Friday, October 30, 2020

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. 

Thursday, October 29, 2020

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. 

Wednesday, October 28, 2020

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.

Monday, October 12, 2020

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.

Sunday, October 11, 2020

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

Monday, October 5, 2020

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.