Angels with Dirty Faces (1938) Review

One of the defining moments of Rocky’s power.

Despite this movie being made during the code, there’s no Public Enemy title card denouncing the lead’s behavior.

Angels with Dirty Faces is a well regarded 30s gangster movie that has some of the goods of what you’d expect from gangster flicks. It is violent for the time, but not so much by the standards of later films by those like Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese. Those newer movies benefit due to both entertainment value and often thematic value by not beating around the bush of what it means to be a gangster. However, the level of violence doesn’t matter too much if you got a good story. Dirty Faces is clever and has something to say, but at points wastes time and has loose subplots. It’s also not as subversive to films of its time as it can seem to some. Regardless, there is a fair amount to get out of it.

The performances are solid all around. Jerry Connolly, played by Pat O’Brien, does well being this almost silent observer whose subtle character arc tells us a lot about both the protagonist and what the movie is trying to say. The camera loves to give us nice shots of his face reacting to what’s going on, showing the impact of those that live around a criminal and how the audience supposedly should feel when various events unfold. A trope that comes up that is sometimes irritating is when a character says what is obviously the main point the writer is trying to convey. Here, that works better as Jerry seems to be realizing and coming to terms with certain things, like how criminals are revered by society. At one point, this is conveyed by him literally giving a speech. Ann Sheridan as Laury Martin is a weaker element. She has a purpose, but is treated as little more than a prize to be won and is barely even referenced. Jim Frazier, played by Humphrey Bogart, brings this fake confidence to every scene, like he’s trying to slide his way through the story undetected. Jim comes off as a bit of a loser, but that not only feeds into the message that being a gangster will only get you trouble, but it arguably feeds into one of the great themes of the film… Rocky Sullivan is unstoppable!

James Cagney really gives it his all as someone determined to not take crap from anyone in his life and not let anything get him down. A major theme is in fact Sullivan going to great lengths to get things his way. As such, he becomes a larger than life figure that everyone has an opinion on and many look up to. Cagney throughout supplies the tough as nails demeanor that you’d expect from such a person, while also adding elements to humanize him, mainly in his respect for Jerry. His intelligence is used to cheat and steal, with the heart of the movie coming from when he isn’t doing that. He succumbs to emotions both when he’s at his most fiery and when he’s at his most compassionate. By extension, you see another side of Rocky.

Interestingly, some of the gangsters seem to have ethics, like when one lets a shop owner live when he could’ve just as well been shot. Some of the gangsters also seem really stupid, like when one calls the police. This arguably adds to the theme of Rocky being so unstoppable, but their idiocy is mostly used as a plot convenience. The actors that played the kids that idolized Rocky were called the “Dead End Kids”. Their performance in the movie comes off a bit comical, with exaggerated street kid accents and this almost unwavering loyalty to Rocky. The leader especially acts like a dog who is always happy to see his owner. They do have some good moments, like when they’re playing pool. It’s also worth noting the scene when one seems to be critical of Rocky, but then that never comes back into relevance. The scene has a bit of purpose by showing the protagonist manipulate the kid into not disobeying him.

While not shown on screen, Rocky is depicted as having power over corrupt police. By extension, the police are shown to be impulsive and emotional like Rocky. Jerry also correctly points out that we live in a society where money is used to create supposed shields from crime in isolated areas, which doesn’t deal with crime on a large scale. The supposed corruption of the government is barely mentioned. That isn’t much of an issue, but it would’ve been ideal to get a sense of what will happen with it at the end of the film. We saw Jerry’s actions throughout. What will he do next? How will that affect the police force or the government?

There’s some beautiful cinematography, like when Frazier is bathed in darkness listening to the radio, when the camera pans from Rocky to a mirror with Rocky in it, and when Jerry walks away from the kids after they don’t want to play basketball to the left when he entered the scene from the right. Those last two shots show a shift in how those characters will act and should be seen by the audience. The ending scenes are also shadow-heavy, showcasing its offbeat conclusion. One interpretation of what the darkness is “saying” is that hanging around criminals or having a criminal past will never really escape a person, possibly unless they find Jesus and drop the negative influences.

SPOILERS

Jerry as a child almost getting hit by the train is a bit silly, seemingly just there to add in a bit more drama, though you could say this explains why he turns against the criminal lifestyle. Rocky being captured by the police in the beginning, and later on seeing him spend about fifteen years in prison, goes against the mythical image he is later shown to have. What if instead we saw him from the perspective of one of the kids that idolized him? Only later do we know of his failings, or better yet, we never do and him being cornered, arrested, and killed at the end are finally the time we see him lose, with his pleading creating a nice contrast where he never really accepts defeat internally, but demonstrates it for Jerry’s sake. Another issue is the montage of many potentially important scenes of Rocky gaining status. If these weren’t necessary to the story, why not just skip over them? They hurt the flow of the story. We were building momentum beforehand and now we have to do it again once we get to the current setting. If this was supposed to establish Rocky as a big name, it’d be better to see what gets him that name. Let’s see people fear or show interest in him.

Frazier’s death is very poorly edited, with him seemingly going from the middle of a quiet small room to the bar of a giant danceroom. The setting was not even established, so it’s a surprise to see all those people. The shots of people trying to break in the room and Rocky’s escape scored with theatrical music feel extremely overblown, like we’re being pushed off a cliff into a climax, with editing that is way too quick on the draw. There’s no chance to take in what’s happening. Probably why this scene and the later standoff lack some impact is because the movie was not very focused on killings and the police, being more about the interpersonal relationships. While the finale shows a functional value to the story, it doesn’t thematically follow what the movie was about.

To contrast the brutality of a criminal life, and show that crime is not really what the movie is about, the main force Rocky must go up against is his friend Jerry, who initially was just like the children who later follow Rocky, willing to follow him. He grows apart to a degree by going for a clean and Godly life, but thinks he can essentially use Rocky to help get some young boys into healthier activities. The problems with Rocky come out and negatively affect the children. Despite Jerry’s renouncement of what Rocky’s doing, Jerry does do some of the strategies that Rocky does, essentially cheating for his own gain, though this is easy to miss. While Jerry does seem to genuinely like and respect Rocky, he still uses him to get the kids into sports. Despite his desire to clean up the streets, he doesn’t much vouch against Rocky. He is more critical of those like Jim Frazier probably only because he isn’t friends with him. There is of course ultimately the final interaction between the two, which will be discussed later.

As Rocky climbs the social ladder and begins to seem unstoppable, it gets to the point where essentially, he must challenge God. Throughout the film, it is shown that crime doesn’t pay, with those that engage in it paying some kind of price. The exception is seemingly for a time Rocky, who at one point evades getting hit. When Rocky gets robbed, he finds those that did it and uses his name to earn their trust and loyalty. He even has a seeming disposition to luck or cleverness when after the kids tried to break through a slot machine to get money and only managed a little, Rocky uses a much simpler method to get a lot more from the slot machine in secret. While realistically there was a lot that was working against Rocky, he only starts to lose his power after a few selfless acts.

First, he gives money to Jerry that he needs, then refuses to allow Jerry to be killed by the mob. Showing the fragility this type of person must have, Rocky secures his fate by trying to escape the police, killing some, in a battle he has no way of winning. This could be seen as a way to prove to himself that he is tough. Even if he will be vulnerable with Jerry, he won’t be with anyone else and they need to know it. He even briefly uses Jerry as a human shield, though it seems clear he would not actually shoot him. And what is Jerry supposed to represent? God, of course. God “saves” Jerry early on. As you’d expect from a film like this, God is shown as a way to heal those who have wronged. It is implied the children influenced by Rocky will eventually go a Godly path and not follow a life of crime. An Atheist interpretation would be to say that what defeats the unbreakable Rocky is his humanity or a desire to do right. He repeatedly wanted to do right by Jerry and the kids, with his final act a selfless one designed to help the children. Jerry also does some good. He often empathizes strongly with others and is driven to help them.

The ending sees the culmination of Rocky’s philosophy and Jerry’s. Jerry, who clearly tried to do the right thing, including using negative influences to achieve his goals in a way that is not obvious to the audience and possibly Jerry himself, ultimately comes down to Rocky’s level clearly, saying that he needs Rocky to be dishonest for him and pretend to be a coward afraid to die. In turn, Rocky also embraces Jerry’s way of being by after at first refusing to do this before acquiescing, demonstrating how hard it would be for him to do that or even to simply tell Jerry he will. It could be that what is most difficult for Rocky is to admit his lifestyle beforehand was problematic enough that he would need to directly say he will do what Jerry wants. His behavior has already afforded him so much. Jerry is also creating his own internal conflict, to hold on to this lie and also create a false image of Rocky that could remain in history for a long time. Despite his problem with justifying the means for the sake of the end, he does that. Just as Rocky benefitted often from his selfishness, so does Jerry here.

To nullify that impact to some degree, of course Rocky does “lose” early on and for the rest of the movie has to deal with problems, but some of those work to help him or at least don’t weigh on him. By contrast, Jerry having a conscience will create stress for him. Note his solemn and unsettled face in the last scene. He even mentions the earlier scene where Rocky “couldn’t run as fast as I could” to escape the police, as if he’s sad he couldn’t save Rocky from outrunning a life of crime and becoming a better person. He also can’t escape the fact that he used some of Rocky’s tricks and is even benefitting from his death. Just like how Rocky seemed impervious to setbacks before that ruined him, Jerry fears becoming impervious and outside the rules in a similar way.

Jerry acting like it’s okay if Rocky is seen as yellow if the two of them know the truth could be shown as a call to sacrifice the idea of always being so strongly and boldly “yourself”, so certain and full of yourself that you think the world revolves around you. While Rocky has tried to succeed in life by always acting tough, Jerry is saying that the best way to be tough and to be “yourself” sometimes can be done in a way where no one else will know that you were. He could also be saying that Rocky doesn’t really have the power he thinks he does, so the way he can actually get it back is by being strong enough to do something like this. Note earlier the police were insulting him and he was rattling the bars to no real response. This shows how powerless and ineffective he’s become. Under the interpretation some take that Rocky was not acting at the end and really was begging for his life, this would add that Rocky’s search for power and success at it resulted in him losing everything about him he valued. He already admitted earlier that he’s lost basically everything.

OVERVIEW

While Angels with Dirty Faces includes more humanity and nuance than a film like The Public Enemy before it, it’s not got the pizazz of it. Here, we don’t see much passion from the protagonist or much of an adventure, with the story being more about arguments and the conflict between the two main friends. Due to the limitations of the 30s, especially with the Hays Code, we seem to lose some edge or nuance that would help the story along, like some scenes of graphic violence and police corruption. Those could enhance its message. As such, we don’t get the many iconic moments Enemy has to make up for some of its shortcomings, but you certainly get many interesting moments for those that want a “thinker” movie.

The Public Enemy (1931) Review

Cagney, Blondell, and Woods

The Public Enemy for the time is very daring and bar-pushing. It’s extremely violent and unrelenting in showing people this darker side of life, which might’ve been considered too glamorous of such a thing if it wasn’t for the screen card at the end that tells people not to follow the ways of the protagonist. Some scenes just show people committing a crime, which possibly could’ve been seen as exciting and fun to some viewers. We even see two children get into crime in the beginning, challenging the notion of minors being always innocent. The movie is comparatively tame by modern standards.

Even though the movie directly says you shouldn’t go the path of the lead, Tom Powers, played by James Cagney, he is still portrayed with depth and some sympathy. While Tom does do really bad things, they mostly come from a sense of feeling pressure to. Ignoring the spoilers for now, and while this is never directly stated, it’s possible the reason Tom got into crime was so he and his family could have money. He takes a lot of pleasure in being able to give money to his family. If it wasn’t for bootlegging, he might not have ever had the fortunes to help anyone.

Cagney’s portrayal is the heart of the film, being emotionally complex, with an explosive temperament that you can imagine coming from living a life of getting hurt by people. He makes up for the limitations of the story. This tale of “the story of an American gangster” is one most would be familiar with, though this one lacks a personal touch, beyond the electrifying Cagney. With few changes, it could come out at almost any time as a typical gangster flick. Notably, very little time is dedicated to anyone else, with us only seeing someone emote if it relates to Tom. Thus, it does feel a little unreal. More developed characters would’ve helped this story, but it’s still perfectly satisfying and entertaining as Tom’s journey. Second billed is Jean Harlow as Gwen Allen. While she does provide a little bit of perspective in essentially preferring dangerous men, she is overall a great missed opportunity by doing so little and really just telling us information we already know about Tom. Harlow is really wasted in this role.

Tom’s bond with his friend Matt Doyle, played by Edward Woods, serves to give more humanity to the story, suggesting that such friendships can push you to do wrong. Having friends that commit crimes can make such a thing seem more appealing. Tom’s brother, Mike, played by Donald Cook, is also a hothead that very aggressively pushes Tom to reform, which won’t work nearly as well as the kindness of Matt. Cook’s performance is also very good. His temperament shows how similar Mike is to his brother and how such a thing can be utilized differently. Mike’s heightened emotions pushed him in an extreme direction, as well, to war. Him going to war and Tom going to crime are both things their mother does not approve of. At one point, Tom criticizes war, comparing it to his lifestyle, which is a really progressive message even for now. “You didn’t get them medals for holding hands with Germans.”

SPOILERS

The story is well paced and structured, with little bits of foreshadowing here and there. Someone at one point says no one can make it on their own. When Tom and Matt’s main support is killed, they quickly die as well. While it is a cliché for a protagonist character in old movies to reform, there is logic to it here. Seeing as Tom lost Matt, the gangster lifestyle would seem less thrilling and more risky, seeing as he was now getting consequences. His family could offer him more security. We also see the two men be eaten apart in little ways. One of the main ones is how Tom is pushed to the point of being more and more violent, even mass murder. This of course would lead the opposing side to fight back, which only continues the cycle of violence. The ending reveals that the mob that killed Tom knows where his family is, which causes worry that they’ll go after them. A smaller moment of this is when a woman takes advantage of Tom for sex, with it probably bothering him inside how this makes him feel used and at others’ whim.

The movie fortunately doesn’t just tell of the brutality of this lifestyle, but shows it. We get little pointless gestures, like the lead shooting a horse and the famous scene of him putting a grapefruit in the face of his girlfriend. After Tom fires on a group of people, he does not walk away unscathed, we even see blood on him, though the same cannot be said for when Matt is shot. The very end of the movie is horrific in the look we get of the killed Tom, whose death does not even mean much. To the gangsters, he is just another person in a line of those that have or will go down.

OVERVIEW

There is some intimidation and power to calling the lead character a “public enemy”, as if he is some great menace to society, as if a large group of people could harbor someone like this. They could even be a child. Still, it is hard to say if this movie would deter anyone. Cagney does act like a movie character more than a real guy, sometimes being really animated. That makes for a more exciting narrative, but something harder to relate to. Also, don’t watch this movie for Joan Blondell. She’s barely in the thing.

It Happened in Hollywood (1937) Review

Fay Wray as Gloria Gay in this film, ay

It Happened in Hollywood offers up a passable drama about a man who seemingly had it all before receiving a shot to the ego. Richard Dix as Tim Bart carries this well. You can tell he feels a need to prove to himself and others that he can take anything and not be emotional, with him in stride all the time. This does leave you waiting for when he’ll finally crack. The times he breaks from this mold are compelling. Another highlight is when he hears something objectionable and we see him quietly be perked up by what he learns. The other players are dreadfully one note. The key example is Fay Wray as Gloria Gay, who never seems to not have Tim on her mind.

There’s a decent amount of characters that serve almost no role in the film, but essentially are in an odd scene to influence Tim in some way. While probably not intentional, seeing as they prop themselves up as a friend of his, then either want something from him or just stop appearing, this could be a commentary for the movie industry where people come and go breezily. There are some efforts, mainly from Gloria, to get Tim back in movies. That goes against the potential point of the movie being to see what it’s like to be forgotten. Tim doesn’t even seem to mind not being in movies or being forgotten. His concerns are pleasing his fans by not doing a movie against his image and having enough money.

Sadly, we don’t learn a lot about what it must be like to push to keep your image the same. That is a good idea. In fact, Tim barely pushes for anything, which mutes some of the stakes. The movie lacks much message or point.

SPOILERS

One of the highlights is seeing Tim finally be particularly malleable to someone or something, Bill Burrud as “Billy The Kid”. He knows it’s a bad idea to let him stick around instead of taking him back to the hospital, but he seems to be unable to deny him crying. Despite the accidental creepiness, this does lead to a wholesome moment of Tim throwing a party for Billy with impersonators of famous celebrities. Ones I noticed were Marlene Dietrich, Greta Garbo, Mae West, Harold Lloyd, Joe E. Brown, W. C. Fields, Charlie Chaplin, and more. Two bizarre elements that also make Tim seem incapable of caring for Billy is that at one point Billy gets seriously injured when illegally in Tim’s care and when it’s implied Billy isn’t even his name. He is never called anything else, so this suggests Tim never bothered to learn the name.

There is the expected issue of pulling the main character as low as possible, only to unnaturally be yoinked up to the top again. After one of the best scenes in the film when in desperation Tim asks Gloria for money; with too little time to enjoy this depression, Tim seemingly by coincidence is in a situation where some bank robbers shoot a cop, so he shoots them in return, which gives him the publicity to resume his film career on his own terms. For starters, the relative ease of getting back to success makes Tim’s issues feel meaningless.

Due to the gruesomeness of shooting people in public, causing a small amount of damage, and the morally dubious nature of vigilante justice, this scene comes off as very off putting and morbid. This behavior isn’t condemned. The argument is there that it’s okay to shoot someone in public that is shooting or threatening innocent people, but this moment is clearly supposed to be celebrated, with Tim called a hero when the scene is so grotesque and violent. One nice element is that earlier Tim refused to play a cop-shooter in a movie. This ending mirrors that moment. As an aside, it seems implied that Tim will rob the bank for money. That seems so out of character that something else was probably supposed to be happening there.

OVERVIEW

The film itself doesn’t say a lot, but is interesting as a time capsule about how Hollywood viewed itself at the time. No one is particularly cruel or hostile, cowboys and cops are heroes, and everyone is relatively positive. It’s light on substance, but fine. Two notes to mention is that this movie is labelled a comedy on some sites, but really isn’t at all and there’s a shot of a moody and smokey Fay Wray, who just looks stunning.

Thirteen Women (1932) Review

A great promotional photo for the film

Thirteen Women is a slasher. The only thing about it that doesn’t fit that mold is a lack of blood, though it does have a kill count, pretty sorority girls, and a dark secret that’s come back to haunt them. Just like the more common examples of the genre, it gets far too stuck in bad performances and absurd plot developments. There’s little to get out of it, especially if you want more graphic violence.

Myrna Loy as Ursula Georgi and C. Henry Gordon as Swami Yogadachi both try way too hard to be witchy and creepy, coming off as cartoonish. The two have a romance for like one scene, which just seems like someone’s trying to fit in as many tropes as possible. “They’re a man and a woman, so they must kiss!” There is a clear attempt to give some layers to Ursula, but her solution to her plight is to just be evil and act like any other horror baddie, with Loy just having this eternal menace that comes off as not understanding the story or how to play this role.

Some of the sorority girl characters are better acted and have more interesting material. Irene Dunne as Laura Stanhope and Florence Eldridge as Grace Coombs are an example. They talk about the letters they’d received predicting a grizzly end and discuss whether they’re real. You also get the sense Laura is more so trying to keep a level mind, so someone is. Laura is a mother and a decent amount of the movie is her worrying about her kid. That relatable goal makes her very compelling. You can feel for her and understand the angst this must cause her. Dunne supplies a sharp performance, giving the movie some edge as a drama about coping with intense stress. She often shows her feelings on her face and body.

There’s a few really strong lines in the movie. One is, “You two are stumbling in a dark, material world. I am above it, as Yogadachi was. Death means peace, freedom. I shall meet him… gladly.” “Well, I shan’t.” While moments like this hint towards some deeper focus of death, living, and what it means to be in peace, these are mostly dropped for a little action and fighting. The ending of the movie is clearly trying to say something, but really just comes off as laughable. Other good lines are, “Depression or not, personally, I’m mad about this world.” The following quote is edited to avoid spoilers, “They’re all I’ve got. How can I help it with things I don’t understand striking out of the dark wh–where you can’t do anything, imagining that–that every little breath taken may be the last!?”

The opening scenes concerning the “Raskob sisters” are very suspenseful, especially when we see Mary Duncan as June Raskob’s nervous face as she approaches the dangerous stunt. See her face when the drumroll starts and she is making concerned faces to someone. Overall, moments of slow suspense, like wondering if a certain thing will happen, are solid. The big dumb action fair or scenes of basically nothing of use happening should’ve been removed. Speaking of which…

I watched this movie for my latest obsession, Peg Entwistle. I love her, though her acting is mediocre and hammy. She may as well not be here due to how little she gets. Apparently instead of four minutes of screentime, she originally had sixteen before a cut. It’d be nice to see those missing scenes, especially because it seems quite a whole lot was removed, including two of the thirteen girls mentioned in the title. That’s right, we only ever see eleven. Some of the shown eleven have very minimal roles, so it’d be nice to have gotten more development, such as in seeing the bond they have. The fact they were in a sorority together, as opposed to other connectors, suggests a familiarity with each other. They’re honorary sisters and either should stick together or dig up old issues from the past.

SPOILERS

When one of the Raskob sisters jumps from the trapeze, seeing her in slow motion with no music makes for a chilling moment. It’s a little ridiculous June wouldn’t have warned anyone of the letter she received that predicted this. Interestingly, Entwistle’s character actually survives the movie while so many others. Even her character in the book this is based on doesn’t make it. Entwistle herself didn’t live to see this movie released.

My favorite character here is Helen Dawson Frye, played by Kay Johnson. She projects a lot of confidence, though you can tell how broken she is by both her friends’ and her child’s death. She seems to not know what else to do other than to have a light heart towards the letter saying she’d kill herself. She bags the great and somber line, “Yes. That’s why she’s getting us all together– To laugh it all away. I haven’t laughed in so long.” She later has a surprisingly dark moment of pointing a gun at her chest, then she starts doing what sounds like a mix of laughing and crying. She also mirrors the other mother here.

Laura’s son almost dies a few times. The intensity and simultaneous casualness is so creepy. The son might just be living his normal life, only for us to know something nearly happened. At least Ursula had beef with the titular women. That son didn’t do anything, so he would’ve only been killed to make Laura suffer, possibly only for a little before her demise. The ending seems to try to make Ursula a little sympathetic. She says that the sorority girls she’s been killing off picked on her for being only part-white. Laura in turn doesn’t deny that, though does seem apologetic. The message here seems to be to not discriminate, though that is muddied by having the non-white character be a vindictive killer who seems to blame all white people. Thus, the movie isn’t better than the average racist media of the time for showing minority groups as villainous, scheming, and unable to relate to white people.

The acting is also particularly bad here. Ursula’s laugh is a notable silly part. She then runs to the end of the train and jumps off, thus following the great tradition of villains getting killed off very suddenly and sometimes in a ridiculous way. Her seeing Swami’s face before she jumps is also quite novel. Her having a gruesome death was foreshadowed, but why not have something like her trying to escape authorities, slipping on something, and falling off? She just throws herself away to get the movie to an end.

OVERVIEW

While perhaps the film is saying something worthwhile about racism, such a message gets caught up in hokey performances and a dreadfully dull and by the numbers story. There are a few worthwhile segments, so many it’s possible with the deleted scenes a better film could be made, though Loy’s portrayal makes that difficult.

ON THE CORNER AND OFF THE WALL

Entwistle’s character in the book is a lesbian, so here’s hoping the deleted scenes of the movie show that, which I highly doubt, but it’s fun to dream as the Peg Entwistle fan I am.

The Most Dangerous Game (1932) Review

Doctor Who template

At least by modern standards, The Most Dangerous Game is hard to take seriously. Its drama is heavy handed, with strong music overemphasizing big moments, a comically villainous antagonist, and a strong jawed male lead. Joel McCrea as Bob Rainsford gets some unintentional laughs in how he never seems to show fear or even emote. It’s as if McCrea wanted to look good, so insisted his character have almost no “faults” by some strange standard. Still, off of the thrills and scope of the scenes in the jungle, the movie is hard not to love. Even the scenes indoors or other settings look really creepy and intimidating, creating a very striking scenery. The directing adds to this, with some intense shots, like someone in the background watching another in the foreground, which creates a sense of dread. There’s also a lot of darkly lit closeups.

Fay Wray as Eve Trowbridge works as someone for Bob to work off of, but lacks much character or substance. If this story was a book, she could be naturally replaced with us hearing thoughts in Bob’s head. She covers some stereotypes of how women typically are in these movies, but she doesn’t get stuck in those too badly. She has a few highlights. Leslie Banks as Count Zaroff can never be taken seriously, always a mustache twirler. He often overacts his scenes. The character is written reasonably well, with his self-centered obsession with experiencing thrills and being a destined hunter playing into his decisions often. He says his father said his hand was “made for the trigger”. Some of the lesser moments are scarier, like when he asks one of his minions to smile. The smile looks very unnatural.

The final act is decent, but goes into some dull directions of essentially everyone running around a lot. It sometimes does pack in some excitement, but that’s not very consistent. Before that final act, there’s too much setting up the characters, which doesn’t really matter at the end of the day. Throughout, there are scenes like Eve calling Bob over silently while Zaroff plays the piano and other bits that at least serve to give the actors slightly more range and things to do that are pleasant to look at. The movie is another overwhelmingly dull.

SPOILERS

There’s a great early scene of screaming and panic befalling those on the ship, with graphic shots of bodies hitting the water and people being eaten by sharks, all filmed with quick cuts and peak intensity. We see a lot of people die horrible deaths. This is all the more terrifying because everyone seems really afraid and as minor characters, they don’t have plot armor. When Bob and Eve are being hunted later, they don’t seem that afraid. The intense brutality of this all is minimized by Bob. Right before all this happens, he says he’s a hunter and not prey and nothing will ever change that, being really oversold foreshadowing.

When someone Bob is on a piece of wreckage with is pulled down by a shark, he barely tries to help them and doesn’t even really seem to care. He later says that his “best friends” were killed on the boat, however he never seems traumatized or shaken by any of it. Based on how he acts, you’d think at worst maybe his friend’s friend died unfortunately and he was just hearing about it, instead of seeing people die in front of him as they scream. When a very worried Eve tells Bob that Zaroff has been keeping her and her brother from leaving, Bob says that maybe he enjoys their company, like what she’s saying isn’t terrifying in its implications. Eve later telling her brother to get an early night, as if concerned Zaroff will do something bad, is a really chilling moment.

Wray does a pretty good job when her character discovers her brother is dead. It’s hard for someone that’s never experienced that to know how someone would act, but it is believable what happens, where she seemingly has a second of disbelief, then starts raising her voice and hitting Zaroff, then she’s taken away by force and begins screaming. Her yelling as she leaves the room is a chilling moment and a highlight of this adventure. When we next see her, she’s distracted by many other things, so it makes sense she might be more focused on her own and Bob’s safety, than her brother’s death. It is a shame that at no point after she is taken away screaming does she mention her brother. When she’s on the boat at the end, why not show her crying over that?

When Bob and Eve are taken into the jungle, Bob says they’ll win, Eve says the others didn’t, then Bob raises his voice with, “We will!” This is a great point that finally shows some insecurity from the lead. He doesn’t seem confident that they will, but it makes sense he’d want to at least try to believe it. Eve later foolishly almost steps on a tripwire that would’ve gotten her killed and she knew about. When that tripwire plan fails, as it was likely to, it appears the leads had no backup plan on how to get Zaroff. Zaroff shooting an arrow right beside Bob and talking to him as Bob silently listens is another great scene.

At one point, Eve starts running away, which doesn’t seem terribly like her. There’s no reason to get away at that moment and Bob obviously would be someone she should stick with, as he knows what he’s doing. The structure of the game itself is a little dull. Instead of stakes escalating, a lot of time is spent on things being tried, then just failing. This problem is eventually corrected when the baddies start getting closer and closer, then eventually it seems Zaroff really does kill Bob. It’s also nice that Bob and Eve are forced down a path that Zaroff’s other victims were killed at, despite originally making a point to avoid it.

It would’ve been a shame if Bob had done everything you’d expect an average person to do, then survive. He does do some things differently, namely jump into the waterfall. It makes me wonder if the only reason Bob was written to be a talented hunter was so that that could be used to explain how he would manage to survive when no one else before him did. The waterfall fight is also really intense. Zaroff playing the piano, only for Bob to unexpectedly and quietly walk in is a tense and sharply directed moment. Bob does manage to really look like a badass by seeming so composed and intelligent, instead of before where he just seemed unable to emote. “You have beaten me!” “Not yet.” is a great line.

Zaroff seems to be lacking in principle. As per his word, he should’ve let Bob go, but he was still trying to kill him at the end, probably because Bob might tell the authorities about him. That weakens some moments where he empowers Bob, such as by giving him a knife, as he wants to be fair. While him saying he’s principled is all well and good, why not have a twist where he proves he’s not in a more dramatic and apparent way? He says he won’t kill Eve, but what if at one point he tries to and is stopped by Bob, thus giving Eve a real reason to be afraid and the both of them to doubt they’d be allowed to get off the island even if they won the game?

Zaroff ultimately suffers a lame death, being mostly taken out by being stabbed by an arrow, then falling into his dogs. Doubly foolish is he seems to have not intended to actually let Bob leave, but he does give him a key and instructions on how to escape. The last shot of Bob and Eve driving off into the distance is a pretty one. It is a novelty that they never explicitly end up together romantically.

OVERVIEW

The Most Dangerous Game is frankly very silly. Still, it’s so much fun that it’s hard not to love for how wacky it can be, while having genuinely beautiful cinematography and direction.

Blonde Venus (1932) Review

Marlene Dietrich in the film

Blonde Venus makes the gamble of sacrificing a traditional structure for the sake of focusing more on these handful of characters and what they get up to in a more fluid manner. It’s almost like if you wanted to make a movie about a few days in the life of a couple, and then you picked two horrible people right before things were about to go wrong for them. Thus, not having much of an endpoint and really being more about rolling through the events works very well. Marlene Dietrich is very ill suited to this movie and specifically this interpretation of the story for a few reasons. For starters, Dietrich is so gorgeous that she doesn’t come off as an everywoman. When she’s performing, she is very much larger than life. It’s a bit hard to believe why her character of Helen Faraday wouldn’t be committing herself to stage performances when she both seems to love them and they basically always work out for her. You can tell Dietrich loves performing, though her character seemingly doesn’t.

As we’ve seen in movies like Morocco, here Dietrich has genderbending qualities. In this movie, while she almost always dresses and acts femininely, seeming content as a housewife, near the end she dresses in a masculine outfit and flirts with a woman. Every outfit Dietrich wears looks amazing on her, like it was meticulously designed to be as perfect as possible, which doesn’t make her feel like a real person. Maybe Helen was supposed to be just like Dietrich? However, the differences are too distinct. At other points, Dietrich does a serviceable job when she has little to do or little to emote. The big emotional moments usually fall flat, as she has very little range. She sometimes seems very wooden. Some of the simple moments, or ones where she has an exaggerated bombastic nature to her, like how she might act in front of an audience work better, which is usually all that is asked of her. You can believe she was probably included in the movie for her great scenes on stage, as she’s a wonderfully charismatic entertainer and singer. “Hot Voodoo” is a favorite of her songs. Unlike in Morocco, her performance never makes the movie hard to enjoy.

Herbert Marshall as Edward ‘Ned’ Faraday is also deeply unlikable, but also very convincing as just a typical well-intentioned guy trying not to lose what is important to him. Marshall allows the script to emphasize the nature of his actions, while he just carries them in an impactfully simple manner. You instantly hate him when in the beginning he won’t leave a group of naked women alone, saying he’ll only do so if they later cook dinner for him. The power of the script comes through when you relate to him later, even if you don’t like him. Cary Grant as Nick Townsend is the least corrupt adult. He has a degree of selfishness that causes him to do some bad things, but he has devilishly good looks and a warm center that is really endearing. It’s a shame he isn’t in more of the film to do his bidding. Especially in the final act, he could’ve offered an interesting perspective. Dickie Moore as Johnny Faraday gives a solid child performance. He acts like a real kid and serves to showcase how his parents’ actions are being received.

The movie focuses on some relatively brutal behavior, more intense than audiences would’ve expected from reasonably sympathetic protagonists, especially parents. Perhaps the message is what can become of reasonably normal people? With a lot of what Helen and Ned do, you can understand the rationale, even if it’s problematic.

Opening the movie on naked women swimming creates a heavenly and otherworldly atmosphere. As stated earlier, this story doesn’t work as being “otherworldly”. On its own, it’s still a nice and very daring pre-code scene. It’s also pretty funny that Helen is wearing makeup while swimming and it looks perfect. One of Marshall’s strongest acting moments is when he recalls this scene and clearly has great affinity for it. Helen describing how he kissed her is a romantic moment, though soured by how the only reason they ended up together was because of how much of a creep Ned was being.

Dietrich gets some good laughs. “My name’s Taxi Belle Hooper. Taxi for short.” “Do you charge for the first mile?” Later there’s, “Say, is that your kid?” “I’ll give you three guesses, Sherlock Holmes.” There’s an awkward moment between Helen and Nick where various plot-related questions and answers are rattled off, like no one could think of a more natural way to get this information out. There’s several sharp and jarring time skips. Especially confusing is that no one ever looks older or any different over these spans of many months.

SPOILERS

Dietrich gives a beautifully cold delivery of the line, “It was a lie.” When Ned says Helen was a bad mother, it’s a shame we didn’t see anything to support this until after he says that. The emotional center of the film is Helen’s love for her son Johnny. This leads her to helping him and hurting him. Seemingly unable to process being without him, she takes him on the run. She can’t get money and thus he has to live in poverty with her. However, she appears to try her best to make sure he’s always being looked after, somehow getting caretakers when she isn’t able to be with him. The one time she seemingly couldn’t get one, she left him asleep. Ultimately, she gets clarity of how bad she’s been to him and turns herself in. Always trying to keep confidence, she mocks the authorities, saying they were never going to catch her, so she had to do it herself.

Her mocking them, later when she is distant from Johnny when she thinks she won’t get to see him again, and afterwards acting like she doesn’t care about not being able to see Johnny all seem like attempts to not appear vulnerable and act like she has control, even when she clearly doesn’t. At her lowest point, she seems delighted to be killing herself soon and giving her money to someone else. Those two things give her power at a point when she has so little. When she does get to see Johnny, she has had time to forget about how bad she was to him and is also overwhelmed with emotions, so she is willing to reconcile with her ex-husband. Johnny has consistently been what humbles his parents. Helen might feel sincere happiness being with her son, but this suggests all this might happen again, as nothing has been learned.

“I kind of wish now I’d never met you. I take that back. A little of you is worth a lifetime with any other woman.” is a great line by Nick. Later, he summarizes the whole film with, “I wish I was necessary to your happiness.” Helen and Ned seem unwilling to look vulnerable and thus do foolish things. Nick has real power in his wealth and is thus not afraid to look bad. There is real sincerity to his words and that feeling of wanting someone who either doesn’t want you or doesn’t love you and how you can want to compromise so much to make that work is very relatable. Perhaps the earlier encounter between Helen and Nick was supposed to suggest she really did love him, but we saw so little you could think Helen was using him for his resources?

Just like how Ned was a peak asshole in the beginning, he also is at the end, wanting to make Johnny forget his mother. Ned saying he didn’t know much about women in the past suggests he’s had many bad encounters with them and thus women are the problem, as opposed to him.

OVERVIEW

Despite its flaws, it’s hard not to be captivated by Blonde Venus’ dark story and Dietrich’s persona. It’s easy to see why characters in her movies fall for her, despite issues. She’s just so stunning. This is also ironic as she’s by far the worst actor here.

The Invisible Ray (1936) Review

Karloff and Lugosi in the film

The Invisible Ray has the story of a corny b-movie, but does offer some quality elements that make it more interesting. The acting is relatively strong, especially when it comes to Boris Karloff as Dr. Janos Rukh and Bela Lugosi as Dr. Felix Benet’s complicated relationship. Something that made the first half of the movie reasonably strong is that while everyone has their strong opinions on each other, they put that aside for the sake of maturity and also helping others. These sorts of stories usually turn towards the characters hating each other, so it would be frankly novel to have otherwise. The second half plays way too much into old tropes. The weakest and most hammy moments are in the second half, though not exclusive to it.

Another big issue is Frances Drake as Diana, who is lacking in much characterization, more being a focal point for the men. Her marriage to Rukh and involvement with the various characters could’ve been used to emphasize certain points about the story, mainly that some don’t like or understand Rukh, but obviously she does to some degree, or else she wouldn’t have married him. Rukh’s mother, played by Violet Kemble Cooper, essentially fills the role of being someone that seems to relate and appreciate Janos Rukh. If the mother had not been a character and instead her scenes reworked to be for Diana, especially the mother’s last in the movie, the scene and Diana herself would arguably be more poignant and meaningful.

The other main players seem like they are supposed to have more relevance, but ultimately amount to very little. Frank Lawton as Ronald Drake is essentially just eye candy that doesn’t have a presence in the same way female characters in these sorts of movies often are. Karloff and Lugosi, however, have great chemistry and make the movie. You can tell their characters have strong opinions on each other, even when they first appear in the movie together. It would’ve been nice to learn more about them, though that’s not necessary. They both have the same desire to help people and use their scientific minds. As events occur, their different views manifest in their own ways. Sometimes that means some cheesy shlock, but more often than not they have an uncomfortable tolerance of the situation. Also, it’s fun seeing Bela be a good guy.

The opening text is pretty silly, basically trying to say the technology in this movie could exist one day. There’s an amusing shot where Diana walks across a hallway as dramatic music plays. Possibly the best scene in the film is when Rukh describes the solar system as we see shots of the solar system and those watching it. The editing does wonders to make things feel otherworldly and like Rukh has really been onto something. The scene oozes atmosphere and intrigue. The movie doesn’t have much to do with space, which does let this moment down a bit.

SPOILERS

Rukh has random moments that foreshadow his villainy, even before he gets poisoned. Rukh’s madness is shown (briefly after being poisoned) when he terrorizes some Africans in order to get them to help him. He later kills a dog, albeit by accident. When Diana goes to see Rukh after he knows he can kill people with a touch, he’s such a jerk to her and acts like nothing is wrong. Why be so rude? Rukh and Benet are later way too comfortable being close to each other. For all they know, what Rukh has got could be transmissible through breath or if Benet touches something Rukh just did. After Benet cures Rukh, he touches him. How does he know he isn’t getting something dangerous on him? He wouldn’t know how good the anecdote is. Rukh should’ve immediately quarantined and not interacted with people unless done very safely.

Rukh’s turn to murder is foreshadowed subtly when he is enraged that Benet has shown some of what they learned to others, so the dangerous power wouldn’t all be in Rukh’s hands. He was right. Rukh shouldn’t be the only one with that control. Karloff is a little too hammy when he learns Diana is leaving him. Despite that weak spot, minutes later we get one of Rukh’s last moments of humanity and normalcy when he cures his mother’s blindness. Janos looks genuinely shocked and joyous that he helped her. His mother doesn’t forget this is a horror, and is afraid. It’s a great scene with both giving great performances.

When Rukh starts his killing, Benet becomes way too much of an idiot. Hilariously, he drops a negative that proves Rukh killed someone. The scene is so clumsy you could about believe Lugosi dropped it by accident. Instead of immediately reporting Rukh, he seems to do nothing. Rukh is then able to take another victim’s life. Benet and Drake’s plan to get Rukh is even more absurd. It endangers them, Diana, and plenty of innocent people. They know Rukh has gone nuts, so would they really know he would not kill someone uninvolved? Benet at one point nonchalantly says that anyone that touches Rukh dies. If one didn’t know conventions of this era of cinema, you might think Benet was actually a villain who wanted people to die, not that that is the case.

Rukh is able to sneak into an event by convincing a professor to go into a dark alley and take a sip of a drink. You’d think the guy wouldn’t have been so foolish. When Rukh and Benet see each other later, both talk instead of immediately going to kill the other. Why wait when Rukh just wants Benet to die and Benet has to consider the safety of the others? In fact, Rukh later has the opportunity to kill Diana and would’ve if he hadn’t decided not to. The two have a bizarrely casual conversation. Rukh seems to be trying to convince Benet of why he deserves to die instead of just doing it. He then says, “It will be easiest just to shake hands.” Benet understandably goes for his gun, but did Rukh think Benet would just let himself be murdered for no reason?

Later, Drake is weirdly casual about the fact a killer is after him and his wife and he could very well end up dying. Diana later doesn’t seem to try very hard to stop Rukh from killing her new husband. Do Drake and Diana even like each other? Rukh’s mother destroying the cure to Janos’ poison and thus causing him to kill himself is a powerful moment that plays on their scenes throughout. It’s tragic she would have to do that, but it makes sense because she knows what he’s been doing. Still, Rukh’s actual death and the ending as a whole play too much into being over the top and too dramatic. While you can imagine why the mother would’ve killed him, it’s a shame we didn’t get much on how she’d take something so morbid. Their relationship was so touching in the movie, it’s a shame that wasn’t concluded in the last moments or at all, which would’ve made for a sharp ending.

OVERVIEW

The Invisible Ray is a lot of fun, but don’t take it too seriously. The third act drops way too much of what was working about the film.

White Zombie (1932) Review

While it’s not uncommon for movies of the time to have cheesy acting or bad sound design, White Zombie really pushes just how bad it can make those. The normally electrifying Bela Lugosi, who even brings some power to Ed Wood movies, seems like he really doesn’t care or know what to do. He’s often extremely emotionless, possibly in an attempt to seem intimidating. His character of “Murder Legendre” is similar to Lugosi’s famous role of Dracula. Both are quiet and able to command and control people on a supernatural level. Thus, it’s bizarre here he can’t think of anything to give Legendre. A line like “There is no other way” severely lacks the threat or intensity of a better movie, coming off as Lugosi trying way too hard to be scary. This movie could easily be a prequel to Dracula, though that would weigh down the superior and more famous adventure by tying it to this. It being a prequel would fix one of the lamest elements of Zombie.

Characters sometimes just describe plot information in a way a real person wouldn’t say. They can also seem pretty nonchalant about the dangers going on. Some of these lines would make more sense if this was a novel and the dialogue was instead someone’s thoughts. The other main players consist of Robert W. Frazer as Charles Beaumont, Madge Bellamy as Madeleine Short, John Harron as Neil Parker. All have great potential that isn’t used. Charles usually just stands around or does things with not much to connect with behind his eyes. He’s little more than an explanation of how the others crossed paths with Murder. Yet, his goals are very interesting and could make for great examinations we don’t get.

When Madeleine and Neil are at low points, they can ring out some intensity and draw you into the story. Bellamy is given too little to do, being an object for others, but is not bad at filling that function. Despite Neil’s experiences being mostly unrelatable, he can come across as very human when we see him try to deal with what’s happened. His pain resonates strongly. When things aren’t so bad, their performances are way too thin. The other relevant character for discussion, Joseph Cawthorn as Dr. Bruner, is also very weak. He never seems to grasp that we’re supposed to be scared, even adding unnecessary comic relief by asking for a match multiple times. He gives his lines like he either thinks they’re incredibly stupid or like he thinks this is a comedy. There’s barely even an attempt at seeming invested.

Opening the movie on what appears to be a chant is a really creepy and effective opening. Soon enough we see Lugosi’s famous eyes, which adds to the atmosphere greatly. The way the eyes zoom back and then disappear is pretty funny in how silly it looks. While we get some nice imagery of things like the zombies doing work, they don’t ever do much, essentially being set decoration. With very few changes, Murder and Charles could’ve been the only antagonists. (With a few more we could lose Charles, too.) Later, there’s a freaky shot of the camera moving up the body of a zombie in a closeup. A shot of a castle looks like an unrealistic painting, though it is a pretty image in its own right.

Miscellanea includes: While it’s understandable Neil might not believe the men they saw were zombies, he seems weirdly unphased, more specifically like his actor has no idea how to deliver this dialogue. Fans of lady skin and underwear will be pleased by a more or less pointless scene of Bellamy stripped down. Another positive is that the split screen both doesn’t look too bad and captures the emotions of the characters well, because of what it’s showing.

SPOILERS

Bellamy’s “I see death” line is sharp. Her seeing Murder in a glass has potential, but has a sense of goofiness to it. The best scene of the movie is probably when Neil is trying to drink his sorrows away. It’s so shattering when he imagines Madeleine, showing the longing he has. He then tries to grab her and, realizing she obviously wasn’t there, gets extremely emotional. We also see him trying to reach for her while partially obscured in darkness. Later, he goes to her coffin and upon finding she’s not there, yells. We can feel him going mad.

Elements like Charles’ madness and regret and Madeleine’s possession are good ideas, but nothing is done with them or said about them. This could’ve been reframed as a commentary on anything, at least human nature, but instead there’s very little character development or focus. Despite my praise towards Neil’s performance, when he sees Madeleine in person, you’d think he’d have a more emotional reaction than he does. He is way too muted.

The ending starts off incredibly poorly. When Murder gets in a little trouble, all his zombie minions walk off a convenient cliff. Why would they do that than to just get themselves out of the way? The movie seemed to dare to end a little differently than expected. Usually the baddie gets killed, but with just over a minute left, Murder is fine, only to be pushed off the cliff and die one of the dumbest villain deaths to be seen. The obvious dummy is extra ridiculous, almost guaranteed to give this film more value as a comedy than a horror. Seeing the dummy be carried off camera by the waves is also wonderful.

Murder was already attacked from behind before, so you’d think he’d learn his lesson, not that the first time wasn’t already pathetic. When Neil showed up to his castle earlier, he was able to sense him. You’d think he could sense that someone was behind him then. Thus, my personal theory is that Legendre possessed a zombie to look and act like him, so he could get away and that zombie be killed. There is still the issue of why wouldn’t he kill everyone and not need an escape, seeing as he had so much power and control, but that is the lesser issue here? After Murder is killed, Charles jumps to his death and amusingly no one seems to care. A chance to see Neil and Madeleine reconnect is ruined by before they kiss, Bruner asks for a match, like that in any way matches or ties off all we’ve seen. Ending on a kiss would be much better.

Mainly because of the little that is interesting here, Neil’s depression over Madeleine’s death and their complicated reunion, this could maybe work edited down to a short film? Perhaps in it Murder gets away at the end? You would miss the decent slow burn of letting us feel Neil’s suffering before he reunites with Madeleine, but that’s worth the trade off.

OVERVIEW

If you’re going to give a chance to White Zombie, have the volume control ready for all the times the music starts blasting or ridiculous screams are hard, even to the point of making it hard to hear the characters or just sounding laughable. The long shots of the score playing over Murder’s face blurring or him grasping his hands is both way too slow and again worthy of an undesired giggle.

Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933) Review

Joan of Arc in the film

Mystery of the Wax Museum demonstrates something many don’t know, that The Wizard of Oz isn’t the first color film, not even the first to be pretty much all color. Admittedly, the color in Wax Museum and a lot of other early examples don’t look terribly realistic, unlike Oz. Still, this movie has a surreal look to the color. It looks like it could be an intentional artistic decision, especially because we’re seeing a lot of wax sculptures, which are intended to look like people, but often aren’t perfect. The “unrealistic” look doesn’t compromise any mood or ability to see something.

Everything looks stylish and atmospheric. Some of the shots look like they could be professional photographs. A favorite is one of Glenda Farrell running and yelling at night. A lot of the story is set during the night. The look of the film also compliments the narrative itself. The movie is generally dark, while the tone is a bit brighter. That suggests that there’s something sinister that’s hard to place, but always around.

Glenda Farrell as Florence Dempsey is a lot of fun, while also being a really effective focal point for the story. While the other actors have lots of charm and class, Farrell has it all. She’s funny, relatable, a guide for the narrative, and much more. Those little comedy elements don’t detract from or lessen the horror, instead making for tasteful comic relief that also shows us something about Florence, that she tries not to take things too seriously. Farrell and Frank McHugh as Jim have really good comedic chemistry, while also driving the plot and our protagonist. She sometimes does things in response to what he says. McHugh is also the master of cheesy 30s movie dialogue. “That you’re a sure bet to place in the breadline. There’s no room on this rag for the purely ornamental. You’re easy on the eyes and pretty conceited about it.” “Is mama’s little dumpling getting tough?”

Other funny moments include, “Okay brother, then you can go to some nice warm place, and I don’t mean California!” A scene of Jim throwing a ball of paper at Florence seems like it could’ve been the actors having so much fun they improvised a bit. At one point, Florence asks someone how their sex life is. A character openly discusses in front of policemen having a bootlegger. Still, this film is not a comedy, but doesn’t let the comedy overtake the other elements. There is one point at the end where the comedy is too much.

Lionel Atwill as Ivan Igor is easy to relate to after all the bad things that happen to him, selling him as a wise older figure with a passion for his craft. Fay Wray as Charlotte Duncan has less personality than Farrell, but still is very serviceable in her role here. Charlotte screams so much it becomes a plot point. It’s really irritating how often she does it, making her seem like a damsel in distress. It’s both very stylish and creepy when Igor sees Charlotte and imagines her dressed as Marie Antoinette. Wray has immense beauty, looking like someone worth having a statue made of. Most of the handsome male leads are perfectly fine, but don’t do much.

While practically all of the wax sculptures have this to some degree, the one of Joan of Arc is especially creepy. Not sure why, probably the longing eyes. There’s one point where Farrell’s sentence is amusingly cut off awkwardly by a cut. Some of the wax sculptures move slightly or blink. Of course, these are extremely minor issues, just personally notable. The movie delves mildly into b-movie horror tropes, but they do add to the sense of fun. The climax does much more strongly embrace the spectacle of a horror villain doing villainy, with everything happening in an over the top way that lacks substance. Most of the movie doesn’t even really have a villain, so having one at the end, and even an evil laboratory, is something one might laugh at, and not in a good way.

SPOILERS

The opening fight scene is really creepy and thrilling. An intense fight scene is surrounded by realistic wax sculptures melting. It’s very unsettling. When Florence takes some bottles of booze that don’t belong to her in front of some cops, they ask her what she’s doing, she talks back to them, and they let her carry on. It’s incredibly disappointing that we discover the big twist because someone just explained it instead of seeing it. Why not have us find out the wax statues come from dead bodies by having us see something like one being built or Charlotte being told she’ll be turned into one?

We get a great reveal of a different twist when Igor’s face falls off and we learn he covered his badly burnt one with wax. After Igor overpowers someone, why leave him just lying there? He could get up and attack him later. Igor was in a wheelchair, but we see him running and jumping around in a chase later. Regardless, the scene of him fighting the police is very cinematic and stylish. It’s a lot of fun seeing what’s going to happen next, though it makes no sense.

The typical romance of old movies is subverted. A character directly says he’s in love with Florence, with it being played as silly that he would be. In the last moments of the movie, Jim, who showed no interest in Florence, asks to marry her. This, as well as Florence accepting, is played as being ridiculous, but so much so as to be funny. This scene also doesn’t forget to fit in some actual jokes. One issue here is that the movie has almost no comedy in it, being more about horror and the comedy usually only serving to give extra personality to Florence. Thus, the ending should’ve reflected that. Still, this scene does work on its own merits and would be great at the end of a screwball. It also ties off our protagonist in a believable way. She wasn’t particularly ethical or unselfish at any point, so it’s good she doesn’t just become “a nice girl”. She was shown to care mostly about getting ahead in life financially, never showing interest in love. It makes sense she wouldn’t care about who she’s marrying, as long as it helps her.

OVERVIEW

While in some ways a little cheesy, Mystery of the Wax Museum is so much fun with its nail biting mystery and a consistently lovable cast as to be a great watch. Glenda Farrell really kills it.

Sleepless Hollow (1936) Review

Harry Gribbon and Anita Garvin

Sleepless Hollow is very meandering and uneventful. Especially at the dinner table, everybody seems to be trying way too hard to steal the scene. It would be better for people to go for a “less is more” approach. Anita Garvin is the only person here with any humor or personality. The best bits are when she is wisecracking and seeming annoyed. There’s a few points she overplays it, but more often she wins by having a little subtlety and not trying too hard to be the center of attention. It’s a shame she couldn’t be doing this more often.

Still, there’s a few good bits that don’t have to do with Garvin. Powder being thrown on a man, followed by him saying, “She loves me!” is funny. Same for when a woman intentionally sets off a small explosive in the oven to start it. Someone says, “Well, have you been abroad?” That’s probably the best line here. Later there’s Harry Gribbon’s “Can I help it if I’m so attractive?”, followed by him awkwardly walking off.

One of the main issues in the film is that the pacing is atrocious, with things mindlessly happening without much structure. Everything seems to have a way of dissolving into the cast yelling like idiots. Moments like when a bottle Harry Gribbon is trying to remove is pointed at a bunch of people is overacted and too nonsensical. If everyone’s telling him to not point the bottle at them, why wouldn’t he just respect that wish? Someone telling him to shoot a specific person is quite good though. It’s a little jarring when everyone just immediately moves on from this. “Moving on” is admittedly a common trope, though when done better there’s a reason to, such as trying to follow some social convention.

SPOILERS

“Honey, honey, let me in, dear.” “Say, this ain’t no beehive, this is a washroom!” is quite good. The man trying to “save” a confused Anita might be the worst of people trying too hard to be memorable. This guy just comes off as a nutjob and his actor someone looking for fifteen seconds of fame. Still, we then get the following exchange between Gribbon and Garvin: “Did you try to kill yourself, honey?” “No, but if this keeps up I will!” “Well you see, you made a mistake, doc.” “He’s not the only one.”

The suicide moment for the character of Susie is really dark and out of place. The film is otherwise extremely light. A little more dark humor might have helped, but this bit took us from pretty typical to pitch black, with the lack of humor making it really bad taste. There’s a lot of everyone being cartoonish, with Harry yelling that he’s there for Susie and blaming himself, which just seems to be him trying to get more attention from the audience. A man running through the wall to get in the locked door is another highlight. Once everyone else has gotten in, they can’t find the man, who is lying on the ground.

The final joke is forced. Somehow no one realized it was now daytime. In response to learning it’s raining, Harry says he hopes the roof was fixed, to which water then starts pouring on him and Anita. This summarizes how random and off the wall the short often is, similar to Keystone’s “improvised shorts”. To give this one some credit, there’s a bit more structure than in ol’ Keystone.

OVERVIEW

Some may like how stupid two-reeler characters can be, but that can often just come off as going for something so one note as to not be funny. The lack of relatability or realism makes shorts like Sleepless Hollow feel groundless and hard to connect to. Maybe it would’ve been best to replace Garvin with someone worse, so everyone else looks better by comparison? Even then, poor Anita doesn’t look as good as she has in the past. Even if this had a killer cast, there’s not much to make due to the script.