The Desperate Hours (1955) ***1/2

Release Date: October 5, 1955

Running Time: 113 minutes

Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Fredric March, Martha Scott, Dewey Martin, Mary Murphy, Richard Eyer, Robert Middleton

Directed by: William Wyler

Glenn Griffin and two thugs escape prison and take hostages in this taught crime drama late in the career of Humphrey Bogart. If the plot sounds familiar it’s because it’s very similar to that of 1936’s The Petrified Forest, a film that also featured Bogart as the lead criminal. The premise is the same yet these two films are very different in tone and style. In The Petrified Forest Bogart is playing to the back row as if he were on stage, a holdover from when he was on stage in that same role. Here he is more seasoned and much more competent. The film also doesn’t feel like several different films spliced together the way The Petrified Forrest does.

The plot is very simple. Dan Hilliard (Fredric March), his wife Ellie (Martha Scott), and their two children Cindy (Mary Murphy), and Ralphie (Richard Eyer) are the typical American family. Dan is the breadwinner while his wife takes care of the home. Mary is a teenager who had a straight laced steady boyfriend and Ralphie is the younger brother who is a bit mischievous but generally a good son. The only thing that puts them in the path of Glenn and his two fellow escaped cons, his brother Hal (Dewey Martin) and the demented Sam (Robert Middleton), is while driving through the neighborhood Glenn spots Ralphie’s bike in the yard and decides that a family with a young kid would be less likely to make trouble for them for fear of the child’s life. They take the family hostage, looking for a hideout while waiting for Glenn’s girlfriend to arrive with some money so that they can flee south of the border and out of the law’s reach.

What happens over the remainder of the film is tense and disturbing at times but it also has some logistical and logical flaws that seem hard to swallow. For instance, Glenn allows Cindy to leave on a date with her boyfriend ostensibly to avoid any suspicion. This seems much more risky than just having her tell the boyfriend anything to prevent him from coming over. It is played out over a phone call between the two where the boyfriend is too insistent to accept she won’t have him over that night but it plays false. Glenn could have easily taken another hostage should this happen minimizing any chance of Cindy losing composure and spilling the beans of her family’s predicament. Likewise Glenn allows Dan to go to work rather than have him call in sick. Sure, there is the threat of harm to his family if he goes to the police but this seems like too much of a gamble. 

But aside from these leaps of logic the film is taught and the tension is real, something that the earlier film The Petrified Forrest failed at. The film doesn’t hold back actually showing the criminals as indiscriminate killers, willing to kill an innocent passerby who happens to notice a strange car in the Hilliard’s garage. Only Hal comes across as sympathetic, first defending Cindy from the advances of Sam, then later realizing things between all of them were turning sour and knowing when to bail on his brother. His final outcome is tragic as he is the only one of the criminals we feel any real sympathy for. 

We also see the story from the police’s perspective as they narrow in on the escapees. We are treated occasionally to scenes involving the clues that help narrow down their search. It’s great in providing a ticking clock for the criminals as well as for the Hilliards. Director William Wyler was no newbie to cinema having helmed some of the greatest films of the era. He took what could have been a generic hostage film and imbued it with an overall sense of dread and realism that elevates it above many of its contemporaries. Still, he knew what type of movie he was making and didn’t try to reinvent the genre. It hits all the typical notes for this type of film and ends on a note that is no surprise to anyone.

But it doesn’t need to be. A film isn’t great simply by being surprising. All it needs to do is be great at what it is and this film is just that. It takes many familiar tropes and portrays them perfectly. There are a few stumbling blocks mentioned earlier but even though they seem a bit far fetched those scenes are still tensioned filled and a joy to watch. Bogart is great, chewing the scenery in a way only he could and he is surrounded by supporting actors and actresses who all nail their roles to perfection making his partners as well as the Hilliards well rounded characters. This really helps ratchet up the tension as we can identify with the family and dread what Glenn and Sam (not so much Hal) may do to them. It’s legitimately scary and disturbing at times lending a sense of realism that isn’t always found in this type of film.

They Drive By Night (1940) ***

Release Date: August 3, 1940

Running Time: 95 minutes

Starring: George Raft, Humphrey Bogart, Ann Sheridan, Ida Lupino

Directed by: Raoul Walsh

It’s difficult to imagine in retrospect a time when Humphrey Bogart was not top billed in a film he starred in. Sur there were plenty of pictures in the 30’s where he was just a bit player but by 1940 he was a known commodity and, while his true box office draw was still two years off, he was a star on the rise. It was during this time that he took a co-starring role alongside George Raft in They Drive by Night, taking second billing to Raft who was definitely the bigger star at the time. Many of Bogart’s later rolls would be passed on by Raft paving the way for Bogart to cement his position in Hollywood history. Films like Dead End and High Sierra were originally going to be Raft films but went to Bogart after Raft turned them down. These films made Bogart a star and George Raft’s popularity wane. But in 1940 Raft was the bigger star and commanded the majority of the screen time here.

They Drive by Night is an interesting film in many ways. For the time it was atypical for either actor seeing the two of them as truck-driving brothers Joe and Paul (Raft and Bogart) barely scraping by working for a businessman who doesn’t pay them regularly and is willing to let someone else take over their delivery when they bust a tire rather than advance them their pay to get it fixed. This eventually leads the two to go into business for themselves buying their own loads of produce so they can profit from the deliveries rather than just taking a cut. Just as things are looking up though Paul falls asleep at the wheel and crashes the truck leaving them without their vehicle and profits as the product was destroyed in the crash. Worse, Paul loses an arm in the wreck leaving him unable to drive anymore. This forces Joe to take a job working in a trucking business for Ed Carlen (Alan Hale) and his wife Lana (Ida Lupino), a woman who has her eyes on Joe. Meanwhile, Joe has met Cassie (Ann Sheridan) hitchhiking earlier and intends to make her his wife. 

There is a lot of plot for such a film. It threatens at times to bog down the overall narrative yet it never does. For a film that is primarily about the trucking industry and the drivers who struggle to make a living it never gets boring. The film is peppered with colorful characters to liven up most every ensemble scene. Just in the diner early on we get treated to some comedic performances as characters hit on the waitress, Cassie, play pinball endlessly, and throw out a loan shark, Farnsworth (an uncredited Charles Halton) looking to repossess Joe and Paul’s truck for missed payments. Cassie stands out above all of them with her brassy no nonsense attitude and quips, eventually quitting and catching a ride with the brothers because her boss kept trying to tie her apron strings when she had no apron on in the first place. 

The second half of the film takes a hard turn however as the tone shifts from good natured humor into film noir territory. While there is some suspense in the first half it is nothing compared to after Ida Lupino steps in. We see her early on in the film and know immediately she wants to be with Joe despite being married. The levels she is willing to sink to to make it happen however only become apparent later in the film when we get a better sense of her marriage to Ed. The film takes a dark turn late into it and it never really lightens up. This tonal shift is abrupt but manages to not derail the film thanks to the terrific performance by Ida Lupino who portrays her deep unhappiness well. Her complete breakdown later is a little over the top and is the only weakness to an otherwise spot on performance. 

Bogart is also great as Paul. He is married to a woman who would do anything to not be so lonely while Paul is on the road. She longs for children but Paul feels they are too poor to afford it. His accident seems like a miracle to her when it only depresses Paul who feels he can no longer work. The role is small, much smaller than that of his brother, but Bogart imbues it with wit and sarcasm and just enough personality to make it a three dimensional character.

Raft is a little less engaging although not by much. He gets the lion’s share of the film and the most character development yet he seems to be basically the same at the end of the film as he is at the beginning. He has screen charisma and gains some confidence in his abilities outside of driving trucks but that is about it. This is the type of role that doesn’t really take any effort to portray and is consequently less interesting. One wonders how much better the film would have been Raft and Bogart switched rolls. 

This is a tricky film to get all the elements right and make entertaining. Raoul almost nails it completely. Where he struggles is in the final act. The tonal shifts and an uneven performance by Lupino in the final few scenes make the last ten minutes uneven and a little awkward. Ultimately though it is a fine film that showcases an early Bogart performance that proves he could be more than just gangsters and thieves. For that and some truly fun performances by a fine supporting cast this film excels when it could have easily stumbled.

We’re No Angels (1955) ***1/2

 Release Date: July 7, 1955

Running Time: 106 minutes

Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Aldo Ray, Peter Ustinov, Leo G. Carroll, Joan Bennett, Gloria Talbott

Directed by: Michael Curtiz

Devil’s Island, 1895. Three escaped convicts, Joseph (Humphrey Bogart), Jules (Peter Ustinov), and Albert (Aldo Ray) arrive looking for an opportunity for some easy money. Through a chance acquisition they arrive at a store run by the Ducotel family with patriarch Felix (Leo G. Caroll), the main shop runner who is in over his head, running the store into the ground through incompetence and an inability to pressure his few clientele into paying their outstanding bills. They immediately see an opportunity to con him out of money and supplies. While ostensibly repairing a leaky roof on the shop the three cons they overhear all the drama currently going on in the Ducotel household. Felix is indebted to his cousin Andre (Basil Rathbone) a wealthy businessman who owns the shop and will kick the family out if it isn’t turning a profit. Amelie (Joan Bennett) is the long suffering wife who worries about losing everything they have if this happens. The daughter Isabelle (Gloria Talbots) is in love with Andre’s son, Paul (John Baer) who may not be reciprocating that emotion. In fact, a letter arrived that very day stating that Paul was to be married to someone else to help further his father’s business interests. All of this is revealed rather amusingly to the three convicts as they watch like angels from above through an open window leading out to the roof.

We’re No Angels is a farce, a bit of a screwball comedy that plays out a little like a soap opera with a double shot of comedy to get it over the threadbare story. It get’s its inspiration from a French play La Cuisine Des Angels by Albert Husson which was Americanized as My Three Angels by Samuel and Bella Spewack and well it plays out as such, making use of minimal sets and being dialogue heavy it never really feels like a filmed play the way many filmed plays of the 40’s and 50’s did. Director Michael Curtiz was no director for hire having made such classics as The Adventures of Robin Hood and Casablanca knew how to shoot a film, even one as low key as this, and have it avoid the claustrophobia effect many filmed plays have.

So much of this film rides on the performances and every one of the main cast is stellar in it. Leo G. Caroll whom I mostly associate with in sci-if and governmental roles like Alexander Waverly in The Man From U.N.C.L.E is perfect here as the awkward and unsure of himself Felix, a man who can’t knuckle down and do what he knows is needed to be successful. Joan Bennet has a little less to work with as a character but she shines as the wife who knows what her husband is and doesn’t come down too hard on him. Gloria Talbott makes the most of what could have been a thankless roll but her bright optimism makes her a delight to watch.

But the real stars of the film are Bogart, Ustinov and Ray. These three have the unenviable task of making murders and thieves likable. There is little subtlety to any of their performances but we cannot help but fall in love with them. Aldo Ray is the ladies man who is romantic at heart. He drives much of the romantic plot between Isabelle and Paul. Bogart is the craggy one who deep down has a heart and wants to help out the Ducotel family when it won’t personally benefit himself, though he will continue the charade of planning to steal them blind long after he no longer plans to do so. Ustinov is the least developed of the three but his goofy Jules is at times the most relatable of the three.

The film was marketed as a Christmas comedy and while it does take place around Christmastime it is really more of a religious allegory. The three cons play out like guardian angels from above, hearing of a struggling family and descending from the heavens to make all things right. And when all that is accomplished they walk off into the distance with halos ablaze, content that their deed is done and it’s time to move on. It’s cheesy and corny and the story is virtually nonexistent but it is a sheer delight to watch. It doesn’t need plot twists and contrivance to keep  things interesting. It doesn’t need action and adventure. It doesn’t even need mystery or suspense. There could have easily been a subplot involving the police closing in on the three escapees. None of that really matters and thus is left out of the story and it is the better for it. The film ran over fifteen minutes longer than the typical comedy yet nothing feels unnecessary or a filler. It goes down easy and is just fun to watch so many seasoned veterans enjoying themselves on screen even as we enjoy watching them. That chemistry plays out on screen making this a highly recommendable film.

The Petrified Forest (1936) **1/2

 Release Date: February 6, 1936

Running Time: 82 minutes

Cast: Leslie Howard, Bette Davis, Humphrey Bogart, Dick Foran

Directed By: Archie Mayo

Revisiting The Petrified Forest after having not seen it in years one thing becomes obvious. It is stilted and forced, coming across as scripted and unnatural more often than not. It was originally a Broadway play and it shows it constantly. The two lead males, Howard and Bogart, starred in the play before coming to the silver screen for this adaption and they play it like they are on stage acting for the back row. Bette Davis is a little better but she’s trapped in a role that is overwritten for what it is. Almost the entirety of the film takes place on one set giving it a claustrophobic feel that better directors than Archie Mayo would have found a way to overcome. As it is it doesn’t feel cinematic. 

The story is very basic. A handful of strangers stop by a last chance gas station at the Petrified forests in the Arizona desert. There is also word that a killer by the name of Duke Mantee (Humphrey Bogart) and several other criminals are on the loose in the area. Inevitably Duke shows up at the station and takes everyone hostage. Everything else in the story is strictly character build-up (Bogart’s Mantee doesn’t even make an appearance until well after the halfway point of the film). 

What’s so frustrating about The Petrified Forest is that most of the film is character moments and not much of it is all that interesting. Bette Davis plays Gabrielle (Gabby) Maple, a woman whose mother abandoned her and her father to return to her home in France after finding married life in Arizona unappealing. Gabrielle finds the idea fascinating and wishes to travel to France as well to study painting and drift through life without any romantic commitments. She is clearly damaged by her mother’s abandonment yet she looks up to this as a legitimate and envious way to live her own life.

Leslie Howard plays Alan Squier, a drifter whose eloquence hides for a time that he is homeless, penniless and adrift in life. He talks like a Harvard intellectual yet he doesn’t look down on the likes of Gabrielle, finding her fascinating and indulging her to go on about how much she is willing to sell of herself to get to France. We learn little about him which is a bit off-putting when coupled with intellectual facade. The two of them share a kiss but we get the sense that there is no real passion from either of them.

The third member of the triangle is ex-football player Boze (Dick Foran) who has his eyes of Gabrielle and doesn’t like it that she is spending time with Alan Squier. Boze is as one-dimensional as it gets. He is the quintessential muscle bound jock who is more concerned about his past glories than making any real attempts to appeal to Gabrielle. He also rankles whenever things are beyond his control, something that becomes more evident late into the film when Duke and his men show up.

On a more positive note, one true delight in this film is Charlie Grapewin as Gramp Maple. Gramp loves to reminisce about the past, especially if it involves gunplay and violence. He loves telling anyone who will listen about being shot at by Billy the Kid. When Duke shows up later and takes everyone hostage Gramps is having the time of his life being in the presence of the killer. His character breathes some fun into some of the slower moments.

Things don’t really pick up until nearly fifty minutes into the film. By then if it weren’t for the convenient radio broadcasts we would have completely forgotten there was a killer in the area at all. Gramps stated earlier that you can recognize a killer because they always hold their chin in and sure enough, when Duke makes his entrance his chin is held in and stays that way for most of the remaining time. But what should be a real jolt of excitement in an otherwise sleepy film really doesn’t go anywhere. There are a few exciting moments but they are sandwiched between a lot of sitting around and talking awkwardly, especially by Bogart who seems to be out of it for most of his scenes. It’s awkward, and even worse, unconvincing. That this film is touted as being the one that made him a star is nothing short of amazing.

There is more drama behind the scenes then there is in front of it. For instance when Warner Brothers optioned the play for filming they brought Leslie Howard with it. However they were less enamored with the relative unknown Bogart and wanted the more bankable Edward G. Robinson instead.  Howard refused to participate without his co-star. Edward G would get another opportunity to play this type of part a few years later in Key Largo and Bogart would also get a second stab at it in the far superior The Desperate Hours. Howard’s insistence on casting Bogart lead to a long and successful career for Humphrey which the actor never forgot. His daughter Leslie Howard Bogart was subsequently named after him. 

The Petrified Forest is not a bad film; far from it. It suffers from too much reliance on dialogue and the claustrophobia inheritance in filming in one location. It also has some really interesting performances that help bolster it. Bette Davis is naive and her motivations are a little unclear; she wishes to move to the French village her mother has moved to but speaks nothing of actually reconnecting with her. The fate of Alan Squier is telegraphed several times yet his motivations are not very clear. We know the whys but are not clear on what is driving this decision. It ultimately leads to an interesting if somewhat unsatisfying viewing experience.

The Amazing Dr. Clitterhouse (1938) ***

 Release Date: July 20, 1938

Running time: 87 minutes

Cast: Edward G. Robinson, Claire Trevor, Humphrey Bogart

Directed by: Anatole Litvak

Edward G. Robinson is known these days primarily for his roles as hoods and gangsters in such film classics as Little Caesar and Key Largo. Indeed he had been somewhat typecasted in these types of rolls to the point that of when not playing the part his performances generally fall into two categories; badly miscast (The Ten Commandments) or revolutionary in its unconventionality (Soylent Green). Even when he is good in a non-gangster roll, it is odd at times seeing him in them. Sure he did plenty of other types of rolls but modern revisionist history likes to paint him as the quintessential mobster. In The Amazing Dr. Clitterhouse, we get the best of both worlds.

Edward G plays Dr. Clitterhouse, a physician who has some theories about the physical and mental properties of criminals that make them criminals. He wishes to delve into those theories first hand, lacking any volunteers, so he begins burglarizing the homes of wealthy friends whenever he in invited for a gathering, studying his bodily reactions during these thefts. On his latest outing however several gangsters led by “Rocks” Valentine (Humphrey Bogart), a thug in the employ of Jo Keller (Clair Trevor), also try to steal the valuables. The disturbance is noticed and “Rocks” flees the scene leaving his partner behind to be subdued and accused of the theft Dr. Clitterhouse was responsible for. 

Through one of his patients, Police Inspector Lewis Lane (Donald Crisp), Dr. Clitterhouse learns that the biggest fence in the city is Joe Keller. When he tracks Keller down he is surprised to find out that Joe Keller is actually Jo Keller, a woman and head of a group of gangsters involved in more than just fencing stolen goods. They also dabble in breaking and entering, gambling and other illegal activities. Dr. Clitterhouse shows off the jewelry from the robbery “Rocks” had attempted, impressing Jo and her men. They are even more impressed when Lt. Johnson (Robert Homans) and his men show up and Dr. Clitterhouse stands up to the men citing laws and causing the boisterous man to back down. 

Jo agrees to allow Dr. Clitterhouse to plan out and lead various robberies, monitoring the blood pressure, temperatures and pulse rates of her men before, during and after the crimes. “Rocks”, however is not so dazzled by Dr. Clitterhouse and sets out to sabotage the doctor, using the situation to also get one up on Jo.

The tone of this film is whimsical, never veering far from the farcical aspects of the tongue and cheek story. Edward G is very much in on the joke playing his character with a bit of mischievousness and good humor. He never takes things too seriously, straddling the line between serious and silly in a way only he could. It is a delight to watch him having so much fun in this role. It helps that we really get to know the doctor. This is not a cardboard one-note character.

Unfortunately, Humphrey Bogart’s character “Rocks” is not as well defined. “Rocks” is about as generic as you can get. His character is there for no other reason than to move the story. It is serviceable at best and when he is eventually dispensed with it is anti-climatic and disappointing. It is no wonder Bogart considers this one of his least favorite roles.

The Amazing Dr. Clitterhouse was originally a play yet it never feels like one. Director Anatole Litvak stages things more cinematically than an average filmed play. The film is talky at times but never to the point of it being a burden to watch. The film poster advertises it as “A thunderbolt of thrills and intrigue,” but this is a misnomer; it is a comedy through and through. The comedy helps this a lot making the light runtime breeze by even quicker. When it eventually reaches its conclusion, the absurdity of how it all wraps up works thanks to everything that proceeded it. The film is absurd and thus it makes sense that the finale would be equally absurd.

Knock On Any Door (1949) ***1/2

Release date: February 22, 1949

Running time: 100 minutes

Starring: Humphrey Bogart, John Derek, Allene Roberts

Directed by: Nicholas Ray

Based on the novel by Willard Motley, Knock On Any Door plays like a stage performance more than a film. It revels in moralizing and laying blame for criminals on the environment they were exposed to growing up. It professes to be a courtroom drama but very little of the film takes place in court and even less of those scenes really amount to much. It would be nearly impossible for me to discuss this film without getting into spoilers so I will not even attempt to do it. Be forewarned, the ending of the film will be discussed further into the review.

The story begins with the murder of a police officer. Known hoodlum Nick Romano (John Derek in his film debut) is picked up early on and pegged for the crime. A slew of evidence and witnesses is procured and it seems like Nick will get the fast track to the electric chair. But Nick maintains his innocents and lawyer Andrew Morton (Humphrey Bogart) agrees to take on the case in an attempt to save Nick from being railroaded into a guilty sentence unjustly. Andrew takes on the case knowing his superiors at his firm want nothing to do with it and threaten him that he will not make partner if he does. But Andrew has a long and troubled past with Nick and feels obligated to take the case, feeling that in the past he has failed Nick and this may be a way to redeem the both of them. 

As the trial begins Andrew starts out by painting a picture to the Jury of exactly who Nick Romano is. Thus begins a rather lengthy set of flashbacks that takes us on a journey from Nick’s run-ins with local bullies, turning him from a somewhat happy immigrant with potential to a criminal with a wicked temper. Nick is already headed down this street when he meets Emma (Allene Roberts), a shop clerk working with her Aunt who’s husband abandoned her and left her in poor health. Emma and Nick fall in love leading Nick to make several attempts to work rather than commit theft to get by. But with each attempt Nick allows his temper to interfere, costing him his jobs and he ultimately falls back into crime. We can see that he wants to do the right thing but he no longer has the temperament to make it happen. 

Andrew’s partner years earlier was responsible for botching the trial of Nick’s father. Andrew feels guilty for this, feeling he was too busy to have properly taken care of the family and, consequently, Nick. His wife, Adele, convinces him to try and mentor Nick and help him improve his life, his family, and his temperament. Things start looking up until Nick accidentally overhears Andrew discussing Nick with one of his friends and, in a fit of rage breaks things and steals $100 from Andrew. 

Later, in yet another attempt to set his life right, Nick takes another job but after dealing with a particularly rude supervisor he loses control and attacks the man, losing yet another job. In frustration he goes home to tell his wife he is giving up and going back to crime. Emma tells him she is pregnant which sets him off, even more determined to “Live Fast, Die Young, and Leave a good looking Corpse.” He leaves her in distress to rob a train station. When that goes awry he returns home to flee with his wife only to find that she has taken her own life.

Back in the present time Andrew succeeds to discredit witnesses who say they saw Nick at the scene of the crime. One of these witnesses even recents his sworn statement, saying that he was coerced by the police to say things that were completely false. Things are looking up for Nick until the prosecutor pushes Nick into a fit of rage, admitting to the murder. 

This film hinges on the performance of John Derek, a complete newcomer at the time. Fortunately he is up to the task and comes across an frighteningly believable. This could have easily been a one note performance but John displays a range of emotions from anger, frustration and contempt as well as tenderness and love for his wife. No part of this performance rings false.

In contrast, the established Bogart seems at times to be sleepwalking through his performance. It’s not terrible but it also isn’t inspiring. Bogart is playing to type and rarely strays from that. It doesn’t help that he is not given much to do as a character. He even is asked to provide some very clumsily added voice over work early on as he is sizing up the jury. These lines are bad and serve no real purpose as it attempts to familiarize us with the jury stereotypes that ultimately donKt even factor into the story.

The final moment of the film is a bit too on the nose. We see Nick as he is saying goodbye to Andrew and being led to the electric chair. Over this image the words The End are displayed telling us that this is not only the end of the film but the end of Nick’s tragic life. Subtle it is not but it also effectively gets the films moral across. 

Knock On Any Door is not a breezy feel good film. It has a message to convey without letting us draw our own conclusions. It knows what it wants to say and makes sure we know it, too. It is not subtle but it is engrossing, primarily thanks to a stellar performance by John Derek. This is a film that is is impossible to finish watching and then dismiss it right away. It is heart breaking watching the light slowly diminish out of Emma’s eyes as the honeymoon wears off and the realities of being married to Nick set in. Allene Robert is equally as good as the innocent Emma who gets swallowed up and lost. These two make up for much of the films weaknesses and make it well worth a watch. 

The Big Sleep (1946) ***

 Release Date: August 23, 1946

Running time: 114 minutes

Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Martha Vickers

Directed by: Howard Hawks

Dashiell Hammett made a career in the early parts of the 20th century churning out pot boil detective stories inspired by his time working for Pinkerton’s Detective Agency. One of these novels, The Maltese Falcon, became a popular film in the 30’s before becoming an even more popular film in 1941 starring Humphrey Bogart as a now cliched private dick, Sam Spade. Naturally, success breeds imitation and many authors throughout the 30’s and later sought to create their own sleuths. Most would go forgotten to the annuals of the past but one in particular has managed to endure, Philip Marlow, a creation by Raymond Chandler. Marlow, in some respects, even manages to be more well known in modern circles than Sam Spade if for no other reason than a handful of films, TV and other media appearances that crop up to the modern day. 

Philip Marlow’s on screen presence began, however, back in 1946 with what many would assume to be a Maltese Falcon rip off/homage and it doesn’t help that both films star Bogart in what can almost be considered the same character. There are some minor differences but they amount to little. What really separates the films is the script. The Maltese Falcon is easy to follow, doesn’t get bogged down in excess baggage and characters and never confuses the audience. The same cannot be said about The Big Sleep. Much of this can be faulted to the novel which is equally hard to follow, but the screenwriters job is to make it easy for the average movie goer to keep up with and in that aspect they failed.

The story begins with Philip Marlow (Bogart) being summoned to the mansion of General Sternwood about a matter of his daughter Carmen’s (Martha Vickers) gambling debts to Arthur Geiger. Marlow advises the general to pay the money, then as he is leaving he is stopped by Vivian (Lauren Bacall), the general’s elder daughter who suspects an ulterior motive from her father for bringing in Marlow. Recently a man named Sean Regan, Sternwood’s protégé, disappeared mysteriously. 

Marlow goes to Geiger’s shop but is stonewalled, eventually tailing the man to his residence where he hears a gunshot and a woman screaming. Investigating, he discovers Geiger has been killed and Carmen drugged. He also finds a hidden camera that is missing its film. After taking Carmen home he returns to find the body has been removed. The further Marlow digs into things, the more bodies turn up and he finds himself entangled in pornography, blackmail and more murders. The novel even included homosexuality, something that would have never passed the Hayes Code back in 1946. 

The Big Sleep has a reputation for being overly confusing. Indeed it lives up to that reputation by throwing in so many characters and twists that it really needed more time to help audiences of the day keep up with it all. This would have been even more troublesome for audiences who didn’t have the benefits of home video where they could watch it repeatedly to glean all the nuances. 

There are times where the only thing keeping things interesting are the scenes between Bogart and Bacall, paired here for the second time following To Have and Have Not. Bogart was going through a messy divorce during this film and was very much in love with Bacall and it shows on screen. There scenes together are electrifying and help bolster the middle of the film. An earlier cut of the film was missing many of these moments which were added with reshoots to take advantage of the two’s on and off screen appeal. It was a good decision as the film flounders without those moments.

Bogart never seems rattled no matter what he stumbles into. This also is much like the earlier Sam Spade character. That being said, Bogart is a tad more confident in this movie now that he is no longer a contract player and is instead a bona fide star. Sam Spade started that for him and Philip Marlow completes the transformation. There is more subtlety to this performance. What ultimately sinks it though is how difficult it is to follow everything that is going on. It’s not impossible to keep up, but this is not a film for the casual viewer. If you don’t give it your full attention you will be lost.

Martha Vickers is a hoot as the younger daughter who finds herself being blackmailed and photographed in compromising pictures. Her opening scene practically falling all over Marlow is hilarious and over-the-top. Her performance gets dwarfed by the behind the scenes knowledge of what was going on between Bogart and Bacall but in retrospect it is an absolute delight to watch. 

What it boils down to is The Big Sleep is a bit of a mess of a story that lives primarily on its cast. Bogart is smooth and polished as the ever confident private eye. Bacall is great in a nuanced roll where we wonder from scene to scene where her priorities really are. Vickers is all over the place as Carmen, yet we come to understand why this is and even sympathize with her. It’s not a perfect movie, yet it is always watchable. It is no The Maltese Falcon, but it doesn’t need to be. 

Three on a Match (1932) **1/2

Release Date: October 29, 1932

Running time: 63 minutes

Cast: Joan Blondell, Warren William, Ann Dvorak, Bette Davis, Humphrey Bogart

Directed by: Mervyn LeRoy

Three on a Match is, at its very essence, a morality tale. It is the story of three women from the same school who grew up very differently with the choices they make later in life leading to some very dark places. A prominent theme in the film is consequences. We see this early on with Mary (Joan Blondell) who, in her adolescence, spent time in reform school and had a bad reputation. She eventually finds a semblance of stability as a showgirl. Ruth (Bette Davis), who was valedictorian, grows up to be a stenographer, a steady job that offers her little satisfaction and is a far cry from where she thought she would end up. Vivian (Ann Dvorak) is the most successful having married a successful lawyer, Robert Kirkwood (Warren Williams), and has a young child, Robert Jr. (Buster Phillips), but longs for more excitement in her life. 

A chance meeting between the three women leads to a scene where the three women, reminiscing and smoking, lighting their three cigarettes on a single match. This leads to a discussion about the old superstition that this act is unlucky and that the last one of the three to light up, Vivian, will be the first to die.

Vivian’s unhappiness with her life doesn’t go unnoticed by her husband who handles it better than he should. He offers to take her on a vacation but she insists she wants to travel only with Robert Jr. the arrangements are made for her to travel on an ocean cruiser but Mary shows up with two men who are attending a party on the ship prior to departure. One of the men, gambler Michael Loftus, flirts with Vivian and she decides to run away with him, taking Robert Jr. with her. 

Mary is appalled with how Vivian’s decisions are leading to child neglect as Vivian prioritizes her own personal enjoyment above everything else, yet when Mary tries to talk to her on the child’s behalf, Vivian is dismissive and offended. Mary, in turn, feels responsible for the situation and tracks down the boys father who has been frantically searching for his missing wife and child. Meanwhile Michael has gotten in some heavy debt to mobsters and is being pressured to pay back the money or else face permanent consequences. The only source of money that he can figure is from that of Robert Jr.’s father. 

A lot happens in such a short film and yet it manages to flesh out most of the characters. Ruth is the only real exception who mostly stays in the background getting little to do until the final moments. Mary and Vivian get the brunt of the story showing opposite sides of the coin who swap fates because of their decisions as adults. Humphrey Bogart has a small role as Harve, a gangster who is putting the screws on Michael to insure he pays up. 

The ending of the film is both tragic and predictable. To say it was foreshadowed would be an understatement. Even though this is a pre-code film it is laced with the type of message prevalent in the Hayes era when wrong-doing had to be met with consequences to get a passing grade for theatrical release. The film is fun to watch, even as we get frustrated watching Vivian descend into neglect and debauchery. Ultimately, if you can get past the obviousness of the script and the heavy-handedness of the message, you will find much to enjoy here. 

Midnight (1934) *1/2

 Release Date: March 7, 1934

Running time: 76 minutes

Cast: Sidney Fox, Henry Hull, Margaret Wycherley, Humphrey Bogart

Directed by: Chester Erskine

Right out of the gate Midnight aspires to be more than it actually is. It begins with the trial of Ethel Saxton (Helen Flint), a woman accused of killing her lover. The jury foreman, Edward Weldon (O. P. Heggie), asks a question of the defendant that ultimately results in a guilty verdict and the death penalty. Sitting in the audience is Stella Weldon (Sidney Fox), Edward’s impressionable daughter, and Gar Boni (Humphrey Bogart), a gangster and Stella’s boyfriend. Stella is distraught by the verdict and upset with her father’s role in it. 

This setup is intriguing but the film fails to deliver on anything it sets up in this trial. The remainder of the film plays out mostly in the Weldon household the night of the execution where Stella struggles with her feelings about the outcome and Edward struggles with his part in it. Gar pops in from time to time as he prepares to leave town on a job that promises to keep him away from Stella for several months and Stella becomes more and more convinced that he’s actually stepping out with another woman instead. Also we are treated to friends of the family showing up for moral support and an unscrupulous journalist who was involved in bribing Weldon’s son-in-law. 

Everything in this film plays out stylistically like a one room play with the brief exception of the opening trial. It is wordy and low on any real energy. While the final moments offer some intriguing thoughts on crimes of passion as opposed to cold blooded murder, it is ultimately unsatisfying in how these messages are displayed. The stage play that this film is based on was not particularly successful and the film follows suit coming across as preachy and melodramatic.

Sidney Fox is expected to carry this film almost entirely on her shoulders. But Sidney struggles to garner any real sympathy in what would be one of her final roles. She was already struggling with the depression that would ultimately cause her to take her own life about a decade later and it shows on screen. She is often unsure of herself, stuttering and shaky rather than being confident in her acting. Bogart fairs a little better but his role is underwritten leaving him little to work with. 

Ultimately Midnight cannot hold the interest of its intended audience, a problem that plagued the stage play, too. This makes for a disappointing film overall. It starts out with an intriguing set-up, then flounders around for most of it’s remaining time under a mountain of repetitive dialogue and uninspired situations. First time director Chester Erskine can’t find a way to turn a dry screenplay into an interesting film. In the end, while it is short, it cannot support its running time leaving us bored and ready to be done with it.

A Holy Terror (1931) *1/2

Release Date: July 19, 1931

Running Time: 53 minutes (49 minutes on existing print)

Cast: George O’Brien, Sally Eilers, Humphrey Bogart

Directed by: Irving Cummings

Adapted from the novel Trailin’ by Max Brand, one has to wonder if the problem with this film is from the source material or the adaption of it. Nothing about A Holy Terror seems to gel. Not even the title makes much sense. It seems to exist simply to con people into thinking they are going to see an exciting thriller instead of a quasi-western drama with little-to-no action of any kind. It’s almost as if the filmmakers knew they had a dud on their hands and decided the only way to possibly make their investment back was to con unsuspecting people into seeing it. I could not find a trailer for this film but I suspect that is exactly what they did. 

The film stars George O’Brien as Tony Bard, a Polo player from New York who receives word that his father has accidentally been killed. The news reports that the killing is an unsolved mystery so Tony decides to travel to Wyoming where the killing happened and launch his own investigation. His inquiries stir up some of the townsfolk, including Steve Nash (Humphrey Bogart), the head ranch hand for William Drew, a man who Tony’s father had kept under surveillance for 25 years. Nash makes several attempts to harm Tony, including setting him up with a wild horse when Tony shows up to buy a steed. The film stumbles from scene to scene until eventually dropping a twist in the final moments that is hard to swallow and abruptly ends the movie. 

Thrown into the mix of things is a love interest, Jerry Foster, played coyly by Sally Eilers. While the romance is shallow and obvious, it does provide some levity to an otherwise dry film. We are introduced to her an one of the most unique ways I have ever seen in a film. Tony arrives in Wyoming via a personal airplane that he manages to crash into the side of her house. He crashes right into her bathroom where she is taking a shower, a situation that would have seemed more that a little scandalous to early 30’s audiences and would have never been allowed a few years later when the Hays code took effect. Nothing else in this film lives up to this moment but Sally does manage to breathe in some life throughout the rest of the film whenever she is on screen.

A Holy Terror is an early talkie film that obviously is struggling with the new medium. It is populated with silent film stars who haven’t quite found their sea legs in the era of the talkie. O’Brien and Eilers are likable as a couple if not particularly memorable. What really sinks this film is the conflict between Nash and Tony. At no point does Tony seem to suspect Nash of anything sinister. He just keeps blindly trusting Nash and after a while we lose faith in Tony as a protagonist. The final scene with the big twist is also ridiculous and poorly played out. It felt like the filmmakers had a set running time they had to hit and just ran out of time to finish it off properly. It should be noted that the only copy of A Holy Terror I could find was missing a few minutes in the middle. No better copy was available as of the time I viewed it for this review.

A Holy Terror is a relic of it’s time. It doesn’t appear to western fans, mystery fans, or romance fans. It’s too short to really overstay it’s welcome but needed more to make it a complete story. I have not read the source novel to make a comparison so I don’t know who is to blame for the thinness of the plot but if that lies in the novel then the screenwriters should have found a way to rectify that. If it lies entirely on the screenwriter then they did a disservice to Max Brand when they made this. Either way it is not a good film and should be only watched by Bogart fans who insist on seeing everything he is in. Even those die hard fans will find it hard to find any enjoyment in this.

The Bad Sister (1931) **1/2

Release Date: March 29, 1931

Running Time: 68 minutes

Cast: Conrad Nagel, Sidney Fox, Bette Davis, Humphrey Bogart

Directed By: Hobart Henley

There are many things that can be lauded about The Bad Sister. For one, Bette Davis got her start in this film as the timid and shy Laura Madison and, even though she felt upon seeing it that her short career was already over, she is actually pretty good in it. Likewise Sidney Fox as her older sister Marianne is solid. What fails Sidney in this film is a poorly written script and a truly miscast Humphrey Bogart as the “likable” con-man Valentine Corliss. Marianne is written as so unlikable in fact that we are never on her side, a problem considering we are asked to follow her throughout the bulk of this film. 

The story opens with Marianne pressuring her father into giving her money he doesn’t have to buy fancy clothes. He is reluctant but she lays it on thick until he relents. She then spends all the money and charges even more to his account. She is practically engaged to Dick Lindley, a doctor whom she is using for material reasons but holds no true affection for. Meanwhile shy Laura pines for Dr Lindley in private, unable to tell him of her feelings. There is also Wade Trumbull, a hefty man with some money of his own who is attracted to Marianne.

Into this soap opera setup enters Valentine Corliss, a fast talking con-man who quickly manages to win over Marianne and, in turn, her family. Valentine has a business proposition that would require Marianne’s father to vouch for him to some wealthy friends so that they will pony up some starter cash for an opportunity that seems too good to be true. When Mr. Madison’s better judgement won’t allow him to vouch for Valentine’s integrity, Marianne forges his signature on a letter of recommendation to get the money. 

With Valentine coming between Marianne and Dr. Lindley, that opens up the possibilities for Laura to step up and make a move but she is too timid to act. It will take some intervention from a surprising and, not particularly altruistic source to make things happen there. It is this aspect that perhaps upset Bette Davis about her performance. She is so shy that it takes those around her to make anything happen for her. A scene late in the film involving her younger brother and her diary is heart wrenching. It is powerful and emotional and shows perhaps the only time where the brother displays any true emotion. It also spurs on the relationship between Laura and Dick that would probably have never happened without a little intervention.

Humphrey Bogart as Valentine Corliss is just badly cast. Bogart is game, playing the part with plenty of energy but at no point do we believe anyone would not see through his facade. His character is so shallow and obvious that anyone would be able to see through it. The right actor could hide this better, making the obvious leaps in logic a little easier to buy, but Bogart is not that man this early in his career. 

Worst than all of this though is the completely unforgivable Marianne. From the first moments we feel she is in need of some humbling. However, by the time we make it to the final moments of the film she is beyond our ability to forgive her. Her ultimate fate is unsatisfying and so shewed in and abrupt that it brings no catharsis or satisfaction. We didn’t care about her at the start and that feeling only worsened as the film goes on. There needed to be something for us to hold on to with her character; something to like about her, but there just isn’t. So when things come crashing down for her and she comes home repentant and humbled we just don’t care. 

The Bad Sister is far from unwatchable. It is fun at times watching the brassy, in real life, Bette Davis so timid and innocent. She was so innocent, in fact, that one scene involving changing a babies diaper came as a shock to her when she opened the diaper and discovered the baby was male. Having never seen a nude male before, baby or otherwise, her reaction caught on screen (she blushed so fiercely that it can be seen through the black and white photography) is hilarious. She would perfect this type of character over a decade later in the classic Now, Voyager. Whether or not Miss Davis liked the performance, it is a treat to watch and a decent look into the actress she would become even if her later characters were much more assertive. 

The film had much going for it. It was based on a book by Booth Tarkington called The Flirt. The film took from that novel and made an early pre-code film that is a little fun at times but really isn’t much more than that. It is really only of interest to Bogart and Davis fans. These fans would be better serviced a few years later with The Petrified Forrest

Tokyo Joe (1939) **1/2

Release Date: October 26, 1949

Running Time: 88 minutes

Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Alexander Knox, Florence Marley, Sessue Hayakawa

Back in 1949, when World War II was still fresh in the minds of movie goers, the opening scenes of Tokyo Joe would have been immediately understandable. The idea that an American having difficulties with bureaucracy as he tries to enter Japan would have been something immediately poignant to the audience of the day.  It also gives audiences an early levity that will be lacking for much of the remaining film. An early line where Joe Barrett (Bogart) is getting his picture taken for his limited Visa stands out as one of the rare humorous moments in the film. Lining up for the photo Bogart is asked to stand closer to the bar and he wryly responds that that has always been one of his problems. 

Joe is trying to reenter Japan and go back to Tokyo Joes, an establishment ran by him before the start of the war. The place is off limits and shut down but that doesn’t stop him from going straight there and meeting up with his old friend Ito (Teru Shimada, More recognizable to modern American audiences for squaring up against James Bond in You Only Live Twice). It doesn’t take long to find out that Joe has an alternative motive for being back in Japan. It seems that when the war was ramping up he abandoned his wife, Trina (Florence Marly), and fled the country. Trina has, unbeknownst to him, since divorced him and remarried. Upon learning this we get the first glimpsed of just how self-centered a character Joe is, not only in his abandonment Trina in the first place, but of how he reacts to the news that she has moved on. He immediately makes his intentions clear to her that he intends to take her back from her husband and family. “She’s mine,” he says to her husband. This sets up one of the major flaws that alienated critics back in the day. Joe is not a particularly likeable character.  

Audiences back in the day didn’t really care though making Tokyo Joe a success back in 1949. Much of this had to be just to see the star on the screen again rather than what it was he was actually in. Tokyo Joe, while watchable, is convoluted and messy. It awkwardly juxtaposes rear projection scenes of Japan with an obvious soundstage in LA which would have looked bad even back in the late 40’s. The plot gets unnecessarily convoluted in the second half when everything from smuggling war criminals and kidnapping come into play. Bogart isn’t allowed to be despicable for the entire film; after all this is the star, but his redemptive path seems forced at times and never feels 100% genuine. 

As a film it is watchable. It never quite elevates itself above that though and stays firmly away from some of the actors more classic performances. Bogart is on cruise control in this film, comfortably within his classic persona without venturing far enough to make this character very interesting. It’s definitely not a reach for him at this point to play this character. It’s not bad enough to push us away but not likeable enough for us to care when he goes through the inevitable arch toward redemption. 

Isle of Fury (1936) **

 Release Date: October 10, 1936

Running Time: 60 minutes

Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Margaret Lindsay, Donald Woods, E.E. Clive, Paul Graetz

Directed by: Frank McDonald

Early in the history of Hollywood, studios would sign actors to contracts and then would throw them into as many pictures as they could shuffle out to get the most bang for their buck. As long as your films weren’t bombing consistently you generally stayed on contract. If your Star was rising significantly during this time when it came time to renew that contract you could use that as leverage to get a better contract, even if that meant going to a rival studio who was willing to pay more for your box office appeal. Meanwhile, the average up-and-comer had little to no clout when it came to choosing what they would or would not appear in. It was a catch-22. If you complained too much you were labeled as ‘difficult.’ If you said nothing and just did whatever you were told you risked being sunk by terrible films. The best you could do was be good in something, even if that something was terrible. Christopher Lee made the observation that every actor makes bad films. The trick is to not be bad in them. Such is the case with Isle of Fury, a film that would not be out of place in the Roger Corman catalog. 

One of the films real highlights is Humphrey Bogart playing the enigmatic Val Stevens. Val is living on an island in the Pacific, managing local pearl divers. When we first see Val he is getting married to the lovely Lucille Gordon (Margaret Lindsay) when the ceremony is interrupted by news that a ship off the coast is sinking. The remainder of the ceremony is quickly concluded and Val rushes off on a rescue mission, saving Captain Denver (Paul Graetz) and a passenger, Eric Blake (Donald Woods). Val is painted as a bit quixotic but ultimately friendly and welcoming to the two strangers.

Blake, upon recovering from the shipwreck, is soon smitten by Lucille, a feeling that plagues him even after hearing that she is a married woman. He is also deeply troubled upon hearing the name of his rescuer. The name is familiar to him but he gives no indication as to why. Blake’s fondness for Lucille goes unnoticed by Val but not to the local doctor and friend of Val’s, Dr. Hardy. In one conversation between the two, Dr. Hardy spells out a comparison between Blake and Lucille with that of King David and Bathsheba in the Bible. The conversation is heavy handed and a bit on the nose, yet not to the point of being preachy. It does, however, feel like the Blake and Lucille moments were written into the film to shew-in this comparison. Donald Woods fails to convince us that he truly has romantic interests in Lucille. 

Meanwhile, Val’s character is being put to the test when his pearl divers refuse to dive anymore thanks to several of the men not returning to the surface. Val sees no value in threatening them or trying to force them into the water. Instead, he puts himself in danger by going down himself to prove there is nothing to be afraid of. It is during his dive we get a real Cormanesque flavor to the film, twenty years before Corman made his first film. The effects during that dive and what is found down there are laughably bad. Movies in the mid to late 50’s would center their whole movie around this premise. Thankfully, Isle of Fury relegates it to just a few short minutes, then seems to completely forget about it.

Ultimately it is revealed that Blake is there to arrest Val who has a warrant issued for murder. Blake, upon getting first hand experience into Val’s character, begins to doubt the validity of the claims against Val and must make a choice between arresting him of leaving without him. The finale, along with the moral decision Blake must make feels rushed and incomplete. This type of thing would have been better served cropping up early in the film and wrestled with throughout the majority of it. Instead it is just a few short minutes towards the end. 

This is the type of film actors early in their careers takes on because they have no choice. Lessor performers would just sleepwalk through it, accepting that it was bad but taking the paycheck. Bogart looks genuinely happy to be here, something he would not be able to do a few years later in such films as The Return of Doctor X or The Two Mrs. Carrolls. Here he is still having fun in the part, even if, even this early in his career, the part is beneath him.

Dead End (1937) ***1/2

Release Date: August 27, 1937

Running Time: 93 minutes

Cast: Sylvia Sydney, Joel McCrea, Humphrey Bogart, Wendy Barrie, Billy Halop

Directed By: William Wyler

In 1935 Sidney Kingsley’s play Dead End premiered on Broadway. It was a hit, running for two years and launched the Dead End Kids, a group of children who would go on to make many films and short subjects under an assortment of names including The Little Tough Guys, The East Side Kids and The Bowery Boys. Such was their initial success that it didn’t take long for Hollywood to take notice and many of the kids who appeared in the original play were invited out west to appear in a film version of Dead End in 1937. Samuel Goldwyn spearheaded this project, something that, while financially successful, proved too much for Goldwyn when the rambunctious boys lived up to their names and on-screen personas. 

Much of the original story remained the same when adapted to the big screen. Of particular note was the messages of the divide between the rich and poor, made more poignant by the nearly non-existent space dividing them. Wealthy people are forced to walk among the poor as their residences overlook the river on one side and the slums and roach-infested tenements on the other. Early on there is contempt on both sides as the rich look with disdain at the poor and the poor, represented primarily by the Dead End Kids, openly mock the rich. 

The Dead End Kids consist of Tommy Gordon, the leader (Billy Halop); Angel (Bobby Jordon); Dippy (Hunts Hall); Spit (Leo Gorcey); T.B. (Gabriel Dell); and the newest member Miltey (Bernard Punsly) who is initially bullied by the group before finally being allowed to join, proving himself to be fiercely loyal. Also in the picture is Drina (Sylvia Sidney), Tommy’s older sister, who dreams of marrying rich as a means of leaving the slums behind. This dream is also her way of trying to help Tommy avoid a life of crime, turning into a gangster like Hugh “Baby Face” Martin (Humphrey Bogart), a man Tommy looks up to who has just come back to town in an attempt to reconnect with his mother as well as his childhood girlfriend. Martin was raised on these same streets but moved out east, becoming a mobster. 

There is a lot going on in this film, yet it never feels hard to keep track of. We have three main stories running concurrently. The first is that of the Dead End Kids themselves. Early on they taunt one of the rich kids into coming down to the streets. When he does eventually come down they coerce him into a cellar where they beat and rob him. The boy’s father gets involved and ends up getting stabbed by Tommy. 

This attack is observed by Martin who gets the idea to kidnap the rich kid to hold for ransom. Martin’s story begins with his arrival in town where he is approached by Dave (Joel McCrea), a frustrated architect who is finding work hard to find during the depression. Dave and Martin grew up together and Dave, recognizing him warns him to stay away. Martin ignores this wishing to reconnect with his mother and childhood girlfriend. His mother, though wants nothing to do with him and his old flame has become a hooker who is suffering from syphilis. Upset that his visit is a failure, Martin determines that he must do something to make the visit profitable, hence the kidnapping plot.

The third and final story is that of Dave. Dave has been having an affair with a rich man’s mistress, Kay Burton (Wendy Barrie). The two love each other but Kay fears a life of poverty and cannot see herself committing fully to a man who cannot provide her with the life she desires. When Dave comes into some money late in the picture Kay asks him to go away with her but he refuses, intent on using the money for a much more noble purpose. 

Dead End is a poignant film that is not afraid to point out the gaps between the haves and the have-nots. Neither side is favored in this depiction and neither side comes out unscathed. We see early on the desperate situation the poor are in, struggling to take care of even the most basic needs. We also see that not all the poor are bad people as evidenced by Dave who, while just as bad off as the others, is a good and honest man who isn’t greedy when some good luck finally comes his way. 

Humphrey Bogart is in his element here. This is the type of character he was known for by this time. He was already well known for a similar portrayal in The Petrified Forest and would later appear alongside the Dead End Kids in Crime School and Angels With Dirty Faces. What elevates this above films like The Petrified Forest is the nuance, missing from the previous film. Bogart’s Baby Face Martin is a well rounded character. We see and understand his motivations and can sympathize with him even when we cannot condone his actions. We feel for him when he gets a dressing down from him mother who feels basically that she no longer has a son. 

The big stand out here, though is Billy Halop as Tommy. Tommy has a hard role to portray. He has to be viscous and a bully, yet not lose our sympathies. He has to make us like him, even when he is doing horrendous things. Billy succeeds in this, an amazing portrayal for such a young man (he was fifteen at the time of filming). We also get a good sense of the mischievousness of his nature in real life, something that was shared amongst all the Dead End Kids. There are plenty of stories about how out of control they all were during production and it is no surprise they were let go from their contract with MGM shortly after this film wrapped, being picked up by Warner Brothers for further films.

Dead End was nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, losing to a mostly forgotten gem The Life of Emile Zola. It earns it’s spot on that list by being not only entertaining but poignant. It has things to say without being overly preachy. It is bolstered by amazing performances all around, including it’s young stars whose charisma would carry them on to seven feature films. It is a fun and entertaining look at the class struggles of depression era urban life and shouldn’t be missed.

The Harder They Fall (1936) ***

Release date: May 9, 1936

Running Time: 109 minutes

Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Rod Steiger, Jan Sterling, Mike Lane

Directed By: Mark Robson

1956 was a rough year for cinema goers used to seeing Humphrey Bogart grace screen several times a year. For nearly thirty years he had been a staple of the big screen, starting out in a few throwaway films before finding his niche as a gangster or other types of ne’er-do-wells. As his popularity grew he graduated through the ranks to lead gangsters and eventually to hero’s and anti-heroes. Several times a year there would be new Bogart films, most of them banking on the success of their lead actor. That would all stop in 1956. Bogart, diagnosed with esophageal cancer, was facing the real life possibilities of his death. While he survived into the following year, he didn’t survive long, succumbing to the illness in mid January of 1957. His final film, filmed as he was dying and in pain nearly constantly, is a true testament to his professionalism and determination. Many of his close-ups had to be filmed repeatedly to try and hide how much his eyes were watering from the pain.

The film, in and of itself, is nothing too memorable. Bogart plays Eddie Willis, a reporter out of work when his paper goes under, who is offered a position as PR man for Toro Moreno, a towering boxer from Argentina. The problem is, Toro is inexperienced and has a glass jaw. Boxing promoter Nick Benko (Rod Steiger) plans to use Toto’s hulking size as a gimmick to draw fans and pay his opponents to throw the fights. All of this is kept from Toro and his manager who honestly believe he is a talented boxer. 

Eddie is not initially sold on the idea but the payday offered his convinces him to make a go at it, provided they focus on west coast fights where he has a better chance of selling Toro as an up-and-comer. The first fight goes badly wrong and the gig is almost up right from the start but Eddie pulls a few strings to avoid having the Boxing Commission open an investigation. More and more fights are arranged in Toro’s favor but Eddie knows eventually Toro will have to face a true opponent, one not so willing to take a dive. Meanwhile, Benko is pulling a fast one behind the scenes, looking to pull as much money from this cash cow as he can, even if it means cheating Toro out of his due pay.

Nothing new is explored in this film and if it weren’t for the ‘prestige’ of being Bogart’s final film it would probably not be well remembered. It has lots of pacing issues, running nearly twenty minutes too long. There is plenty of repetition, especially during the middle scenes, and nothing really comes as a surprise. Two things save it from complete mediocrities. Bogart sells the personal conflict his character faces. At first he is thinking primarily of the money he can make. He is down on his luck and this opportunity falls into his lap so he can’t help but jump on it. But as he gets to know Toro his conscience starts to cast doubt on his decisions and by the end he is no longer driven by how much he can make.

The second thing is Toro’s big fight with Brannen near the end of the film. Most of the boxing matches are so poorly staged that it seems unlikely anyone in the crowds would believe they were legit. Toro obviously has no skill in the ring and no ability to sell otherwise. The fight with Brannen, however, is so brutal that it is shocking and hard to watch. It is this fight that finally pushes Eddie over the edge and entirely on Toro’s side. 

The film is not a classic. It is nowhere near Bogart’s best, but it is worth viewing. It is hard to watch Bogart, especially in the close-ups, because it is still apparent, even with all the attempts to hide it, that he is hurting. His performance hides it well but his eyes still give it away at times. The film released in May of 1956 and just over eight months later Bogart was dead. Cinema would never be the same without this dedicated professional, determined to finish out his last picture, no matter how much he was hurting.