Two Against The World (1936) **1/2

Release Date: July 11, 1936

Running Time: 64 minutes

Starring: Helen MacKellar, Henry O’Neill, Humphrey Bogart

Directed by: William C. McGann

Sherry Scott (Humphrey Bogart) is a no nonsense manager of a radio station that has been struggling to get listeners as of late. His boss Reynolds (Robert Middlemass) has an idea he feels will bring in audiences en mass, broadcast a true crime story serialized based on a murder that happened years ago where a woman killed her husband but was found justified in the crime. The idea seems innocent enough at first but, unfortunately, the woman in the story, Gloria Pembrook, is still around under a new name, Martha Carstairs (Helen MacKellar). With the story being dredged up on air, Martha is shaken and upset. She has a grown daughter named Edith (Beverly Roberts) with her second husband who is engaged to be married and knows nothing about her mother’s past. Finding out would devastate her and could also possibly endanger the engagement.

Complicating things, a man Martha and her husband, Jim (Henry O’Neill), assumes is a clergyman turns out to be a reporter. When they confide the truth of Martha’s past to him he sells the story to the radio station where it goes out on the air. The parents of Edith’s fiancée want to resolve the engagement. Martha pleads with Reynolds at the radio station to cease broadcasting the story, not for her sake but for Edith’s but the story is bringing in too much revenue for him to even consider it.  Sherry Scott on the other hand is getting disillusioned with the coldness of the response but, at first refuses to act, not wanting to jeopardize his retirement. Jim loses his job when his work chooses to avoid controversy. All of this begins to push Martha to the breaking point.

The concept of this story is intriguing but it bogs down in an overwhelming sense of mean spiritedness that is never overcome. The film is titled Two Against The World and it is an apt title. While it isn’t quite just two, after all we have Edith and her supportive fiancée in the fray, it does feel like everyone else in the film is cynical and cold hearted, putting the almighty dollar over all else at the expense of their humanity. This is softened a little by the increasingly jaded Sherry Scott but even he is cold to the Carstair’s situation until late in the game. Reynolds is rattled when he sees what his actions are causing, yet he remains determined to press forward anyway. 

What all these events lead up to is some of the most harrowing scenes of despair ever committed to cinema. It is meant to anger and it succeeds there. But it rarely tempers the despair with any light. This leaves the film feeling unbalanced and lacking any real fun in the viewing. This does succeed in putting us in the head of Martha. Is is a deeply unpleasant experience that may turn audiences off to the whole film. 

This is not a film made for its entertainment value. It is meant to be thought provoking and to stir up strong emotions. It succeeds on both counts. It is deeply unpleasant and doesn’t pull any punches. It also doesn’t play out the way a traditional film would. It was based on a play from 1930 that in turn was made into a film the following year starring Edward G. Robinson. This film is much shorter than the former film but manages to avoid feeling rushed. At less than an hour in length it is just long enough to tell the story without keeping us depressed for longer than it needs to.

Virginia City (1940) **1/2

Release Date: May 16, 1940

Running Time: 121 minutes

Starring: Errol Flynn, Miriam Hopkins, Randolph Scott, Humphrey Bogart

Directed By: Michael Curtiz

Virginia City was meant to be a follow-up to the acclaimed 1939 western Dodge City and while both films have essentially the same crew working on them there is something lacking in the latter film that prevents it from the greatness the former has. For starters, none of the leads seems particularly excited to be involved in the picture, turning in mostly lackluster and uninspiring performances that don’t aid the already cumbersome plot. On top of that, the film has a message that it doesn’t know how to convey without outright spelling it out to the audience. Couple all this with an overlong run time and you have a film that misses the mark, albeit not by a lot. 

The film begins with Captain Kerry Bradford (Errol Flynn) and his two sidekicks, Moorehead (Alan Hale) and Marblehead (Guinn ‘Big Boy’ Williams), escaping a confederate prison during the tale end of the Civil War. The leader of the prison, Captain Vance Irby (Randolph Scott) has a plan to escort a large shipment of gold from Virginia City, Nevada back to the confederacy to aid in extending the war. Bradford overhears about this and gets orders to track down the undercover southerners and prevent the smuggling. 

Julia Hayne (Miriam Hopkins) is a dance hall singer who is also an undercover spy for the confederacy sent to Virginia City to aid in the smuggling operation. She meets Captain Bradford on the stage to Virginia City and he is instantly smitten with her. Vance uses this as an opportunity to set a trap for Bradford to get him out of the way and get the gold safely out of the city. He also offers a large sum of money to outlaw Murrell (Humphrey Bogart) to create a diversion so the gold can get through a blockade set up by the army and, while this works, Murrell has his own designs on the gold and arranges for his men to take it by force once the gold is past the blockade. 

There are some terrific stunt sequences throughout the films overlong runtime. Early on while Bradford is traveling via coach to Virginia City there is a confrontation between him and Murrell. This leads to a runaway stage coach, a man jumping between the galloping horses as they speed out of control, another man being dragged underneath the carriage much like Harrison Ford in Raiders of the Lost Ark would portray forty years later. This scene is tense, exciting and only makes large portions of the remainder of this film seem even more disappointing in comparison. Only the finale with Errol Flynn riding a horse down a steep drop off and falling head over heals while being pursued by confederates comes close to mirroring that energy and excitement. 

Much of the rest of the film may have been more passable we’re the cast more lively. Flynn takes the bulk of the blame but that isn’t entirely fair. Randolph Scott is just there, not attempting at all to be much more than stoic and wooden, there to advance the plot but not anything more. He is a bit of an enigma as a character, there to move the gold out of the city but not appearing to have any real motivations other than duty to the south. At least Flynn has a few levels to his character, torn between his attraction to Julia and his duty to the Union Army. His final act, one that could cost him his life, serves both sides of the conflict without aiding either while the war rages on. It serves to show that he is a man with empathy towards the enemy rather than one who only sees faceless villains during the conflict. 

The worse offender in this film, however is Humphrey Bogart. This is the type of role that generally would never come about this way in modern cinema and for good reason. Bogart is cast to play a Hispanic bandit leader complete with a heavy artificial accent that is downright offensive. It’s not a Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany’s offensive but it is up there. A phony accent and pencil mustache is all he is given to portray Hispanic and it is as bad as it sounds. This portrayal is best left in the past.

This film has so much going for it that it is a shame it turned out as mediocre as it did: a stellar crew both in front and behind the camera as well as first rate sets and stunt work. It tried to replicate the magic of Dodge City but lightning didn’t strike twice in this case and instead the final result is watchable but not particularly memorable. There are plenty of things to point the finger at but what it all boils down to is a lackluster script that the cast, as good as they usually are, just didn’t care to elevate.

Love Affair (1932) *1/2

Release Date: March 17, 1932

Running Time 68 minutes

Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Dorothy Mackaill, Hale Hamilton, Astrid Allwyn

Directed by: Thornton Freeland

Love Affair can best be described as a feature length soap opera. It has all the cliches of an average episode of a daytime drama, complete with scandal, sex, infidelity, romance and blackmail. The only thing it is lacking is a cliffhanger inviting viewers to come back tomorrow for more of the same. The problem with Love Affair isn’t the formula, it’s the execution of it. With all this drama and depravity it is painfully dull, failing to bring any real excitement to the stage. The cast is game but the results are disappointing all around.

Carol Owen (Dorothy Mackaill), a wealthy socialite has decided she wants to take a flying lesson, and not just any flying lesson but one shepherded by Jim Leonard (Humphrey Bogart). Jim doesn’t care for taking on passengers so, when Carol insists on him, he intentionally flys in such a way to leave her very queasy. Later, on the ground, she gives him a life in her car, getting even by driving crazily through downtown traffic. Inexplicably the two begin seeing each other.

Meanwhile, Carol’s finance manager, Bruce Hardy (Hale Hamilton), is also in love with her. He had proposed several times but is always rebuffed, yet he persists. He also has a mistress, Linda Lee (Astrid Allwyn), an aspiring actress who happens to be the baby sister to Jim Leonard. Linda has a producer named Georgee Keeler (Bradley Page) who is promising her a big role if she can get money out of Bruce. Jim distrusts Georgee and wants Linda to settle down to a ‘real’ job. He has plans to market his own airplane engine and, if he can get financing, move the two of them to Detroit where all the manufacturing takes place. Naturally she wants nothing to do with this. The rest of the film is a series of on-again-off-again romances and a blackmail scheme that fizzles out almost as quickly as it starts. 

Nearly everything about this film is rote and cliché. As mentioned above it has about as much weight to it as a typical daytime drama, drawing the romance out by throwing in conflict after conflict to keep Jim and Carol from their Happily Ever After. When it does finally wrap up it’s awkward and bizarrely staged on a plane during an attempted suicide. The flight stunts are amazing to watch but that is about it. It is ludicrous and unsatisfying. This was never going to be a great film. The problems stem from the source material, a short story by Ursula Parrott, and a faithful adaption was never going to do much for this story. But it could have been better, not relying so much on manufactured drama and instead allowed the characters time to breath and have the drama flow naturally from that. Instead it is a forgettable affair that is better off left to Bogart completists and fans of the late Dorothy Mackaill who wish to see her during the waining years of her stardom.

Sabrina (1954) ***

Release Date: September 3, 1954

Running Time: 113 minutes

Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Audrey Hepburn, William Holden

Directed By: Billy Wilder

It’s hard to imagine a time when Audrey Hepburn was a relative unknown commodity in the film industry. Prior to 1954 she had had just a few films under her belt, most notably Roman Holiday. Sabrina finds Hepburn still relatively green and inexperienced, something that co-star Humphrey Bogart struggled with, finding her immature and unprofessional. Whatever grievances there were behind the scenes, it translated to what audiences making for a somewhat unconvincing romance between the two actors. Hepburn is game here but the chemistry between her and Bogart just isn’t there.

Sabrina Fairchild (Hepburn), is the daughter of the chauffeur for wealthy businessman Oliver Larrabee (Walter Hampton) and his two grown sons Linus (Humphrey Bogart) and David (William Holden). Linus has followed in his father’s footsteps but David is more carefree, chasing after women constantly and avoiding responsibility. Sabrina has long loved David from afar, watching him romance women from a distance while secretly longing for it to be her turn but David sees her as the young girl of the help, someone not to take seriously. Her father sends her off to Paris to study cooking for two years, hoping she will grow out of her infatuation but that doesn’t happen and when she returns, David, not recognizing her, falls for her like just another of the long line of women in her life. This complicates things in the Larrabee estate as Linus and their father are in the process of merging their company with that of a sugarcane plantation, a merger dependent on David marrying the daughter of the plantation owner.

Linus, sensing the danger to this merger by David’s newfound infatuation, schemes to get David out of the way for a while, then swoops in to romance Sabrina himself in an attempt to separate her from her love for David. What he doesn’t count on is falling for the young girl, himself.

On the surface this is a superficial tale of young infatuation being usurped by real love. It wouldn’t stand out from other such tales were it not for Miss Hepburn’s powerful and delightful performance in the lead roll. She sells her immaturity in the early scenes as well as some subtle changes after coming home from Paris two years later. Bogart saw her as inexperienced and unprofessional but she outperforms him in nearly every way. There is an innocence and vulnerability to her performance that draws us to her side in a way that we never feel for Linus. 

Rounding out the love triangle is William Holden’s David. David is so broadly written that it threatens to become a caricature. Fortunately Holden is up to the task of a role that could have easily been unlikeable. He is just endearing enough to avoid that trapping and keep audiences liking him, even as we disapprove of his lifestyle. He is a typical man child who, years later is still sneaking women away from parties to drink Champaign and make love. The only false note comes late in the game when he accepts his forthcoming arranged marriage. It’s in service of the story but rings a little false. 

A film like this lives and dies on the chemistry of the two leads. With that in mind it is amazing just how good this film is when that chemistry isn’t quite right. Bogart is good when acting alone or against his family members, but is all wrong against Hepburn. Hepburn on the other hand, is excellent throughout, elevating the whole affair. This is a classic, there is no doubt about that, but it could have been one of the all time greats had there been better chemistry between Bogart and Hepburn. 

Kid Galahad (1937) **1/2

Release Date: May 26, 1937

Running Time: 102 Minutes

Starring: Edward G. Robinson, Bette Davis, Wayne Morris, Humphrey Bogart, Jane Bryan

Directed By: Michael Curtiz

Edward G. Robinson stars as Nick Donati in this pretty standard boxing film about an up and comer champion who runs afoul of virtually everyone along the way including a woman, a gangster and even Nick himself. It was filmed again a few years later as The Wagons Roll at Night with the setting changed to a circus and then again in the 60’s with Elvis Presley in the roll of Kid Galahad. Yet the story doesn’t merit all these remakes. 

Nick Donati, along with his partner Fluff (Bette Davis), are boxing promoters. But during one fight Nick’s champ, McGraw, is bribed and throws the fight leaving Nick and Fluff mostly broke. They decide to blow their last remaining cash on an all day party and then start over with new talent. Hired as a bartender for the party, Ward Guisenberry (Wayne Morris), proves to be virtually worthless at mixing drinks as he has no experience and doesn’t drink himself. But when McGraw, along with gangster Turkey Morgan (Humphrey Bogart) show up uninvited and push Fluff down, Ward knocks the champ down, gaining the attention of Nick who sees possibility for the man in the ring. 

No one really expects award to do well in the ring so it comes as a surprise when, in his first bout he is pitted against McGraw’s experienced fighter brother and wins by knockout. Turkey tries to get Ward to sign with him over Nick but Ward refuses, knocking Turkey out in the process. To protect him from any blowback over the incident, Fluff hides Ward out at Nick’s family farm where Nick’s younger sister, Marie, has recently returned from a convent school. When Nick finds out Ward is there he loses his cool as he insists on keeping his working environment separate from his family in an attempt to shield Marie from the less savory elements of life. What’s even worse though is Ward and Marie, despite early bickering, have fallen for each other. Further complicating things, Fluff has also fallen for Ward and when she hears he is in love with Marie, decides to exit the picture, cutting ties with everyone.

Bette Davis is the one saving grace to a cast that is mostly coasting in this feature. Her growing attraction begins subtly, only growing apparent the more we see her and Ward together. Davis acutely portrays her devastation when she realizes Ward has fallen in love with someone else, showing her deep hurt and vulnerability before quickly covering it up to avoid exposing her feelings to Ward. By this point in her career Davis was a master at conveying emotion through her distinct eyes and she uses it to great success. If only the rest of the cast was trying as hard with the material.

The central drama in the film is the conflict between Ward and Nick over Marie. There is also the threat coming from Turkey’s hold over Nick but that is almost an after thought in comparison. The real drama stems from Nick’s insistence that he knows what’s best for his sister and still sees her as a little girl who needs his protection. This leads to a decision made late in the film that could lead to Ward, renamed Kid Galahad for better publicity, to a career ending defeat, possibly even a loss of his life. Edward G. Robinson plays this conflict, and ultimate redemption, only slightly above average. He’s chewing the scenery at times but the sincerity and genuineness isn’t there. What’s worse is we never get much of a sense of how Fluff fits into his life and work. We’re they a couple, business partners, mere friends? The script doesn’t outright say and Robinson plays it off like it’s a partnership of convenience that he isn’t emotionally involved in. 

Wayne Morris was relatively new on the scene having began acting in film just the previous year. Here he is just too naive and trusting. The same issue would plague Eddie Albert in the remake four years later. When Nick sends Ward in to fight the champion a year too early and unprepared, Ward accepts the explanation behind this decision without question. Further, when Nick gives him bad advice for a strategy to the fight and Ward starts taking a severe beating, Ward stays the course simply because Nick told him to. It’s hard to get behind a character who apparently cannot think for himself. 

The relationship between Ward and Marie is poorly developed as well. There is no clear reason given for the instant loathing they both have for each other. Likewise, he sudden change in feelings is equally abrupt and undeveloped. Marie, played here by Jane Bryan, is essentially a non-character. She’s there only to be an obstacle between Ward and Nick. Here scenes are relegated to mooning over Ward and pleading with her brother that she is no longer a kid. This is a character that apparently the screenwriters always fail to get right as the same character in the later The Wagons Roll at Night suffered the exact same poor development. 

Ultimately this is a mediocre film that is bolstered up by some exciting fight sequences and a great supporting performance by Bette Davis. The story is rote and par for the course and the villain is nothing more than a generic hoodlum portrayed in typical fashion for Humphrey Bogart during this stage in his career. It doesn’t excel at much of anything and fails to have an exciting conclusion. All in all it isn’t a bad time to spend a hundred minutes but there are much better films from this era more deserving of that time.

Brother Orchid (1940) ***

Release Date: June 7, 1940

Running Time: 80 minutes

Starring: Edward G. Robinson, Ann Sothern, Humphrey Bogart, Donald Crisp, Ralph Bellamy

Directed By: Lloyd Bacon

Little John Sarto (Edward G. Robinson) has decided he has had enough of the gangster life and has amassed enough money to retire from the rackets. After his men, led by second in command Jack Buck (Humphrey Bogart) kill a man against Sarto’s wishes, he makes the decision to step down, turning the reigns over to Jack and move to Europe to enjoy his fortune. But the years in Europe are not kind to him and after one bad investment after another he finds himself broke and needing to return to America and his old gang. But his old gang isn’t keen to take him back and throw him out upon arrival. Sarto then tracks down Flo (Ann Sothern), his girl whom he kept stringing along with promises of marriage. She has partnered up with southern cattle baron Clarence (Ralph Bellamy) to buy a dance hall and move up in life. Clarence is in love with Flo but she only has eyes for Sarto. 

With Flo back in his life, Sarto starts up a new gang and attempts to muscle in on Jack Buck’s rackets. This leads to a confrontation where Flo is tricked by Jack Buck into leading Sarto into an ambush. Sarto is shot and presumed dead, but he escapes to a nearby convent where he recovers amongst the monks whose only interests in life are the goodwill of others, a concept Sarto finds difficult to comprehend. Eventually, as Sarto spends more time with the monks he starts to see and understand that there can be a greater joy in life than just that that which comes from possessions and power.

Brother Orchid is an odd duck in the filmography of a Edward G. Robinson. In the first half it is mostly a typical gangster film, the type Robinson excelled at during this period. Once Sarto arrives at the “Monastery of the Little Brothers of the Flowers” it takes a dramatic turn away from the tropes of typical films of this ilk. We are treated to scenes of Sarto at first not fully getting what the brotherhood is all about and looking for a way to avoid his work cultivating flowers while taking the credit for accomplishes he doesn’t do. When he is caught in his grifting, he seems penitent, especially in the face of the disappointment he sees from the monks, but is also relieved that not only will he not be in trouble for his trespasses but that Brother Superior (Donald Crisp) attempted the same thing when he newly joined the monastery. The kindness in the face of deceit starts to work on him as he begins to see a new way of life, something he never would have believed in his old life.

But while life at the monastery may seem at a stand still, life on the outside moves on. Flo, believing Sarto is dead, has accepted a marriage proposal from Clarence. Jack Buck has also expanded his rackets to include the flower markets, preventing the monks from selling their flowers to raise funds for the needy. Sarto, upon finding out about the upcoming marriage, finds a way to accompany Brother Superior into the city to sell flowers, then, when discovering that his brothers can no longer sell the flowers, devises a plan to set things right. 

This is when the film shifts tone for a third time. Gone is the more somber and contemplative tones of the middle section. Now it virtually becomes a slapstick comedy as Sarto first steps in the separate Flo and Clarence. Then, taking advantage of a rag-tag bunch of cowboy friends of Clarence who are in town for the wedding, incites them to storm Jack Buck’s hideout and brawl their way into putting Jack behind bars to end the flowers racket. This moment is one step shy of a Three Stooges skit, lacking just the wacky sound effects and sight gags. It takes the comedic elements of the concept and dials it up to eleven.

In the end, while Sarto claims he intends to retake his old life back, the lessons he has learned while part of the brotherhood make him reconsider rejoining the monastery. This final moment brings the tone back down and ties off the character arc with a nice bow. This would have been more effective had it not immediately followed the comedic brawl. It doesn’t completely undermine it but it does lesson the impact.

Edward G. Robinson is in fine form here, both as Little John Sarto the gangster and as the chastened and humbled Brother Orchid. His change of heart is a little rushed thanks to so much time dedicated to the set-up but is also helped immensely by there being doubt in his mind right up to the end over what he will do with his newly acquired perspective on life. Perhaps it is a little too far fetched to think a gang leader could ever find inner peace away from his former life style but even that is helped along by Sarto’s indecision right up until the very end.

While most of the cast is solid all around, the biggest weak link is Clarence. His character is drawn too stereotypically. We know little about him except that he raises cattle and is wealthy. He also is too darn nice of a guy, at no point getting upset even when Sarto steps in intending to break up his and Flo’s upcoming nuptials. He is too earnest and broadly written to be a real character and fits poorly into a otherwise well written script.

Tonally this film is all over the map. The only thing that keeps it from flying off the rails is that these tones do not overlap each other but come in stages. While Sarto, Brother Orchid, is staying with the monks we do not get cutbacks to Jack Buck or Flo and Clarence. We stay with Sarto. This helps keep that tone consistent, at least during that act. It doesn’t keep the tonal shift from being abrupt but at least it’s not whiplash inducing. 

Brother Orchid is not a masterpiece, but it is a good movie with a lot of good points to get across. Some of them are a little heavy handed but never come across as preachy. It offers plenty of things to think about and ponder upon while giving it’s lead perspective and a contrast between a life spent in pursuit of physical desires and that of a life spent in selfless devotion. It’s not your typical gangster film and is all the stronger for it. 

You Can’t Get Away With Murder (1939) **1/2

Release Date: May 20, 1939

Running Time: 79 minutes

Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Billy Halop, Gale Page, Harvey Stephens

Director: Lewis Seiler

With a title as optimistic as this one it is odd that the film seems so pessimistic in comparison. There is a morality tale in here, of course, but the consequences in the end are too harsh for the crime, at least when it comes to Billy Halop’s character Johnnie. The central conceit would have also been helped by more screen time for Harvey Stephen’s character who spends most of the film absent even though his central drama drives the majority of the narrative. 

Madge (Gale Page) and Fred Burke (Harvey Stephens) are engaged and planning to move to Boston thanks to an upcoming promotion Fred has received. A dark cloud hovers over their happiness though as Madge’s brother Johnnie has become involved with gangster Frank Wilson (Humphrey Bogart). The two rob a gas station, successfully eluding the police. Later, while planning to rob a pawn shop, Johnnie borrows Fred Burke’s gun. When Frank finds out he confiscates the gun, relegating Johnnie to lookout while he does the robbery. Things don’t go as smoothly this time out and when the man being robbed triggers the alarm Frank shoots him, then leaves Fred’s gun behind to incriminate the wrong man. 

Shortly afterwards Johnnie and Frank are arrested because of evidence left behind at the gas station and sentenced to a few years jail time. Likewise Fred Burke is arrested for the murder of the pawn broker but he is given the death penalty. This creates the primary conflict between a Frank and Johnnie. Frank has no scruples about sending Fred to the chair, even arranging for more evidence to be planted at Fred’s apartment, while Johnnie is conflicted, wanting to admit what really happened but afraid of retaliation if he comes clean.

Billy Halop, in a rare early performance away from The Bowery Boys, struggles to be convincing as the conscience troubled youth Johnnie Stone. He is serviceable in the earlier scenes but when the script asks him to portray guilt and distress he leaves any subtlety behind and plays to the back seats. Director Lewis Seiler needed to reign in his actor so that as Johnnie struggles with the possibility of allowing Fred to be executed we get more than just lashing out at everybody loudly. This happens repeatedly throughout the second half of the film without a whole lot of subtlety. Frank doesn’t help the situation as he is constantly threatening Johnnie should his resolve weaken. The film expects us to believe Johnnie incapable of asking for protection from the prison officials along with that confession. Perhaps we are expected to think Johnnie’s youthfulness and inexperience prevents him from thinking of this but we are given no evidence of this.

The ending of this film is where things take a serious turn towards pessimism. First off we are expected to believe Fred Burke is sentenced to death on circumstantial evidence as if there was no chance a lawyer would argue for reasonable doubt. Second, and more dour, Johnnie only admits what really happened at the pawn shop after being mortally wounded at the hands of Frank. No amount of pleading from his sister and guilt tripping by Fred and a prison mentor, Pop (Henry Trevers), who suspects what is really bothering Johnnie, persuades Johnnie to confess. Only as he is dying does he finally speak up. This is disappointing and robs the final scene of much of its impact. 

There are several things that could have made this film a lot better. We could have seen more sides to Johnnie’s conflict than just anger. We could have seen Johnnie wrestling with how he could save Fred without getting caught by Frank. We do get one scene late in the film where he tries to slip a confession note to Pop but that is quickly discovered and thwarted. We also could have been given a redemptive moment for Johnnie where he finds the courage to confess despite the threats to his person. Instead we have to be content with a deathbed confession when there is nothing more that Frank can do to him. This leaves Johnnie as a weak character who never finds the courage to do what’s right. Because of all this we are left with a film that is watchable but far from satisfying.

Casablanca (1942) ****

Release Date: November 26, 1942

Running Time: 102 minutes

Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid and Claude Rains

Directed by: Michael Curtiz

When it comes to ranking and listing the greatest movies of all time a handful of films inevitably make virtually every list. Films like The Godfather, Citizen Kane and Gone With The Wind always seem to be toward the tops of those lists. Lists like these are of course a matter of opinion and what one person’s best movie of all time will not be another’s. With that in mind there can never be a definitive “Best Movie of All Time!” But the film that holds that distinction on most lists has to be 1942’s Casablanca, a film that was considered just another film Warner Brothers was cranking out all the time during the era. It started out as a script titled “Everybody Comes to Rick’s,” and famously was first read by the studios on December 8, 1941, one day after the historic bombing of Pearl Harbor. The timing couldn’t have been better as it would have read much differently even the week before.

Casablanca tells the tale of resistance leader Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid) and his wife Ilsa Lund (Ingrid Bergman), newly arrived in Casablanca in search for some exit visas for safe passage to America. Furnishing these visas is Ugarte (Peter Lorre), a man who killed two German couriers to obtain the visas. Before Lazlo and Lund arrive,however, German authorities and the local prefect, Captain Louis Renault (Claude Rains), have arrested Ugarte and the visas have gone missing, having been entrusted to Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart), owner and operator of Rick’s Cafe. Rick, an American, has a mysterious past that is never revealed beyond his time in Paris prior to the French occupation. The only back story we do get with Rick is that time in Paris and his time there with Ilsa. When she shows back up at Rick’s Cafe with Lazlo it opens up old wounds Rick felt best left forgotten. 

One of the biggest appeals of Casablanca is the cast of characters. There are no weak links here. Casablanca would not be the film it is had Rick been played by the likes of George Raft or Ronald Reagan. Humphrey Bogart was not a leading actor at this time having only taken the leading role in a handful of gangster pics and once the year before as Detective Sam Spade in The Maltese Falcon. At this point in his career he was primarily a secondary character actor playing toughs. He was hand picked for the role of Rick Blaine and it would end up being his most iconic part. We see Rick at his most vulnerable, a depressed man who refrains from serious relationships and preferring his own company to that of anyone else. He never shares a drink with anyone and plays chess with himself. He’s not a ad person as can be attested to by his devoted staff, but he is a deeply sad man who has retreated into himself.

Matching him beat for beat is Ingrid Bergman who was on lone in exchange for Olivia De Havilland. Bergman emotes so naturally throughout the film that we always know what is going on behind her eyes. In her first scene we can see how troubled she is when she starts realizing who the Rick is behind Rick’s Cafe and that this spells trouble for her and Laszlo. We know immediately that there was something between her and Rick and that she still feels conflicted by those feelings. 

The closest thing we have to a weak link is Paul Henreid, hot off the set for Now, Voyager, as the leader of the nazi resistance. There is nothing inheritantly wrong with Henreid’s acting, he’s just been given an uninteresting character to play. Victor Laszlo is written to be completely noble and self sacrificing to the point that the man appears to have no flaws. We never see him frustrated or angry, just calmly resolved in his course of action. It makes for a bland protagonist especially when placed next to the conflicted Rick.

As great as Bogart and Bergman are here, they are overshadowed by a truly legendary performance by Claude Rains here as Captain Renault. Rains is clearly enjoying himself here in a performance that comes close to being over the top but never goes too far. Captain Renault abuses his position to take advantage of young women desperately seeking exit visas. This trait could make him an unlikeable character yet it’s played mostly in the background and when Rick interferes with one such prospect providing the young woman and her husband the means to obtain visas without Renault’s assistance, Renault doesn’t get upset with Rick. These affairs are only lightly touched on thanks to the Hays Code but it’s never in doubt what favors he is trading for those visas.

This is a tremendous film that rightfully deserves the accolades it still receives nearly eighty years after its initial release. Roger Ebert put it best on his exceptional commentary for this film when he said that even people that don’t like old films like Casablanca. Even people that don’t like black and white films like it. There was a time when college kids could quite Bogart films. That time is long gone but Casablanca still endures. It may not be Bogart’s greatest acting performance but it is his most iconic.

Battle Circus (1953) ***

Release Date: March 6, 1953

Running Time: 90 minutes

Cast: Humphrey Bogart, June Allyson, Keenan Wynn

Directed By: Richard Brooks

Modern audiences coming into Battle Circus will have a hard time not comparing it to the much more successful film M*A*S*H from 1970 and its even more successful series on network TV. Those comparisons are apt as both share many of the same type of characters. The primary difference between the two properties is tone. M*A*S*H plays things very broadly with tongue firmly in cheek while Battle Circus mostly plays things seriously.

The story begins with Army Nurse Ruth McCara (June Allyson) newly assigned to M*A*S*H unit 8666 (referred to throughout the film as simply the 66th). She immediately runs afoul of Chief Surgeon Jed Webbe, a no nonsense, hard drinking man who is getting burned by the mobility part of a Mash unit made necessary by the ever shifting battle lines. In the last 23 days there have been 7 moves, all overseen by Sgt. Orvil Statt (Keenan Wynn), and the repetition has worn down the morale of everyone in the camp. 

Soon afterwards Jed starts making advances on Ruth but the nurse is only interested in a lasting relationship, the type that leads to a wedding. This frustrates Jed but does not stop his advances which eventually wears down her resolve, despite warnings from her fellow nurses that Jed is a notorious womanizer who never talks about his home life away from the war including whether he may already be married. 

The central drama here is the blossoming romance between Jed and Ruth, two people not expecting to fall in love behind the lines of the Korean War. What threatens to derail it is the forcefulness behind Jed’s methods to get with Ruth. He is pushy, forceful and takes liberties that would never play with modern sensibilities. It makes it hard to be on his side early on. Fortunately these hard edges smooth out in the later parts of the film as he starts to really care for her. 

Ruth on the other hand is not much of a character at first. She starts out naive and uncomfortable with her surroundings. Her character blossoms though when she stands up for a young Korean child who has been injured by shrapnel and will die if not operated on. Her determination to save this child pushes Jed into extreme measures to save the young boy when he otherwise wouldn’t have operated on him in the first place. It brings a depth of humanity to her that rubs off on the otherwise callous Jed. 

This film lives or dies based on our investment in the relationship between Jed and Ruth. Fortunately Battle Circus allows that relationship to grow naturally throughout the film in such a way that when the war interferes and forces the two apart we care whether they will find each other again. It is well staged if a little abrupt in the end. Still, the two leads do an adequate job at portraying the romance and keeping audiences invested. The two leads are likable and make for a solid drama behind the lines of a war that was playing out even as the film was being made. 

Men Are Such Fools (1938) *1/2

Release Date: July 16, 1938

Running Time: 69 minutes

Cast: Priscilla Lane, Wayne Morris, Hugh Herbert, Humphrey Bogart

Directed by: Busby Berkeley

On the surface this film is attempting to present a story about female empowerment in a competitive working environment. On the surface. When you dig further into it it is a failure on that front by painting everyone in very broad strokes and moving the plot along through a series of happenstances and coincidences, some of which go completely unexplained and serve no purpose other than to advance the story.

Linda Lawrence (Priscilla Lane) is a lovely assistant to executive Mr. Bates (Hugh Herbert) at the advertising company Americo. She is interested in moving up in the company and has no interest in settling for a hourly position or becoming a housewife. To make this happen she has come up with an idea for one of their clients that she wishes to pitch to her boss but he is more interested in taking her out on the town. Reluctantly she agrees on the date thinking she can use the opportunity to get her ideas heard. Also interested in her is Jimmy Hall (Wayne Morris), an ex football player working for the firm who professes his love for her and won’t take no for an answer. Eventually he wears down her defenses and she falls for him but is afraid the relationship will interfere with her aspirations. After the two wed his love turns to jealousy as her career begins to soar and another man, Harry Galleon (Humphrey Bogart), a radio man who can help her career even more, begins to make moves on her.

The remainder of the story is very predictable but might have been tolerable had it not painted the men, all of them, as lusty misogynists who look at women as nothing more than pursuits to conquer. On top of that the men come across as childish caricatures that cross the border into offensive. For instance Mr. Bates hoots and giggles nervously like a toddler. This was a character Hugh Herbert created after he left the Vaudeville circuit and went into movies. It is not humorous or endearing and when paired with his advances towards Linda it makes him into a creepy and annoying character. 

Jimmy is playing charming until he gets what he wants, then changes into a man who is domineering and possessive, unwilling for his wife to be successful outside the home and jealous when any man shows a single bit of interest toward her, innocent or not. It gives us no one to route for in this relationship and when we have that situation we have no vested interest in their drama. 

The women don’t escape this film unscathed, either. Linda is portrayed as driven, yet easily swayed by Jimmy’s advances. Her rise in stature at Americo is based solely on her one great idea and we see nothing of how this plays out, just some dialogue and newspaper headlines telling us she is suddenly a big deal. The other women in the picture, Wanda, Bea and Nancy are nothing more than generic caricatures with no real depth. 

The finale of the film is reliant entirely on our commitment to Linda and Jimmy’s relationship. For that reason it fails. There is nothing here to latch onto and nothing for us to care about. For this to have worked we would have needed to genuinely care for these two but there is nothing here for us to care about. It is all so shallow and obvious and lacks any real emotional stakes needed to make it of any real interest. The film wants us to be invested in the film about a woman who wants it all but fails to provide a lead worth following in that journey.