From the Earth to the Moon (1958)

With the Civil War over, war profiteer Victor Barbicane (Joseph Cotten) sees profits drop. He gathers together his war monger friends for a proposition. He has invented Power X, a powerful explosive unlike anything ever seen. Problem is, it’s too powerful to demonstrate it on Earth. His plan is to fire a rocket to the moon and detonate it there. To convince investors, he performs a demonstration on Earth. President Grant catches wind and makes him promise not to blow up the moon. So instead he decides to travel from the Earth to the Moon. Skeptic Nicholl (George Sanders) comes along for the ride.

This was a big budget production under RKO, who went bankrupt during production. The budget was slashed and the film was released by Warner Brothers, which may account for some of the plot holes. But it is riddled with them, and there is no excuse. Grant was not yet president at the year the movie is set.

Pretty Debra Pagent is Sanders’ daughter, smitten with Cotten’s assistant. She did a lot of genre pictures until one tragic day she turned thirty. She is apparently still with us, just celebrating her ninety third birthday. Henry Daniell appears in a small role as one of the war mongers. Script wiz Dalton Trumbo was hired to give the script a tune up.

From the Earth to the Moon is of that strange sub-genre of High Tech Victorian sci-fi. See The Time Machine (1960) for a better example. But this isn’t the problem. The story is quite messy in parts and, try as they might, lacks drama. Wasn’t painful to watch, but should have been better. AMRU 2.5.

Murder Ahoy (1964)

Jane Marple (Margaret Rutherford) is elected to a board of trustees that funds a nautical themed program for wayward boys. Another trustee says he learned damning information about the program, but dies before he can explain. Heart attack, say the police. Bad snuff, says Marple. She invites herself aboard the program ship to do some snooping.

Not that it matters, but I intended to watch the four Marple films in release order. Both this and Murder Most Foul were released in 1964, but this was the last. A fifth was planned but never materialized.

Marple must find the secret, find the murder, and discover what else is going on. Quite a bit is going on. But rest assured, we get there in the end. The viewer can't investigate along because of hidden information and many red herrings. But I did guess the culprit, but that had more to do with spotting the pattern than spotting the clues.

Murder Ahoy isn’t a great mystery, nor a great comedy, and Rutherford isn’t very believable as a detective. Agatha Christie wasn't a fan of the casting. But the movie is entertaining enough, for 90 minutes anyhow. AMRU 3.

The Story of Mankind (1957)

Mankind has invented the “Super H-Bomb”, and if they detonate it, the Earth and all men will be destroyed. Women too. A tribunal is held in Heaven to decide if mankind should be allowed to destroy itself. Advocate for the defense is The Spirit of Man (Ronald Coleman). Mr. Scratch (Vincent Price) advocates for destruction.

The “Master of Disaster” Irwin Allen assembled a large cast of stars by promising one day of work for $25,000. Several big names appear in cameos: Virginia Mayo as Cleopatra, Hedy Lamarr as Joan of Arc, Peter Lorre as Emperor Nero. The three main Marx Brothers appear and this is sometimes included as an official Marx Brothers film, but their screen time is brief and they don’t appear together. Scenes of action and of large set pieces were borrowed from better films.

The storybook version of world history is illustrated with Mr. Scratch pointing out the war, cruelty, and injustice, while The Spirit of Man points out the occasional scientific discovery or work of art. I’m glad they acknowledged the treatment of native americans, but much is still hand-waved away. The prosecution’s case is pretty air-tight.

The Story of Mankind is a cringy vanity project. It doesn’t earn its all star cast or grand scale. It’s a dull, tedious watch whose only real entertainment is to play spot the fading start. But that too gets tedious. AMRU 2.

Contempt (1963)

A screenwriter (Michel Piccoli) is hired by an arrogant American producer (Jack Palance) to punch up a script during filming, and his marriage to his disproportionately attractive wife (Brigitte Bardot) begins to deteriorate.

Director Fritz Lang plays director Fritz Lang. Real-life Lang’s directing career was already over, due mostly to failing eyesight. Here he is directing, interestingly enough, The Odyssey.

The film was a success for director Jean-Luc Godard, but for Bardot, one of the biggest stars at the time, it was a bit of a disappointment. Half of the million dollar budget went into her fee.

Husband and wife wander around their apartment while arguing. The scene goes on for thirty-four minutes and nothing sees to be communicated. This is the key to the film. A relationship goes from very solid to on the rocks, and the root cause is never uttered. It is left to the audience to decide. I have my theory, and it's not what's in the IMDb blurb.

Contempt is a very talky movie. Little action of consequence and the viewer is left to decide what it all meant. A second viewing may be in order, but I don’t feel compelled to do so. AMRU 3. It is, however, my favorite Jean-Luc Godard film so far.

Glen or Glenda (1953)

Jesus, where to begin.

The story of Christine Jorgensen, a US Army vet who had sex reassignment surgery in Denmark, was quite the buzz in 1952 and Producer George Weiss wanted to make a film about her. Edward Wood, despite having almost no film experience, begged to direct. He confided that he was a cross dresser, which could have gotten him arrested. Weiss agreed and Wood did more than direct, he also wrote and starred in it. Nobody wrote dialog quite like Ed Wood.

But rather than concentrate on Jorgensen, Wood focuses on cross dressing, initially on a man who committed suicide because the law would not allow him to live the life he wanted. Jorgensen and sex reassignment gets brief coverage in the third act.

There were a few take-aways. First, Wood takes a surprisingly compassionate tone. Surprising for 1953, that is. Also, he asserts that there is no connection between transvestites and homosexuality. I plead ignorance on the subject. Additionally, he claimed Jorgensen was a “pseudohemaphrodite”, which I learned was a common belief at the time, not that Jorgensen ever said. A biological component may have made the story easier to handle back then.

Wood’s film came back at around 50 minutes. Too short to be considered a feature, so Weiss added a bizarre fourteen minute dream sequence that did not add to the barely-there narrative. Also bizarre is Bela Lugosi’s role in the film. Titled just “Scientist”, dressed like Dracula, he just repeats strange lines from a traditional gothic horror set piece. Broke and suffering from substance abuse at the time, Bela took any role offered.

Glen or Glenda is a prime example of poor storytelling. While wondering where the story is going, the viewer is confronted with yet more exposition. In parts the acting is laughingly bad, but pay attention to the dialog. It’s just confoundingly terrible. But, at a brisk 65 minutes, it’s surprisingly watchable. How many films can you say were a completely unique viewing experience? And for those who feel “this whole transgender thing” appeared out of nowhere in the past ten years, here is exhibit A from 1953. AMRU 3.