The Petrified Forest (1936) **1/2

 Release Date: February 6, 1936

Running Time: 82 minutes

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

Directed By: Archie Mayo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Amazing Dr. Clitterhouse (1938) ***

 Release Date: July 20, 1938

Running time: 87 minutes

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

Directed by: Anatole Litvak

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Release date: February 22, 1949

Running time: 100 minutes

Starring: Humphrey Bogart, John Derek, Allene Roberts

Directed by: Nicholas Ray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Big Sleep (1946) ***

 Release Date: August 23, 1946

Running time: 114 minutes

Cast: Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Martha Vickers

Directed by: Howard Hawks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Release Date: October 29, 1932

Running time: 63 minutes

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

Directed by: Mervyn LeRoy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Midnight (1934) *1/2

 Release Date: March 7, 1934

Running time: 76 minutes

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

Directed by: Chester Erskine

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

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

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

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

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

A Holy Terror (1931) *1/2

Release Date: July 19, 1931

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

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

Directed by: Irving Cummings

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

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

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

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

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