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.

Black Legion (1939) ***1/2

 Release Date: January 17, 1937

Running Time: 83 minutes

Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Dick Foran, Erin O’Brien Moore, Ann Sheridan, Helen Flint, Joseph Sawyer

Director: Archie Mayo, Michael Curtis (uncredited)

Black Legion is a hard hitting film that fictionalizes a real world vigilante group of the same name that operated primarily in Michigan in the 1930’s. They were an offshoot of the Ku Klux Klan. In 1936 alone, the year this film was beginning development, the Black Legion was believed to have killed nearly fifty people.  If you lived in the mid-western United States during this time you would have undoubtably have heard of this militia group. In modern times they aren’t as notoriously well known as the KKK, at least not outside of their area of influence, so this film may help shed a little light on what they were and what they stood for. It also, as many Hayes Code films of the era did, provides a cautionary tale that is brimming with the consequences of the main character’s actions.

The film begins at a midwestern factory where Frank Taylor (Humphrey Bogart) is certain he will be selected for the recent opening as foreman. He is a hard worker with a young family and in need of an economic boost to help him take care of a few repairs at home as well as replace a car that is starting to wear out. To his dismay the position is given to another worker, an immigrant who had some ideas that helped streamlined manufacturing and saved time and money. Bitter about the situation, Frank accepts an offer to join in on meetings with the Black Legion, an anti-immigration group that at first seems to speak exactly what Frank feels, that immigrants are taking away work from hard working and, in their opinion, more deserving Americans. It isn’t long before Frank has sworn an oath to forever join himself to the Black Legion, an oath that he will come to see as a chain, binding him to acts that will plague him for the rest of his life.

At first all seems to be going his way. The Legion stages a fire that runs off the new foreman and Frank takes over the job. But it doesn’t take long before his extra-curricular lead to troubles at home and a workplace accident that costs him his position. Instead of taking responsibility for his problems, Frank blames everyone else around him leading his wife to take their young son and leave him.  

For the 1930’s, Black Legion doesn’t pull any punches. There are scenes so brutal and despicable, that even when Frank finally sees the true nature of what he has chained himself to, we have a hard time feeling sorry for him. This is doubly so because of Frank’s character who, even after personally committing a heinous crime, attempts to shift the blame from himself. The crime is entirely his fault as was the fire that got him his promotion earlier in the film. 

The satisfaction of the final reel depends entirely on whether you feel any sympathy for Frank. The way Bogart plays Frank, no sympathy should be felt for him. We feel bad for him because he ruined more than just his own life when he joined the Legion. But feeling sorry for him does not mean we feel sympathy for him. If anything, right up to the final scenes, we feel disgusted with him. He has done everything to destroy his own life and he is not remotely able to take responsibility for it. His actions in the final moments come across more as a checklist to satisfy the Hayes Code, where villains were not allowed to get away with their villainy, than true character development on the part of Frank. We are satisfied that justice is handed out, but the way it played out was not very convincing. 

Still, Bogart sells this unlikeable character. He is no gun twirling gangster we’re rooting for to get gunned down in the final reel, but he is detestable for much different reasons. He is a coward who stands for a very real evil in the world that exists to this very day. The message of fascism and racism/anti-immigration spouted by the Black Legion can be heard to this very day and the consequences of indulging in those thoughts and ideas are still reveling today. It is a film that still needs to be seen and pondered because nearly eighty years later it is still relevant.