The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971)

Dr. Phibes (Vincent Price) is horribly scarred from a car accident while rushing to be with his sick wife. When she dies, he holds  her nine doctors responsible. Presumed dead from his crash, Phibes enacts his plan to murder them in the mode of the biblical plagues, with minor alterations for filming purposes.

Virginia North was adorable as Phibes’ assistant Vulnavia, whose presence here makes no sense. She previously appeared in the Lazenby Bond film. Caroline Munro was uncredited as Phibes’ dearly departed. She would later go on to be in a Moore Bond film. Susan Travers played an argumentative nurse. Previously she had a small role in the excellent Peeping Tom. She didn’t get to do a Bond film, but did get to work with Hitchcock. She seemed to play nurses a lot.

It was sad to see a late career Joseph Cotten stumble through his lines. There wasn’t much dialog but what little there was, was terrible. Price recited all of his lines in a studio as his character could only talk using the technology of phonograph. Worse than the dialog, though, was the police work. They interview people and fail to ask the most basic questions. Every aspect of their work borders on laughable, but maybe that was the point. Ostensibly set in the 1920’s, Phibes’ Phantom opera house inspired mansion resembled a cheap amusement park ride, complete with a clockwork band.

Billed as Price’s 100th film, it was 85th by my count. A pretty ridiculous movie, The Abominable Dr. Phibes plays right to Price’s strengths. Not a good film by any measure, and maybe more dark comedy than horror, but it holds your attention. AMRU 3. I don't know if I can bring myself to watch the sequel.

Niagara (1953)

A young couple on honeymoon at Niagara Falls meets up with another couple with problems. George (Joseph Cotten) is a troubled veteran married to Rose, a much younger Marilyn Monroe type (Marilyn Monroe). They have a couple blow-outs that bring Polly and Ray into their situation. It soon becomes clear that secrets are being kept.

Tagged Film-Noir, it is slightly outside the genre (vibrant color, American director). But it checks enough boxes so I’ll allow it. Marilyn’s character is perhaps the most complex of her career with lines way longer than “It’s me, Sugar!”, and she does well with them. Not academy award nominee level, but a step above her regular. Forty eight year old Cotten looked ridiculous next to peak Marilyn hotness but that was the point. I expected to read how he buffed-down for this part.

Speaking if Marilyn, this was her first color film and her first starring role. She would go on to make Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and How to Marry a Millionaire the same year banking a fortune for Twentieth Century Fox, but because she was contracted as a stock actress, she would earn less then her makeup man.

Our lead is pretty Polly (Jean Peters). Not the flashy beauty of Marilyn, but perhaps prettier. Also a solid actress, she likely would have had a long career had she not married Howard Hughes. She had a late TV revival after the divorce. This film would have been shorter had the people listened to her instead assume she was just a hysterical woman. Men, am I right?

There is a lot going on here and any more detail would be in spoiler territory. Niagara is an excellent thriller that keeps you guessing. It is visually stunning with a very 50’s look and feel but the film-noir elements are still intact. Suffice to say that this is a thrilling, complex film with great performances. It, the falls, and Marilyn in the shower all look great. It's a real treat. AMRU 4.

The Magnificent Ambersons (1942)

Back in 1870’s there were these Ambesons, see, and boy were they magnificent. That is to say, they were rich and the height of polite society. Young Eugene (Joseph Cotten) is in love with the beautiful Isabel Amberson, but he broke his cello so she married someone else. I'm not sure I completely understand that part. Anyhow, Eugene also gets married, raises a daughter Lucy (Anne Baxter) and becomes a widower. A successful inventor, he starts courting the now middle-aged Isabel while her husband hides in his bedroom. Isabel’s atrocious son takes a fancy to Lucy but not her dad. Years later he would prospect for gold with Humphrey Bogart.

Orson Welles’ follow up to Citizen Kane, he adapted the story, directed, and narrated it (including the closing credits). RKO, wanting a conventional money-maker, re-edited the film while Orson was in Brazil. They shot a new, happier ending and removed about fifty minutes. I would like to have seen the more somber version but maybe not at the cost of another hour of my life. At 88 minutes, I didn’t find myself needing to watch more.

Like Kane, The Magnificent Ambersons is a visually impressive film. With interesting use of shadow, and layered mise en scene, it’s photography feels like a refined version of the previous film. But because of how dull the story is, I had to remind myself to pay attention. In the third act is an impressive long take where atrocious George is saying goodbye forever to pretty Lucy while she pretends not to care. At about two minutes fifty, it's an amazing shot and Anne Baxter was amazing in it. And there are other aspects to the story worth exploring, but it simply wasn't that interesting.

I needed to watch the film a second time to fully understand what's going on, but I don’t find myself wanting to. Very mannered and cinemagraphic, but something of a bore. AMRU 3.

“Well, that’s a horse on me.”

Shadow of a Doubt (1943)

Charlie (Joseph Cotten) is being followed by investigators, so he skips town and visits his sister’s family. They are thrilled to have him visit until his niece (also Charlie) starts to suspect that he isn’t the man everyone believes him to be.

The Doubt I was to have a Shadow of was removed by the streaming services description of the movie. I know it’s seventy five years old, but shame on Amazon. There’s no excuse for it. Anyhow, the movie is set and filmed in a small California town as young Charlie slowly pieces together the clues to Uncle Charlie’s past. Teresa Wright was downright charming as the small town girl. Young, naive, but strong. Hume Cronyn was also there. So there’s that.

This drama unfolding in idealistic small town America is not short on atmosphere. Director Alfred Hitchcock called it his favorite of his films, and Shadow of a Doubt has a lot to offer. Hitch's first fully Hollywood production, it feels more polished than some of his earlier work. It’s not my favorite of his, but it is in the top five. My mom would have loved it. AMRU 4.

“Forty thousand dollars is no joke, not to him, I bet. It's a joke to me. The whole world's a joke to me.”

Hush...Hush, Sweet Charlotte (1964)

An old southern mansion is slated to be demolished but the loony shut-in (Bette Davis) who lives there isn’t playing nice. Her trusty doctor (Joseph Cotten) and her cousin (Olivia de Havilland) offer their guidance while Charlotte goes completely off the rails.

Back story: young Charlotte’s domineering dad disapproves of her running off with a married man (Bruce Dern). When the breakup he engineered goes bad (read: the head was never found), Charlotte is presumed to be the killer. So hide in the spooky mansion she does.

Hush Hush has a few things in common with What Ever Happened to Baby Jane made two years earlier, besides the hag-like Bette Davis in a spooky house. First, they both were directed by Robert Aldrich, who is totally not Robert Altman. Not even a little. Secondly, the Cousin Miriam character was initially played by Joan Crawford. In fact her arrival scene is still included in the final print, before she is visible. Crawford and Davis’ notorious animosity made that pairing unworkable and Aldrich made a trek to the Swiss mountains to convince de Havilland to replace her.

Endora herself Agnes Moorehead was wonderful as a nutty housekeeper. Very different role than what I’ve seen her in before. Victim of 2016 George Kennedy had a small role. Mary Astor appears in her final role. Big Daddy was played by King Tut himself Victor Buono, who also appeared in Baby Jane.

Because style and setting were so similar to Baby Jane, had Crawford stayed in the film it almost would read like a sequel. And part of me would want to see that film. As it stands, it has an excellent story, excellent acting (save Cotten’s terrible accent), and an all around first class production. But I give it a half tick lower. Maybe if I had seen it first … AMRU 4

Gaslight (1944)

Ten years after the unsolved murder of a singing diva, her hot young niece (hot young Ingrid Bergman) moves back into the stylish London house where it happened, with her new husband (Charles Boyer). A dashing detective (dashing Joseph Cotten), stunned by the niece's resemblance to her aunt, reopens the cold case.

Gaslight is based on a play (Gas Light, or Angel Street), and had already been made into a movie four years earlier. Under the terms of the agreement, the producers ordered the destruction of all prints of the previous film. They failed to get them all, and the 1940 version has lapsed into the public domain. I saw it next.

Gas lights, that is, the lighting mechanism where natural gas was piped into houses for lighting purposes, certainly plays a large role in the story. Not only do they pepper the screen with shots of men lighting them, they even play into the story. Our protagonist becomes convinced that someone else is in the house because the lights dim, as if someone lit one elsewhere. They also add great ambiance and all gothic horror movies should have had them rather than foolish candelabras and sometimes even electric lights, totally ruining the mood. Had they not been expensive, and occasionally suffocate people, burn down houses, and even blow them up, they'd be a great addition to any home! Act now, supplies are limited!

I learned a few things from watching this movie. First, that I am actually capable of saying the words "Angela Lansbury was hot". What a naughty bit of crumpet, she was! At 17 she quit her job in a local shop and launched her movie career. Secondly, and more importantly, I learned that I apparently have absolutely no friggin' clue what film-noir is. I'm classifying this sucker as a mystery (although not a terribly mysterious one). Melodrama, sure. Entertaining and well made movie, you bet! Film-noir? Doesn't smell like it to me. There is a detective and an element of claustrophobia, but hard boiled, pessimistic, and minimalist? It's set in the fashionable district of Victorian/Edwardian London. You know, the stuff dreams are made of. AMRU 4.

"I knew from the first moment I saw you that you were dangerous to me."
"I knew from the first moment I saw you that you were dangerous to her."

The Third Man (1949)

Writer Holly Martins (Joseph Cotten) travels to Vienna, still ravaged by the war, to visit his boyhood friend Harry Lime (Orson Welles). It seems Holly's pulp novels aren't selling all that well and jumped at the opportunity to mooch off his old friend. Sadly for him, good 'oll Harry is dead. Seems he walked out in front of a truck. Bad news for Holly.

The local police chief, who didn't seem to have bent too far backwards investigating the death, isn't too torn up over it. Seems he has quite a lower opinion of Lime than Holly. Something to do with penicillin and the black market. So, with nothing better to do, and to redeem the good name of his buddy, he decides to start asking questions. Soon he discovers discrepancies in the police report. It says two men helped Lime to the side of the road but a witness clearly saw three. Maybe Lime's death was no accident. Maybe it was murder. And the first person to ask is The Third Man.

Happen to know what a zither is? If not, it's a traditional eastern European stringed instrument that makes a uniquely annoying sound, certainly not the kind one would master in hopes of impressing the lady-folk. In the world of western cinema, there is room for exactly one film to make exclusive use of it, and this is that film. If there exists another movie in creation that uses this instrument exclusively, that movie should be torn up, burned, then the ashes fed to rabid snakes.

That said, this noir film seems to work well with the comically upbeat zither. In fact, most of the movie works well. The acting was fine, the setting and atmosphere were great, the story had me guessing, and the hottie (Alda Valli as Lime's grieving girlfriend) was hot.

Not wanting to spoil anything, I'm going to leave it there. It's a very good mystery that bears rewatching. AMRU 4.

"Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

Citizen Kane (1941)

Everybody knows this movie. Orson Welles' masterpiece. Everybody's pick for best movie ever. Nobody's pick for what they want to rent tonight. 

I was given this film many years ago back when it didn't seem strange to give someone a VCR tape for birthday. I tried watching it once but found it long, confounding, and frankly rather dull. Maybe I got a half hour into it. Finally, I gave it another try. 

The movie starts with the death of Charles Kane, wealthy newspaper magnate (in olden times, newspapers used to turn a profit!) His last word (although nobody is there to hear it) is "Rosebud". The media, fascinated by what this could mean, investigate Kane's life to find out what was so important to a man that had everything. Apparently there wasn't anything else going on in 1941 worth reporting. We learn about Kane's life in retrospective. 

Charles Foster Kane is supposed to be William Randolph Hearst. There are lots of connections between the story and Hearst's life, and stories how Hearst tried to stop the films release, but I'll let you read them for yourself on IMDB or Wikipedia. 

So, what's all the hullabaloo about? Camera angles? Clever narrative tricks? Techniques so apparent that they actually interfere with the story? Is this a film that nobody but a film student could ever love? 

Nope. I really liked it. Now, I will say that the story wasn't all that compelling. It kept my interest, and was very well written, but it's not the "main feature". So much of the story is told with how Orson filled the screen. You could have the audio off and never be unsure what the character's relationship was. Every scene was laid out artistically. It's hard to explain. 

And, if you are not paying attention to what he was doing, you could miss much of it. I was a little surprised how much I enjoyed watching Citizen Kane. Now, I do own the film, but I wouldn't have purchased it for myself. In truth, the story and acting do not distinguish Kane, and that is what I respond to in cinema, but still, AMRU 4.