 2.5.

Man with a Movie Camera (1929)

Director Dziga Vertov subscribed to a radical school of filmmaking, casting off the artifice of actors and story. Pure cinema. This film, part documentary part experiment, shows people at work. Doing things and going places, illustrated without title cards. In fact, we see the making the very film we are watching. We see it filmed, edited, and exhibited. Not for a moment are we allowed to forget we are watching a movie. Even the reel changes are announced. Clearly there is another man with another camera, but the technique is quite effective.

“Film buffs” are supposed to like Man with a Movie Camera because, like broccoli, it’s “good for us”. It is a landmark of early cinema. I didn’t, however, actually expect to like it. TCM ran an excellent restoration with a recreation of Vertov’s original score and I don’t recommend watching a lesser copy. The score was quite compelling and made the experience.

Dziga Vertov (whose name literally means spinning, turning) used a number of camera tricks to heighten the experience, many of which he developed. During the editing montage we see how the double exposures were created, the editor (Vertov’s wife) carefully scraping the silver oxide from the celluloid. In other segments we see a factory worker hand pack cigarettes. I found it all fascinating.

There’s not a lot to say here. While it appears to have a narrative, it’s not something easily communicated. Man with a Movie Camera is historically significant, fairly short, and surprisingly entertaining. Watch it. It’s good for you. AMRU 4.

Sex Kittens Go To College (1960)

 

Thinko (Elektro) selects the perfect candidate to head the science department at Collins College, but Dr. West turns out to be a blond woman who looks like Mamie Van Doren (Mamie Van Doren). I mean, a blond woman? To run a college department? All of the men and some of the women fall over themselves in slapstick antics, while idiot gangsters try to find this Thinko character. I knew what I was getting into.

Perhaps Dr. West (Tassels Monclair to her friends) is the titular Sex Kitten but the plural ‘Kittens’ implies more than one. Maybe it’s a general statement as there are several attractive women we presume to be students: ‘The place that sex kittens go is college’. More likely they simply didn’t think very long on the title before shipping it off to drive-ins. The original title was Sex Pot (singular) goes to College. Either way, it wasn’t a terribly sexy movie. Or a funny one.

The main character other than Mamie is college administrator George, played by Martin Milner. Us old people will recognize him from Adam-12. He likes Dr. West just fine, but blond and attractive? Ya gotta admit she doesn’t look the part! Also here is a sixteen year old Tuesday Weld and her friend Brigitte Bardot’s sister. Bardot Sister is quite adorable but apparently needed to have all her lines dubbed.

John Carradine played a lecherous professor. He played a lot of low rent roles later in his career, though this was rather early for him to sink so low. Jackie Coogan plays Wildcat MacPherson, a college benefactor with a W.C. Fields impression. He was a child star in the silent era (The Kid) before personal problems put his career into the toilet. He would slowly revive his reputation earning roles in crap like this. Oh, and as Uncle Fester.

Further in the background is Conway Twitty (Conway Twitty) who was properly embarrassed by his presence here, and Maila Nurmi, better known as Vampira. I had trouble spotting her because she wasn't in character. Further still in the background is Charlie Chaplin, Jr. and Harold Lloyd, Jr. Yea, I wasn’t going to search for them.

Dr. West has, we are to believe legitimately, fourteen degrees and is fully qualified for her role. Is there a subtle message for women's rights here? To not judge people by their appearance? Not actually. This is simply a sexy fish out of water and played for as many laugh-adjacent reactions as possible. Not sure if drive-in audiences of the day would have tolerated anything smarter. But they should have held out for something funnier. The chimp was the best part. AMRU 2.

The Virgin Spring (1960)

A farming couple sends their young, spoiled daughter to church to deliver candles. Along for the ride is their pregnant and wayward servant girl. Things don’t go well.

Based on a Swedish folk ballad and inspired by Kurosawa’s Rashomon, director Ingmar Bergman was disappointed with the result. The Rashomon link is how everyone involved evaluates their role in the tragedy and how the events unfold. Yes, I’m being intentionally vague.

I find Bergman films more accessible than his reputation. The events here are pretty straight forward, simple really. The viewer is left to consider everyone’s response and maybe what the end means. Most synopses will detail more of the story but I’d rather not reveal too much. And I suppose I agree with Bergman to a point because I find it to be the least interesting of his films I’ve seen so far. But it is still an interesting and visually attractive film, and Birgitta Pettersson is adorable. I hope your day goes better. AMRU 3.5.

What’s Up, Doc? (1972)

An engaged musicologist (Ryan O’Neal), a man carrying government secrets, jewel thieves, and a crazy woman (Barbra Streisand) cross paths in a San Francisco hotel. Each has an identical overnight bag that is confused for the others. Zany antics ensue.

What’s Up, Doc? legitimately feels like a Warner Brothers cartoon but also takes inspiration from classic screwball comedies, principally Bringing Up Baby, and other classic films. O’Neal’s musicologist is Grant’s paleontologist. The film is packed with classic film references. Streisand plays As Time Goes By from Casablanca and insists on calling O'Neal's Howard ‘Steve’ as Lauren Bacall’s character does to Bogart in To Have and Have Not. The references are too numerous to list.

There’s not much else really to say of the story other than Streisand is relentless in her pursuit of Howard, Howard is helpless in everything he does, and mobsters and g-men are incompetent. Screwball to the end, which is fairly satisfying.

The absurdist nature of the comedy is somewhat off putting at first, but it grows on you. Barbra is quite charming as a crazy lady, Madeline Kahn is the perfect unlikable fiancee, and the crazy pace is kept up throughout. It's an amusing and unique comedy, if not hilarious. AMRU 3.5.

Yojimbo (1961)

A Samurai (Toshiro Mifune) wanders into a village with a problem. Two warlords are in conflict for control of the village and the only person profiting is the casket maker. He decides to stay and play both sides off each other for profit. Yojimbo means bodyguard.

Director Akira Kurosawa wanted to reinvent the western for Japanese audiences. Taking inspiration from John Ford, he crafted a new kind of western in the form of a Samurai film. He even included a gunfighter, the very western looking Tatsuya Nakadai.

Kurosawa just seen his Seven Samurai remade into a Hollywood western and Yohimbo would follow suit. The story would be taken in whole cloth by Sergio Leone for A Fistful of Dollars, sparking a lawsuit.

Set in a humble village and filmed in black and white, Yojimbo looks fantastic. Even in rain the visual popped. The gang’s henchmen move like a comedic dance troupe, acting brave but clearly craven. It’s a serious film that uses levity to its advantage. It is visually stunning in many ways.

Maybe I didn’t enjoy the film as much because I already knew the story because I saw Fistful … holy crap, eleven years ago! Still, I remembered it well. People may find Fistful more accessible because it was filmed in “English” but Yojimbo is clearly the better film. AMRU 4.

Once Upon a Honeymoon (1942)

It’s 1938 and an American with a past (Ginger Rogers) is engaged to an Austrian Barron, who may or may not be a Nazi (he may). Newsman Patrick (Cary Grant) is dying to get an interview to find out who she is and more about this Barron guy. Gosh, she sure is pretty.

Ostensibly this is just a Cary Grant/Ginger Rogers rom-com with war as a backdrop, but the stakes are raised as they try to avoid the Nazi’s and do … whatever it is they are trying to do. Unfortunately, the screenplay was, as Grant famously said, rubbish. Bad dialog, bad jokes, scenes that either undermine the tone or simply don’t work. It could have been so much closer to mediocre.

Interestingly this is one of the few war films of the time that make a direct reference to Jews. There is a Jewish maid whose life is in danger and our heroes even visit a concentration camp. They deserve credit for that even if the tonal balance was way off. It wanted to be a serious war film but with a love interest and star power, but it failed in the execution.

Our Jewish maid is played by Natasha Lytess who was Marilyn Monroe’s acting coach. They were close friends and outlived her by less than a year. Cancer is a bitch. A young Nazi is played by a slim John Banner, Sargent Shultz himself. I rewatched the scene to see if I could spot any Shultz in his face. I could not. What a difference twenty years makes. And sixty pounds.

Director Leo McCarey has a better than fair reputation, but I can’t help but lay the blame at his feet. The writer provides the script and the studio provides the resources, but the director has to make it all work. And it didn’t. He could have evened the tone and made sure the scenes had weight. I think he just went with what he was handed. AMRU 2.5.

West of Zanzibar (1928)

The wife of circus magician Phroso (Lon Chaney) leaves him for another man (Lionel Barrymore) and in the scuffle, Phroso is injured and loses the use of his legs. Wife Ann returns dead (not sure how that happened) with her lover’s child. The treacherous Crane becomes an ivory trader in Africa so Phroso follows suit to plot his revenge.

It has been over five years since I saw the talkie remake but I remember the major beats of the story. The biggest difference in this shorter version is that the backstory is fleshed out better. If memory serves the remake starts in Africa and we learn in hindsight about the wife, child, and treachery.

So, Dead-leg’s plan is to lure Crane to his compound to show him his daughter, raised in a brothel and abused by Phroso. Based on the same play, both movies play out the same. Walter Houston starred in the stage version and Chaney was perhaps the perfect substitute at the time. Mary Nolan, cast because she had "tragic eyes", is exceptional as the horribly abused damsel. She would later take her own life. Probably.

It would be hard not to compare the two films, the biggest difference being the sound element. Both are pretty ugly films aesthetically, in subject matter, and in how they treat the Africans. The natives are primitive and childlike, easy fooled by sleight of hand and parlor tricks, allowing the white men to become like kings. All this while not being able to walk.

West of Zanzibar is an interesting, if a somewhat hard to watch film. The people and events are not pleasant, but that's what makes it stand out. AMRU 3.

Cry of the Werewolf (1944)

The estate of a lady werewolf is now a museum based on her legend. When her tomb is located her gypsy daughter is determined to protect it. Oh, and she’s a werewolf too.

Taking a cue from Son of Dracula they set the story in Louisiana, but still gave it an Eastern European feel. Nobody spoke with a southern accent and they wore winter clothes inside and out. It was December, but it still felt out of place.

The story centers on the son of the museum curator and a pretty museum worker from Transylvania. Gosh, they sure do make a cute couple. They are trying to solve the mystery of the professor’s death. And so are the cops. They have trouble putting it all together despite having all the clues handed to them. Suspicious people act suspicious.

I wanted to like Cry of the Werewolf. I really did. I wish I could edit the script while watching to fix the dialog and straighten the story out. It wouldn’t have been that hard. But it could have used more than a little tinkering. We know all the secrets early on. There is no mystery, no ambiguity, and it's a shame. I think the filmmakers simply didn’t want to ask much from the audience. We got them into the theater, why make them pay attention?

Clearly there was no budget for makeup and special effects. The wolf transformation is simply a dissolve from the shadow of the Gypsy Princess to that of a medium sized dog. Couldn’t even afford a big dog. And don't get me started on the rubber bands. On the plus side, Nina Foch was very good as the Gypsy princess trying to protect her mother’s grave. She went on to a long, successful career, so don’t feel bad for her.

As I said, I wanted to like this film, but it felt like the film didn’t want to be liked. An atmospheric werewolf story set in a spooky museum and a gypsy camp has promise for a B horror film, and the performances were pretty good. But clumsy dialog and an underdeveloped story sabotaged this effort. AMRU 2.5.

Room Service (1938)

Stage producer Gordon Miller (Groucho Marx) is scamming the hotel where his acting troupe is staying, while trying to find a financial backer right up to opening night. The writer shows up to play the Zeppo character.

This is the first Marx Brothers film not specifically written for them, and it shows. Apart from a couple thrown in bits, there is very little of the Marx Brother style. No Margaret Dumont, and little verbal wordplay or insult comedy. They didn’t even give Groucho a funny name. But when compared to earlier films, it does have a more conventional story line. For a screwball comedy, that is.

The premise is that the play has no financier, the writer arrives looking for his payout, they’ve racked up huge bills, and the hotel is being audited. In other words, zany antics ensue. Lucille Ball has a sizable role, even if they give her little funny to say. Ann Miller appears for no other reason than to give the playwright a love interest. She was fifteen at the time. Why does this keep happening?

Room Service is a lesser Marx Brothers film, and the only one they did for RKO. I can’t say I laughed audibly at any time, but it is by no means unwatchable. Thank god they didn’t include a boring harp solo. AMRU 3.

High Sierra (1941)

After being released from prison, Roy Earle (Humphrey Bogart) does one last job to set himself up for life. From his hideaway High in the Sierra Nevada mountains, he plans the robbery of a California resort. Along the way he helps a man and falls in love with his underaged granddaughter, and has to deal with incompetent co-conspirators, a floozy tag-along (Ida Lupino), and a cursed dog.

Bogart’s Roy Earle was loosely based on John Dillinger. It was Bogart’s performance in Petrified Forest that made studio heads consider him for a lead role, but that too was hard fought. Paul Muni and George Raft had to first turn down the role. Bogie’s ability to make this role his own convinced them to cast him in the Maltese Falcon. The rest is cinema history.

Joan Leslie played the good girl that Roy wants to love. Throughout there is a theme of keeping with your own kind, and Velma’s wholesome goodness contrasted too much with Roy’s hardened criminal nature. Besides, Joan turned sixteen the day after the film was released. Ida Lupino’s Marie with her hard knock life was more his type.

Not in real life, however. Ida didn’t like working with Bogie and would refuse in the future. Too bad because she spent the bulk of her career in lesser film-noirs and might have seen a bigger hit had they got along. But at this point the 22 year old Lupino was the bigger star and got top billing. After climbing the studio ropes in B movies (frequently as an underaged love interest - I sense a trend) she would get better roles and better movies through the later 1930’s and 1940’s, some of which she directed. In the 50’s she would retire from movies and act and direct in television before returning to cinema in the 1970’s.

High Sierra plays more like a melodrama than a crime film. Roy is the great guy/hardened criminal who goes out of his way to help some people, and plug others. He wants to be good but it’s just not in the cards for him. The old man he befriends was Clarence the Angel, Henry Travers. He shows up whenever an affable old man is needed. Unrecognizable in Colonel Sanders cosplay is Henry Hull, the Werewolf of London himself. I thought he was a Brit but being from the Bluegrass state I suppose his country gentleman character is closer to reality. On the topic of Colonels, or more precisely Cornels, the Wilde variety appears here in his first credited role. Too far to go for that one? I may edit it out later.

A film on the cusp between traditional Gangster flick and film-noir, it clearly sits in the former category. Which may explain why Raft and Muni were uninterested. They had been making this kind of film for a decade. While the end result is somewhat unremarkable, it’s not uninteresting. Bogart makes for a compelling character, hero and villain alike. AMRU 3.5.

"Remember what Johnny Dillinger said about guys like you and him. Said you were rushin' toward death. Yes, just rushin' toward death."

Konga (1961)

Dr. Decker (Michael Gough) was lost in Africa for a year and returns with witch doctor secrets to grow animals to enormous size. With the help of his trusty cook/housekeeper/lab assistant/lover Margaret, he recreates the formula. They injects it into a baby chimp causing it to grow into a regular sized chimp! Once again and Konga grows into a man in a gorilla suit! The commercial applications are limitless, and by applications I mean to murder people he sees as a threat.

I’ve hit quite a few giant ape films and I heard this one was terrible. Then I watched it and saw that it was terrible. I playfully knocked the others for playing fast and loose with scale. Here, the filmmakers don’t appear to be trying at all. With his third injection Konga grows out of control, but nothing is consistent. See exhibit A, before he crashes out of the house. Notice the doll victim compared to the counters behind him. And who has a basement laboratory with ceilings this high? Jealous. His size varies up and down through the conclusion of the film.

Gough’s Decker simply shouts exposition about the relentless pursuit of science, except all he seems to do is sic Konga on personal rivals. There is a side plot where he gracelessly tries to upgrade his cook/housekeeper/lab assistant/lover with an air-headed hottie student we are to believe is smart. In fact none of the acting performances are terribly good. Except for Konga himself. Acting principally with his eyes, I thought the ape man did a pretty fair job.

Sadly, Dr. Decker is an uncompelling villain. Projecting his lines at the top of his vocal range makes for a very two dimensional character, with no flesh and blood. His year in the jungle was rather mysterious but is not explored. Konga brings little new to the giant ape story, except maybe cool puppet plants. Sorry, Alfred. AMRU 2.

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)

When the good King Richard is taken captive during the crusades, his treacherous brother Prince John (Claude Rains) does what all monarchs do and seizes control. He taxes the poor Saxons to the brink of starvation while Robin Hood (Errol Flynn) makes friends. Oh, and steals from the rich. Stuff like that.

Our villains hatch a plan to capture Robin by holding an archery competition. They would arrest the winner, who would obviously be Robin Hood. Seeing the obvious trap, Robin hatches a plan of his own. He will win the competition but when they try to capture him, he will try to run away. Despite the plan’s brilliance, it doesn’t go off all that well. It is up to pretty Lady Marion (Olivia de Havilland) and daring swashbuckling action to rescue him.

Claude Rains is delightful as the tyrannical Prince John, and Basil Rathbone seemed born to play Sir Guy. For the record, Alan Rickman played the Sheriff, not Sir Guy. Skipper’s Dad Alan Hale played Little John in this and the 1922 version. Douglas Fairbanks, Jr., son of the 1922 Robin Hood, turned down the lead role because he didn’t want to be remembered as his father’s son. Too bad because if he were successful, he might be remembered as something other than his father’s son.

The effect of having arrows stuck into extras was accomplished by having an archer ACTUALLY SHOOT ARROWS AT THEM! They were paid $150 per arrow that hit them. Where is OSHA when you need them? The character Much is the catalyst of the story, being saved by Robin after arrest for killing the King’s deer. After that point he is mostly comic relief. The much older Una O’Connor played his comedic love interest. Friar Tuck too is mostly comic relief, as is Little John. Will Scarlet is mostly forgotten.

The Adventures of Robin Hood is a fun romp. The story is so well worn that it’s a bit threadbare, but we can’t blame the most famous version for that. It was a lot of fun. Goodbye, Olivia, and good job. AMRU 4.