The Death Kiss (1932)

Introduction:

You know there are a few movies with “Death” and “Kiss” in the title. This may be the first. But does that make this flick from the 100 Mystery Classics collection better than “Kiss of Death” or “A Kiss Before Dying”?

Summary:

On the set of a movie one of the actors is killed during a scene where he is gunned down. The police are called in and soon find out that no one liked the dead chump. Luckily writer Franklyn Drew (David Manners) is on hand to make sure that his gal Marcia (Adrienne Ames) doesn’t get accused of this murder most foul. Of course with Mr. Steiner (Bela Lugosi) standing around and glowering, it’s hard to suspect him. Things spiral out of control rather quickly and bodies start stacking up. Is there a clever murderer around, or does Marcia really have “The Death Kiss”?

Good Points:

• Interesting glimpse on how a movie set might have worked in the 30’s
• Bela isn’t playing a vampire!
• Adrienne Ames is pretty in a 30’s kinda way

Bad Points

• Dumb humor and no threat drags down pacing
• Bela is hardly in it
• David Manners is pretty annoying

Overall

Another 30’s crack at the humorous mystery and one that falls flat. The mystery is rather dull, and the humor is really dated. I found none of the characters are likable. In the end a few interesting moments dealing with the murders and some of the 30s styling kept this from being a complete waste of time. But there are better comedy mysteries to enjoy (“The Thin Man” for instance).

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 3

Sound: 2

Music: n/a

Acting: 2

Script: 2

Direction: 3

Entertainment: 2

Total: 2

In Depth

Once again we get a script that just doesn’t do too much to keep the viewers interest. The murder itself starts out interesting, with the set getting locked down almost immediately and yet none of the clues adding up. I liked how all the extras playing G-men had a caliber of weapon completely different from the bullet that was used on the victim. When Drew discovers the actual murder weapon it was pretty clever.

In fact a lot of the main elements of the murders were handled well. When you think about it, the killer was doing a great job deflecting suspicion on everyone else. But the identity of the killer is telegraphed especially when you start piecing together who had access to what parts of the studio.

They do go out of their way to make Bela look like the culprit, but it’s so obvious that you end up writing him off. Mostly he stands around and scowls and looks grim.

For me it was David Manners who really made this difficult to enjoy. He plays that type of hero who is smug and a know it all. He spends the entire movie mocking the detective assigned to the case. I think it’s supposed to be funny, but Manners really grated on me. I’ve seen this before, where most the cops are portrayed as muscle bound morons. In fact you see this in “The Thin Man”, but William Powell has a lot more charisma than Manners.

But a lot of it has to do with the bad comedy writing. There are attempts at witty one liners, and they mostly fail. Then there are the broad humorous moments, mostly revolving around the idiot security guard and the bad Jewish stereotypical studio boss. Wow, talk about uncomfortable. There really isn’t a laugh to be found here.

So what you get is a pretty weak effort with a few moments of interest. The movie is immersed in the 30’s so if you like the fashions and designs you’ll find some neat stuff (the studio bosses office is impressive). Otherwise, avoid it.

James Lileks had a lot to say about this one. Check out his review here.

Murder with Pictures (1936)

Introduction

We’ve got another flick from the 100 Mystery Classics. This time it’s a comedy/mystery from the 30’s. Will the laughs counter the suspense or will we be thrilled too much to laugh? Wanna take a guess why you’ve never heard of this movie?

Summary

While suspected crime boss Nate Girard (Onslow Stevens) is throwing a victory party after narrowly escaping some jail time, his lawyer is killed. No gun is found, but everyone at the party is a suspect. This includes Meg “Nutmeg” Archer (Gail Patrick), who is connected to Girard somehow. Also suspected, even though he wasn’t there, is the fast-talking fast thinking photographer Kent Murdock (Lew Ayres). Due to some crazy high jinks a photo of the killer exists, but it keeps jumping hands from Murdock to Nutmeg to McGoogin (Paul Kelly) a reporter with a score to settle with Murdock. Will the plucky reporter and the mysterious woman solve the “Murder with Pictures”.

Good Points

• The movie moves fairly quickly.
• Some of the plot twists are clever
• Gail Patrick is really good as Nutmeg

Bad Points

• Lew Ayres brand of comedy doesn’t click
• The basic premise is pretty contrived
• Makes you wish you were watching “The Thin Man” instead

Overall

Mixing comedy with mystery has been a staple of movies since they’ve been created, but it can still be tricky to pull one off. Part of the problem here is that the style of humor is very dated – so you’ll either go with it for find it unfunny. Ayers just doesn’t click for me in this part, and since the whole movie focuses on him it never takes off. Gail Patrick is pretty good and she helps the movie quite a bit, but in the end, this movie just never provides thrills or laughs.

Scores (out of 5)

Visual: 3

Sound: 3

Music: N/A

Acting: 2

Script: 2

Direction: 2

Entertainment: 2

Total: 2

In depth

Witty banter is a hallmark of the fast talking reporter solves a crime genre. You need a good team of writers and actors to pull it off. If you want to see a classic in the genre, check out “His Girl Friday”. Sadly “Murder with Pictures” just can’t measure up to that fun film.

From the basic technical angles, there’s nothing to really complain about (other than the poor print and sound quality of the version I saw). The film is adequately filmed, not really using noir or any style per se. The sound is in the same boat, capturing the dialogue and the necessary gunshots. Typical of a 30’s movie there is no musical score, just opening and ending title fanfares.

The mystery script is convoluted but has potential. A hapless photographer catches the murderer in action and then loses the plate with the photo on it. The plate changes hands several times during the movie, and eventually ends up revealing the killer: the surly mysterious gent with the mustache. So there is pretty much no suspense because just looking at the guy, you know he’s the killer. But some of the plot twists along the way are clever, and kept me guessing just how the killer would be revealed.

The comedy script is where things go really wrong. Honestly they really tried to keep things snappy, witty and fun. But the lines are dumb or nonsensical half the time. Combined with Lew Ayers performance and it just doesn’t work. I was strongly reminded of Jack Lemmon the entire time Ayers was on screen, but Lemmon can do witty banter. It just made it more obvious how important delivery can be for comic lines.

The other performances are solid. Gail Patrick is the best of the bunch playing Nutmeg as determined, a bit desperate and willing to do anything to get her man. In another movie she could have been great, a girl you can never really trust. Kelly is solid as the foil for Murdock, cocky and just annoying enough for you to root against him, but never treading the line into generating hatred. Stevens plays Girard with a touch of Bogart. It’s not bad.

I wish director Charles Barton had worked a little closer with the cast to punch things up a bit. He edits the movie quickly enough and he keeps the story moving. But the failure of the humor also falls in his lap. A good director knows when the scenes aren’t working, and works to make them better. He didn’t and I ended up pretty bored for the 69 minutes the film was on.

Check out what James Lileks though of the movie here.

Mystery Liner (1934)

Introduction:

I like cruise ships. I like mysteries, since I pulled this from the 100 Mystery Classics Box. Seems like this flick about a mystery on a cruise ship could be good. On top of that and it is based on a short story. Well that sounds like a lot of fun… right?

Summary:

Captain Holling (Noah Beery) is nuttier than a fruitcake. He’s ranting and raving about his ship, and so he’s unfit for the next voyage. This is unfortunate because the next voyage will test out an experimental navigation computer that guides the ship by radio! Still the experiment must continue and that means that Captain Downey (Booth Howard) must step into the Holling’s shoes. But foul play is suspected, and Major Pope (Edwin Maxwell) is on the case. Soon the suspects are lining up from pretty Nurse Kane (Astrid Allwyn) to the mysterious Von Kessling (Gustav Von Seyffertitz). Add in the chuckle fest that is Granny Plimpton (Zeffie Tilbury) and you’ve got a real “Mystery Liner”.

Good Points

• Intriguing basic espionage story
• Kept me guessing on the real saboteur identity
• Astrid Allwyn is the best actor of the bunch

Bad Points

• The movie meanders too much
• Most of the acting is questionable
• All the comic relief falls terribly flat

Overall

An interesting espionage thriller is torpedoed by bad acting, a poor script and bad direction. The pacing is badly mangled and you’ll find yourself struggling to care about any of the characters, much less wondering if the mystery of the liner will be solved.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals - 2

Sound - 2

Music – n/a

Acting - 2

Script - 2

Direction - 1

Entertainment - 2

Overall - 2

Film Review

This movie never gets off the ground. There are a lot of interesting elements at work, but director William Nigh can’t get any of them to gel. Let’s see what he had to work with here.

The visuals aren’t too bad, it looks like it was filmed aboard a real ship, or at least filmed in a set created by someone who’d been on a ship before. There is some bad stock footage used, as well as a couple questionable special effects. On top of that the film has very little style to it. Most of the camera shots are simple locked off angles with little movement or shadows. In about ten years a similar film would have been dripping with noir. The sound effects are basic and some badly placed mics make dialogue a bit tough to hear. The movie only has opening titles and ending titles fan fare, and no score to speak of. I don’t judge that against the film, but a bit of music could have helped.

The actors are either wooden or wildly emoting. This is something you see in 30’s movies, with some of the actors used to performing in silent films where pantomime was king. It makes for some comical moments, but mostly it just hurts the film. Astrid Allwyn as the nurse if the best, presenting a character who seems the most realistic. Edwin Maxwell as Major Pope isn’t bad. In fact he reminded me of the characters that Charles Grey played in “Diamonds Are Forever” and “You Only Live Twice”. I suppose that Zeffie Tilbury isn’t bad as Granny Plimpton, but her character is so annoying that I find it hard to give her credit.

The characters are part of the problem, from ill timed comic relief in form of Granny Plimpton or Simms the Steward (a baffled bumbling George Cleveland), to the stoic and bland Dr. Howard (Howard Hickman). You wonder who decided to populate this mystery liner with these characters. The idea of the radio-controlled ship may sound silly to us now, but it’s one that could have been intriguing for moviegoers in 1934. But the experiment is handled badly coming across more silly than scientific. The espionage and sabotage angle has promise, but the script botches that too.

On top of it Director William Nigh keeps the pacing too slow, even with action erupts (slogs is better word) in the final ten minutes. The comic relief is badly placed, stopping any mystery elements or action elements in their tracks. Where crisp delivery of lines would help, actors take their time. It’s just a mess from the opening with the ranting captain to the conclusion where the enemy agent is revealed.

The movie is only 62 minutes long but I struggled to stay awake. None of the characters grabbed me. I was mildly interested in which one of these people was an agent. The script and the director don’t give you enough clues to follow, so it really could be anyone. While the movie didn’t completely fail, it was bad enough to bore me. I don’t think even riffing could help this flick; it’s too slow moving and too ineffectual to provide enough to work with. Not a disaster, but not good enough to seek out either.

James Lileks didn't like it too much either. Check out his review here.

He Walked by Night (1948)

Introduction:

Time for another dive into the 100 Mystery Classics. A quick description revealed that Richard Basehart was the killer in this film. Jeez, talk about spoilers. Is it even worth watching if we know he did it? Turns out there was a lot more to this movie than meets the eye.

Summary:

Roy Morgan (Richard Basehart) finds his burglary attempt foiled by an off duty policeman and the officer is shot. Now the full force of the Los Angeles police department is on coming down to find him. Sgt. Brennan (Scott Brady), Captain Breen (Roy Roberts) and Sgt. Jones (James Cardwell) take on the case, following clues and trying to tie together crimes to find the killer. But he seems to always be one step ahead of them. But even a careful and intelligent criminal leaves some evidence – soon the police are closing in, but Morgan isn’t going down without a fight.

Good Points:

• Richard Basehart is really good as the criminal
• A peek into 40’s police procedures is fascinating
• The script and direction keep things intense for most of the film

Bad Points

• A motive for the crimes is never given or even theorized
• Some of the narration comes across a bit corny
• The movie focuses on police procedures and not on thrills

Overall:

This movie was a pleasant surprise. It was very interesting to watch the police work with clues and evidence in a way that reminded me of current “CSI” shows. It gave the movie a realism I wasn’t expecting. It turned into a game of cat and mouse, with Basehart providing a excellent performance as the confident and dangerous criminal. Anyone looking for a solid police procedural will find a lot to like in this film.

Scores (out of 5)

Visual Aspects: 4

Sound Aspects: 3

Acting: 4

Music: 3

Script: 4

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 4

Total: 4

In-Depth Review:

This movie was a pleasant surprise. I was pulled in quickly and completely involved in the case. I admit I was expecting more of a mystery film, and got a police procedural, but once I adjusted my expectations, I wasn’t disappointed at all.

Visually this is almost film noir, with Basehart hiding and emerging from shadows. In an especially tense scene he creeps into the business of Paul Reeves (Whit Bissell). As he watches and manipulates the events, he is filmed backlit, or peeking into the light. The angles and camera placement are perfect to build tension and keep things interesting. The chase scenes through the Los Angeles sewer system stand out as well. The huge tunnels and flashlights reminded me vividly of a 40’s version of the “X-files”. Interestingly enough Carol Reed would use very similar techniques and shots in the Orson Wells classic “The Third Man”.

Sound effects and music are utilized well in the film. Nothing really stood out, but the music did a good job of raising tension and keeping the pacing moving, even in scenes that dragged a little. As impressive looking as the tunnel sequence is, it does run a bit long, but the music helps keep it flowing.

For me Richard Basehart provide a big surprise. I wasn’t sure what to think about him playing a villain. I’m used to seeing him as the noble leader, or wise elder. But a killer without a conscious? Basehart plays Roy with his eyes. Many of the great scenes provide close-ups of his face. His voice is calm, often cool and detached. But his eyes betray confidence and cunning. You believe that this man can outwit the police and takes pleasure in doing it. It’s a great performance and it really makes the movie work.

Fans of classic television will get a big kick out of seeing Jack Webb as a cop, but not in “Dragnet”. This movie was filmed before the radio show or television series of the famous police procedural. But word is that Webb was inspired by his work with the police advisor on the set of this film to come up with the idea for “Dragnet”. In this film Webb plays a scientific evidence inspector. Basically he’s the Gil Grissom character from “CSI”. His research provides several keys to the investigation, including ballistics tests, indentifying chemicals found at a crime scene and even coming up with a way to create a composite of the criminal using various descriptions and individual slides of face elements. Amazing that this idea is shown in 1948 and is shown as high tech (and with computer aid) in the 1981 James Bond film, “For Your Eyes Only”. Webb plays the character as an amiable guy who is very good at his job. A bit warmer than the character on “Dragnet”, but its fun to see him in a role so similar to the one he’s famous for.

The rest of the cast does a solid job. All the actors in the police roles are believable and bring humanity to their parts. The police try to do the right thing, but are often stopped by evidence, laws and just bad luck. The script and actors do a good job showing us that police work can be frustrating and dull at times, especially when it comes to all the footwork needed to solve a case. Whit Bissell provides a memorable performance as factory owner, Mr. Reeves, a decent man caught up in some dangerous business and who gets himself on everyone’s bad side. You feel a bit sorry for the guy by the end of the movie.

Director Alfred L. Werker takes all the elements and turns them into a entertaining film. It’s a bit of a task to keep all the story threads flowing and understandable and build closer to the resolution. Werker is up to the task generating moments of tension when he needs to. Both scenes where Roy confronts Mr. Reeves are excellent, with the viewer not knowing how the chips are going to fall. He keeps Baseharts performance low key but edgy and it makes all the difference.

The only misstep is the length of the climax. The sewer tunnels are impressive and make for a great backdrop to play against, but the chasing and running goes on a little too long. I get the feeling that the cast and crew wanted to show off the location, but it ends up stalling a bit in momentum. The movie itself seems to end abruptly without an epilogue or wrap up of some kind. It’s not a deal breaker by any means, but struck me as odd. Compared to the similar “L.A. Confidential”, the wrap up after the climax provided a satisfying ending to the edgy film.

Needless to say I really enjoyed “He Walked by Night”. Fans of police dramas and procedurals will enjoy this early take on the material. Fans of Richard Basehart should check out his excellent turn here. And fans of “Dragnet” will like to see a proto-type version of the classic radio series and television show. Fans of good black and white films – well you can’t loose here either.

James Lileks seemed a little ho hum about it here.

Strange Illusion (1945)

Introduction

I flipped through the 100 Mystery Classics and picked this film because of its premise: using a dream to solve a crime. I was hoping to avoid a movie that would put me to sleep. Of course then I could dream up a better film.

Summary

Young Paul Cartwright (Jimmy Lydon) has a strange dream in which a shadowy man threatens his family. He cuts his vacation short and hurries home to find that his mother Virginia (Sally Eilers) is involved with the smarmy Brett Curtis (Warren William). Paul becomes convinced that Brett is up to no good. When several events from his dream take place, he begins his own investigation. Is the Curtis really a criminal in disguise – one that was put away by Paul’s dead father, the judge? Or is Paul mentally unstable, and really tearing his family apart with his strange illusions?

Good Points

• An interesting premise that connects the dots in many places.
• Brett Curtis is an intriguing character with some very disturbing secrets.
• The scenes in the asylum have potential.

Bad Points

• The music is badly edited into scenes and mixed too loud.
• The ending is fairly obvious about fifteen minutes into the film.
• Flaccid direction keeps things moving too slow.

Overall

What could have been a neat little film turns out to be less than the sum of its parts because of pacing. The script has too many holes in it, and a faster pace would have kept the viewers involved and ignoring those holes till after the credits roll. But the end result is film that is interesting enough to finish, but not interesting enough to remember.

Score (out of 5)

Visual Aspects: 3

Sound Aspects: 3

Acting: 3

Music: 2

Script: 2

Direction: 2

Entertainment: 2

Total: 2

Film Review

The idea of using a dream to solve a crime is pretty silly, but for anyone interested in the possibility of precognition, it holds some appeal. Is the future fixed? Can humans see that future? Can that ability be used to help others? All are interesting questions – and none are really explored in this film. This is going for a fun “what if” ride. Too bad it never quite pulls it off.

Director Edgar Ulmer gets things off to a bizarre start with the Jimmy’s dream sequence. It’s foggy, shadowy and creates an surreal atmosphere. Another dream ends the film and these are both handled with some creativity.

The rest of the movie follows standard film making techniques, with nothing too noir or flashy to report. It’s functional at the best. The sound falls into the same boat: creative during the dreams, and functional otherwise.

On the acting front it isn’t a bad time. Jimmy Lydon is good as Paul Cartwright. He reminds me quite a bit of Robert Lowell as Jimmy Wilson in I Accuse My Parents. He’s very sincere and looks a little too old to be playing a college student. The other actor of interest is Warren William as Brett Curtis. The man just oozes smarm and slime. You don’t’ trust him the minute he appears and he does nothing but confirm your suspicions with each passing scene. The rest of the cast is average. I did like Jimmy Clark as Paul’s friend George. He had the ah-shucks sidekick thing down cold.

Now we start getting into the below average points. Let’s start with the music, on it’s own, it’s not bad. It’s a bit overdone, but that’s typical of 40’s scores. The real problem is that it is matched poorly to certain scenes. Sinister music plays in scenes where nothing sinister is happening and vice versa. On top of that the music is mixed very loud, drowning out dialogue in many scenes.

There were a couple interesting elements to the script. I was a bit surprised at the approach for Curtis’ character. It’s implied pretty clearly that he likes young women. He’s often seen leering at Paul’s sister Dorothy and Paul’s girlfriend Lydia. In a later scene Lydia describes how Curtis was in the pool with her, grabbed her, held her under water in a strangle hold and kissed her over and over again. It’s a chilling revelation, and one that seals the deal for Curtis (if there was any doubt about him… see below). But I was surprised that this type of thing could be discussed and implied in a movie in the 40’s.

I was also interested to see the way the asylum was portrayed in the film. There’s a two-way mirror and a bugged vent, something I thought was more a modern convention.

The script is not as tight as it should be. The main crime here has several parts. First Paul’s father was murdered and it was made to look like an accident. Second, Paul’s mother is going to marry the shady Curtis. Third, Curtis plans on destroying the family from within and obtaining the wealth from the Cartwright family. It’s elaborate and requires quite a few things to occur perfectly for the crime to be pulled off. Needless to say, suspension of disbelief is severely tested.

On the flip side, Paul is supposed to use the clues from his dream as well as deductive skill and research to solve the mysteries. The only problem is that the dream acts as a kind of dues-ex-machina, popping up whenever it’s convenient, and patching some of the more serious holes.

Unfortunately the director really drops the ball. Ulmer meanders from scene to scene giving the viewer time to wonder about plot holes. How was Curtis able to change his identity so completely? Why does one else seem to realize that Curtis is so darn oily? Is there anything that the dream won’t reveal that the perfect moment?

No attempt is made to make Curtis appear anything other than the villain. You know he’s up to no good the minute he’s introduced. William plays the part as the sleazy and smarmy as you can imagine. He’s a great villain, but Ulmer should have had him dial it down at the beginning, so a little suspense could be generated. Instead the mystery is pretty much nixed within 15 minutes.

This robs the film of entertainment value. The dream is a double-edged sword, adding an interesting element and yet a too convenient one. The viewer ends up watching to see how the dream elements play out, not to find out if Jimmy and his family make it out of the situation. It’s a slow film, not horrible, but never really clicking the way it could have.

James Lilieks thought it moved a little faster than I did, but he liked it about the same. Check out his review here.

Murder at Midnight (1931)

Introduction:

It’s time for another dip into the well of the 100 Mystery Classics. This one looks promising, a murder during a party that leads to more murders. Kinda like “Clue” made in 1931. It’s even got a meddling butler. But is this an early prototype for the murder farce or is it more of a slow train to oblivion?

Summary:

A party was going swimmingly until one of the attendees is killed by a gun that was supposed to be filled with blanks. Soon Inspector Taylor (Robert Elliot) is brought in on the case, assisted by the helpful criminologist Phillip Montrose (Hale Hamilton). Everyone is a suspect from the flighty Mrs. Kennedy (Aileen Pringle) to the butler Lawrence (Brandon Hurst). Soon the murders start to stack up, and the Inspector is racing around to catch the criminal who seems to want a murdered man’s will and a letter implicating murderer in the crime. It all starts with "Murder at Midnight".

Good Points:

• Clara Blandick provides a good performance as the grumpy Aunt Julia.
• The killer came up with a great use for phones.
• I didn’t know they had criminologists in the 1930’s, so I learned something.

Bad Points:

• The pacing is glacial.
• Most of the acting comes via the school of pausing... a lot.
• Mystery fans will call the ending about 5 minutes into the 70 minute movie.

Overall:

Slow moving mysteries aren’t always bad. Sometimes it gives you a chance to find the clues for yourself. But the ending to this one is so telegraphed that you just wait for the other characters to catch up to your deduction. When the acting is filled with long pauses and there is no forward momentum, then the whole thing ends up dragging on – even if it is barely 70 minutes long. “Murder at Midnight” is a dud that could have used a tighter script and a better director to keep things fun and thrilling.

Score (out of 5):

Visual Aspects: 2

Sound Aspects: 3

Music: N/A

Script: 2

Acting: 2

Direction: 1

Entertainment: 1

Final Score: 1

Film Review

Was this based on a play? That might explain some of the staginess of the whole production. On the other hand, if the play was this dull and obvious, why would it be made into a movie? I’m at a loss here. It looks to me that this little film had a low budget and a director that didn’t know how to film a mystery the result was just a long slog.

Visually there wasn’t much new or interesting going on here. You’ve got a standard big house set, with most of the party goers dressed in their best 30’s finery. The print I saw was pretty beat up, so much so that when there were scenes in darkness (happens a few times) the screen actually got lighter, as if someone was trying to compensate for the darkness. It made things really hard to see. But aside from that, the movie wasn’t shot with much imagination. Shadows were used in a basic way for a few murder scenes, but beyond that, there wasn’t much style or panache to the movie. If the script and acting aren’t going to carry the movie, you gotta hope that a little style could be injected into the film.

The sound work was typical of an early 30’s low budget film. Nothing astoundingly bad or good, just functional and a little hollow sounding. Made me wonder where the mics were hidden. There is no musical score for the film, just a little fanfare for the opening and ending titles. This is also typical of the time and the budget.

Your acting ranges from entertaining, like Blandick’s take on Aunt Julia or Leslie Fenton as the nervous and jumpy Walter Grayson. To jaw droppingly bad in the form of William Humphrey’s meandering take on the lawyer Colton. Most fell in the middle, where they performed the parts with little interest or zest, but seemed to be there for the paycheck. The biggest hurdle was the long… pauses… between… lines… or… words… depending on the… situation. But I’m fully prepared to blame the director on that one.

The script suffers two crimes that mystery films should always avoid. First, the obvious killer. My wife called it in 5 minutes, but she’s a fan of mystery novels and films. I’m not quite as well versed, but when she voiced her deduction, I agreed. I was momentarily thrown off about half way through. Colton’s bad acting seemed to be bad on purpose. So I figured it was an act – no, it was just a bad actor. The movie goes out of it’s way to point you in every direction but the killers – so naturally that character is the killer.

The other problem is that the script meanders, instead of going from clue to clue. It might be attempts at red herrings. It might be attempts to flesh out the characters. It doesn’t matter. The movie lacks a sharp focus on the mystery at hand, and the result is boredom.

The script attempts humor, but most of it will be dated for modern eyes, and was probably weak for viewers in the 1930s. It was mostly character based humor instead of witty lines. If a bit of smart and funny dialogue had been added (the butler character was practically built for this!) the movie would have been more entertaining. But the plot based dialogue was dull and the humor was unfunny.

The direction is really to blame. In almost every area, I see someone who either didn’t care or didn’t have enough knowledge behind the camera. Editing is jumpy and actually kills the few moody scenes in the movie. No tension is built or delivered. A potentially tense showdown is hum drum because of the abrupt way it’s handled. Even the initial murder, which has a nice bit of dark humor built in – just lays there limp and dull. Add that to the fact that the director should be on the actors, having them delivering the lines with more urgency or spice. Instead we get deliberate with a side of pausing. It just makes me wonder if the guy even cared or if he was only used to shooting dramas.

It all adds up to boredom – no tension or mystery to be had in this little film. And it’s a shame too, because you really had a chance. At first the movie seemed to be going toward farce, but it didn’t. Then it seemed to be serious, but it was too dull to make an effect. Sadly the movie was not engaging in the slightest even for fans of bad movies. There’s not enough to work with here.

James Lileks didn't think much of it either. Check out his review here.

The Man on the Eiffel Tower (1949)

Introduction

When I flipped through my 100 Mystery Classics box set and I saw Charles Laughton was in one, I was intrigued. I’ve enjoyed his work in the past, especially “Witness for the Prosecution” and “Les miserables”.

Was “The Man on the Eiffel Tower” a hidden gem of Laughton’s career, or is it something he’d rather not talk about?

Summary:

A rich American woman is killed in Paris and Inspector Jules Maigret (Charles Laughton) is on the case. He has plenty of suspects to pick from. Was it Joseph Heurtin (Burgess Meredith) the diminutive knife tinkerer? Was it Bill Kirby (Robert Hutton) the nephew with the most to gain? Or was it Kirby’s estranged wife Helen (Patricia Roc) or Kirby’s mistress. And then there’s the mysterious Johan Radek (Franchot Tone) a man who seems to keep turning up in relation to the crime. Maigret continues his investigation but begins to feel that the killer may be playing a dangerous game with him.

Good Points:

• A very good performance by Franchot Tone, and solid performances by the rest of the cast.
• The murderer is an interesting character.
• The setting of post war Paris is captured really well.

Bad Points:

• The overall plot seems to be lack a focal point – who is the protagonist?
• The movie takes a while to heat up.
• The murderer is revealed early on, which takes away some of the suspense.

Overall:

When the movie is over you’ll remember two things about it. The photography of post war Paris and the character of Johan Radek. The murder mystery itself is solved early on, but the game between the murderer and Inspector Maigret almost carries the rest of the film – almost. As a whole the movie never comes together. Too many points of view cloud the narrative too much and by the end of the film you wonder what the point really was.

Score (out of 5)

Visual Aspects: 4

Sound Aspects: 3

Acting: 4

Music: 3

Script: 3

Direction: 2

Entertainment: 2

Final Grade: 3

In Depth Review

Color me shocked when I saw that Bergess Meredith not only appeared in the film but that he directed! I didn’t know that Meredith had ever stepped behind the camera, much less directing Charles Laughton. A quick look at IMDB reveals that originally the film was directed by Irving Allen, until Laughton threatened to walk off the set. Meredith stepped in and directed the film with Laughton directing scenes that Meredith was in. If that story is true it does explain some of the issues I have with the film, one that almost works, but misses the bar.

Visually there is one thing going for this movie, it was filmed in Paris in 1948 or 1949 – right after World War II ended, and you get the feel the city is still recovering from the recent past. In a way it reminded me of Akira Kurosawa’s films made right after the war – where everything has a raw feel to it. On top of an interesting travel log of Paris, you get some interesting shots all around and inside the Eiffel Tower. With the tower featured in the title you would hope to see it up close and personal. Well never fear, the climax of the film takes place on the famous landmark, and it is actually pretty effective. The rest of the camera work is pretty standard.

Sound effects and music are functional. Once again, 40’s style music ends up blaring a bit too much in places. I give the score a bit of a pass because it doesn’t’ drown out dialogue or anything. The sound effects are pretty standard as well.

I came for the performances by Laughton and Meredith but it was Tone who surprised me. He captures a bi-polar personality really well. One minute he is taunting the inspector and jeering that he has the upper hand. Next minute he’s afraid for his life, or in an even darker place where he doesn’t care if he lives or dies. Tone makes it convincing, even if he does go over the top in places; it seems fitting with the character. He brings an edge to the film, because you believe he is capable of anything at any time. At the same time he does get a bit grating with his holier than thou attitude. But a man like that would get on your nerves, so points for realism!

Laughton seems to be channeling a similar character to the one he used “Witness to the Prosecution” and “Les Miserables”. Not too surprising since both of those characters were guided by law and order, just like his Inspector Maigret is. There are times his stuffy but cunning personality does get a bit abrasive, but it works for the most part. The only downside is that the performance lacks the crackle I’d seen him use before. There are times where Laughton seems tired, and if the stories are true – maybe he was. I also wonder if his take on the character was what the film needed. I almost wish that the role had been a little lower key, more watchful and less blustery.

Meredith is also playing a variant on characters I’ve seen him play before. In this case he’s the sad sack loser who just can’t seem to do anything right. It’s a performance that reminded me of his most famous role from “The Twilight Zone” in “Time Enough at Last”. But by the end of the film, Heurtin has had enough and when he decides to take the law into his hands we get a sense of his desperation and anger.

The rest of the cast does a good job. They are either red herrings, or pieces of the puzzle and most of them perform just fine. I did enjoy the role of the professor who taught Radek and realized that he was unstable. He plays off well with Laughton in his scene.

Actual dialogue in the script isn’t too bad, but sometimes states the obvious or action that we just saw. A bit of trimming would have helped. As to story construction, I’m at a bit of a loss, because if there were directorial problems, I wonder if the script or the directors are to blame for one of the major faults of the film. I’ll mention the issue here, because I wonder if the novel this is based on worked the same way.

The construction of the film is as follows. We meet the nephew and understand he has money problems and a rich aunt. He receives a note telling him that there is a way to take care of the aunt. The aunt is killed and Heurtin is at the scene of the crime, but claims he’s innocent. We see Heurtin in prison and his escape. We then follow the inspector as he tries to catch Heurtin as well as the real killer. The real killer is found but there is no evidence. The rest of the movie has the real killer and the inspector trying to outwit each other. Heurtin is the smoking gun and he comes forward and points the finger at the killer. There’s a big chase. The killer is brought to justice.

This may have worked OK in the book, but for a film the movie switches perspective on us too rapidly. It starts with the nephew, but he is dropped pretty quickly and we settle with Heurtin for a while. Then we’re with the inspector until he meets Radek, and then it seems to switch between the two. This switching ends up changing the type of film we are watching. Is this a mystery? Not really because the killer is revealed about half way through the film. A thriller? Not really because the innocent man, Heurtin, disappears for about a third of the film. Maybe a character study of Radek? Perhaps but the Inspector gets a lot of screen time. Fine then it’s a character study of the inspector. Nope, he doesn’t’ show up till about a third of the way through the film.

Seriously the script is a mess. It really needed a central focus, pick a character to be the main one and follow them. My bet (and my suspicion that the book did this too) would be to use the Inspector as the focus. Start the film with him arriving at the scene of the crime and finding Heurtin. Then follow him as he pieces the crime together and confronts Radek. Then the cat and mouse game between him and Radek would have had a bit more bite. In a way this could have been like a 40’s version of “Seven”, with Laughton taking on the role that Morgan Freeman had and Tone playing John Doe. Instead the messy script never grounds the viewer.

One the directors should have caught that, and done their best to streamline the film, either in the editing room or while filming. But your main problem is that two of your actors are also directing. I wonder if neither wanted to lose some of his performance moments even if they didn’t serve the chosen storyline. Technically the film is directed well enough, but the fact that there is little to no impact to the viewer at the end makes me believe that the ball was dropped.

Still it’s not a horrible effort at all. You’ve got some good performances, an interesting character in Radek and some great scenery to look at (although the washed out dingy print I saw didn’t do it justice). It kept me interested for most of the running time. But by the end, I was getting a bit tired of the cat and mouse game. Tone’s performance was fitting, but it also made his character annoying with his gloating and sneering. You know that the Inspector is going to win, and you just wait for that hammer to fall.

I should also mention the very Hitchcockian chase up the national monument climax. Seriously folks, it looks like they were really climbing up the girders of the Eiffel Tower, and I can imagine it was fun to film. Some rear project ruins the effect at times, but for the most part, it looks genuine. It might even top the similar scene featuring Roger Moore and Grace Jones in “A View to a Kill” in 1985. In the end, “The Man on the Eiffel Tower” isn’t a bad little movie - a good bit of entertainment that could have been a little bit more with some more attention to the script.

Check out James Lileks take on the film here.

Inner Sanctum (1948)

Introduction:

Decided to give this movie a spin because actress Mary Beth Hughes has appeared in a couple Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes and she’s actually pretty good in both of them (I Accuse My Parents, and Last of the Wild Horses). But since this movie was part of the 100 Mystery Classics DVD pack, I kept my expectations low. The other reason I picked this was because I actually have a few “Inner Sanctum” radio shows from the 40’s. And so like movie goers in the 40’s I went in based on name recognition. But can the movie live up to the name?

Summary:

A woman meets a strange man on a train who seems worried about her for some reason. He tells her a story about a man named Harold (Charles Russell) who kills a woman at a train station and tosses her body on a train as it leaves. Unfortunately a young boy named Mike (Dale Belding) sees him at the station. Before Harold can do anything about this, the boy gets away. Harold finds himself trapped in the small town by torrential rains that flood the roads. He takes a room at a boarding house where he meets the lovely but clever Jean (Mary Beth Hughes). Turns out Mike and his mom live there too. Will Harold be able to get away before Mike reveals the murder, Jean gets wise to him, or will Harold have to take matters into his own hands?

Good Points:

• The framing story actually has a clever pay off.
• Mary Beth Hughes is solid in her part.
• Harold’s character is really dark.

Bad Points:

• Charles Russell doesn’t bring much to the part.
• I found the character of Mike to be annoying.
• The movie never generates thrills or mystery, and meanders on its way to the conclusion

Overall: There is actually an interesting story in here, but I think the name “Inner Sanctum” promised more thrills and even a touch of the supernatural. Instead, this is more of a film noir with characters you never really connect to. Harold isn’t a hero, but a dark and disturbed man – or is he. Even the movie cant’ seem to make up its mind. The pacing is too uneven to really enjoy, even if Mary Beth Hughes gives the role her all.

Score (out of 5)

Visual Aspects – 3

Sound Aspects – 3

Acting – 2

Music – 3

Script – 3

Direction – 2

Entertainment – 2

Final Grade: 2

Film Review

If you go into “Inner Sanctum” expecting more of noir film than a thriller, you might enjoy it a bit more than I did. There are a lot of little elements to enjoy, but there are a few glaring issues that just allow the whole thing to fire on all cylinders. Pretty close but no cigar.

Visually this movie is typical noir fare. Lots of shadows play around our characters, especially Harold. The best use of this happens early in the film, when Harold is attacked and kills the woman attacking him. You never get a good look at his face the entire time, and this is especially creepy when he realizes that Mike has seen him at the station and could identify him later. He comes up behind the kid with his face in shadow his hands reaching for Mike’s neck in stark light. A few other good moments in the woods during the climax are well filmed in noir fashion. Nothing really overwhelming, but well done for the movie.

The sound and music are typical for a 40’s film. The sound of the train station and the torrential rain add to the scenes they are used. The music is a bit over the top, but that was the style at the time. Nothing truly remarkable here.

The acting is a mixed bag. Charles Russell has a bit of a tricky part with Harold. The man is obviously a killer, we see him commit the act. However the incident is framed in such a way as to make it look like an accident. So Harold could be frightened and on the run, OK. But when he figures out that Mike can identify him, he attempts to kill the kid – a number of times. Would a desperate but innocent man do that? Maybe one who is a sociopath. It’s an interesting idea. Maybe Harold was just a murderer waiting to happen? In any case Russell never really shows us anything with depth to it. He’s all surface, one minute a killer who is crazed, another a wrong man in a bad spot, in another a bitter man with nothing to lose. It never gels and creates someone compelling enough to watch. It’s a shame because this role is the key to the story, with Russell not working the movie just never recovers.

Not that Mary Beth Hughes doesn’t try. Playing against the type I’ve seen her play (the nice girl in a bad spot, or the spunky cow girl), she’s the world-weary girl with a past. Hughes is pretty enough and uses her eyes to show us that she’s not a dumb blonde. Jean is the first character to figure out what Harold did, and Hughes allows us to see her put the pieces together and figure out how to use it her advantage. She seems to genuinely like Harold (in spite of Russell’s performance), but she also wants to get out of the little town. As I said Hughes does try, but it never quite works for me. Maybe because I’m so used to seeing her as the nice girl in “I Accuse My Parents” that to see her a bit more shady here doesn’t work. In the end I’ll say that her performance is fine, and the fault is more on my side of the coin.

The last performance I’ll mention in particular is Dale Belding as Mike. The character is written in a way that is almost convincing. The lines sound like they’d be perfect for a kid of 9 or 10. But Belding looks to be 13 or 14 and the lines just don’t ring true coming from him. It’s not just the lines, but the whole performance looks like it was supposed to be younger than Belding looks. Maybe Belding just looked older than he was, but the whole time I was annoyed that a kid that old was acting so young. This kept pulling me right out of the movie and since it’s a key role to the story, it also ends up affecting the rest of the film.

The supporting cast does a solid job playing an array of wacky character types. You get drunk old men, a eccentric old newspaper reporter, the protective mom and the wise old woman who runs the boarding house. Most of the roles are to inject a little humor into the darker movie. Some of it works OK, but my tolerance for 40’s style drunken old coot humor is pretty low. Those “comedic” moments fell flat for me.

There is also the two characters of the framing story (the woman on the train and mysterious storyteller). Both do their parts well and sell the twist ending. I thought that the storyteller did a good job of appearing to be slightly off, saying things in a way that just put you on your guard.

Speaking of the framing story in a way the construction of the movie reminds me of one of those hour long episodes of “The Twilight Zone”. It has an interesting premise but it feels padded just a bit too long. As I mentioned the script seems to have a bit of potential. The framing story and the twist are interesting enough. The main story works well if you can settle on how you feel about Harold. And that is the most difficult thing to determine. Was he supposed to be our hero? Was he supposed to be an anti-hero? It’s never defined clearly in the film. Maybe it was in the script, but I have a feeling that the reason the movie feels so odd in places is because it wasn’t defined clearly. Neither Russell or the director Lew Landers seems to have a clear idea.

In the end Landers was the one who had to edit the film, guide the performances and approve of the whole thing. I bet the movie was shot quickly and on a low budget. Fair enough. But at the same time a little bit of guidance for Russell and his approach to the part would have made this a classic B film instead of a forgotten one. But Landers does a good job creating his noir look and keeping the story together. As I mentioned a bit of trimming of the fat and a sharper idea of what kind of movie was being made would have help the pacing issues. The movie starts and stops a lot – mostly with the comic relief scenes stopping the plot. In addition, there is never a real threat, because we never know if we are supposed to be afraid of Harold or hoping he does get away.

Let’s just say I was happy the movie was a short one. I enjoyed certain aspects of it, and it was neat to see Mary Beth Hughes in a different role, but as a whole the movie was pretty dull. I could see what it wanted to be and how it was attempting it, but it just never came together. This is a movie that could be remade into a solid thriller, maybe made for TV, but still a solid one at that.

Check out James Lileks take on the film here.