I Wake Up Screaming

I Wake Up Screaming
1941 - 20th Century Fox
Directed By H. Bruce Humberstone



SYNOPSIS

When up and coming model/ actress Vicky Lynn (Carole Landis) is murdered, her former agent Frankie Christopher (Victor Mature) is accused. Police release him for lack of evidence, and he sets out to find the real killer. Along the way, Christopher falls in love with the model's sister Jill (Betty Grable) and is followed by a sinister police inspector (Laird Cregar) who's sure he did it.



MY THOUGHTS

One of the earliest film noirs is a very exciting whodunit.

The film was released just 2 weeks after The Maltese Falcon, the film considered the first true film noir, and the two couldn't be more different. A pivotal supporting role from Elisha Cook Jr. is really the only thing the two have in common, apart a common theme of obsession. Here, Vicky Lynn is the center of the obsession (much like the Maltese Falcon itself.) Mature and Grable's characters have their own different ways they show that obsession as do the police inspector, the has-been actor and the newspaper columnist.

Laird Creger is the standout performance of the film. His soft-spoken yet creepy and sinister voice emanating from such a huge body adds menace and weight (no pun intended, well maybe a little) to the film. He's reminiscent of a late-career Marlon Brando, just not as aloof.

The visuals are primo film noir. The use of shadows (crucial to the noir style) are effectively used here, especially during the interrogation scenes, and when Christopher is hiding near the climax, waiting for the killer to reveal himself. Interesting camera angles also add some uniqueness to the storytelling.

The script was based on a book and uses flashback which was rare for films of the era. Citizen Kane is often considered the first film to feature flashbacks and was released just 6 months prior to this.
The film does sag a bit in the second half, as it turns to a love story. The film runs less than 1:30, so it doesn't sag for too long and the film is over before the love story drifts into sappiness. It would have been a better if the love story was muted a bit and the filmmakers focused more on the cat and mouse game between Frankie Christopher and the cops.

The title is misleading and would fit a horror film much better than this one. No one screams. However, Victor Mature does wake up in one scene. But, the title is catchy and does draw interest.

It may not be one of the most well-known film noirs, but I Wake Up Screaming is a solidly entertaining film and should be sought out by noir fans.

Vampyr

Vampyr
1932 - Germany
Directed By Carl Theodore Dreyer



SYNOPSIS

Allan (Julian West) is an occult fanatic. He stays at an old inn and is approached by an old man. The man warns that a sickly woman must not die and presents Allan with a package to be opened upon the man's death. He soon turns up dead. Allan opens the package to find a book about vampires, and he starts to realize what's plaguing the sickly woman and all the strange things he's been seeing around the tiny town.



MY THOUGHTS

A masterpiece of early horror, Vampyr is a visual delight.

The film has much more in common with the classic German Expressionist horror classics like Nosferatu and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, than with more contemporary horror films of the time like Dracula and Frankenstein.

The film is not silent but it uses very limited dialogue and some sound effects to help tell the story. Title cards are used to great effect like as in silent films. Other than those, the images are all there is to tell the story.

Vampyr has some genuinely creepy moments, but is never scary. When dreaming, a ghostly Allan comes across his own corpse in a coffin. It's a haunting and upsetting. Shadows also frequently move around, unattached to humans. The vampire of the title barely even appears in the film. She's a creepy looking old hag. Her icy stare is chill-inducing. Those and many others are images that will stick with you long after you see the film.



The battered condition of the film print also added to the eerie atmosphere. The print's heavily scratched and speckled quality adds to the intentionally hazy cinematography to create a dreamy, ethereal world.

Vampyr is like an old-school version of what modern filmmaker Guy Maddin does with every film he makes, like Tales from the Gimli Hospital.

There's barely a plot to the film, and even on a first viewing, I spotted some glaring plot holes, but they weren't terribly distracting. The film allegedly has missing scenes and it's possible they helped to answer those problems.

Classic horror film buffs and fans of non-conventional experimental films should definitely check this one out, if you haven't already.

Boudu Saved From Drowning

Boudu Saved From Drowning
1932 - France
Directed By Jean Renoir

SYNOPSIS

Despondent over the disappearance of his beloved dog, homeless man Boudu (Michel Simon) jumps off a bridge. He's saved by a book dealer who takes him in and introduces him to upper-middle class life.



MY THOUGHTS

Director Jean Renoir (son of the legendary impressionist painter) is considered one of the most important French directors of all time, this is far from a masterpiece.

The film is clearly satire on class differences. This is clear from the start. Boudu asks police for help in finding his dog. They shun him and threaten to lock him up. Then a woman who lost her 10,000 franc Pekingese approaches and officers rush to help the rich woman.
Like most satires, Boudu completely lacks any likable characters. The Boudu character is completely ignorant of upper classes (beyond believability,) not even knowing what a necktie is, and seems nearly virtuous, until he was saved. Once that happens, he becomes corrupt and seduces/rapes his benefactor's wife and the two fall in love. In the end, Boudu finds that he was happier as a bum.
The book dealer is also corrupt, sleeping with the maid and lamenting ever saving Boudu because the poor man gets in the way of his affair.

Boudu Saved From Drowning lacks much of a sense of humor which causes the satire to fall flat.
Also a problem, is the film's slow, plodding pace. It takes any and all bite out of the satire. Rather than marveling at the story, I was busy checking my watch. This may be a result from the period it was made (just coming into the sound era.) Many silent films I've seen also share this trait.
The performances are also not very memorable.

Overall, the potentially strong concept is destroyed by bland execution.

The film was later remade by Hollywood in the 1980's as "Down and Out in Beverly Hills."

The Most Dangerous Game

The Most Dangerous Game
1932 - RKO Pictures
Directed by Ernest B. Schoedstack and Irving Pichel



SYNOPSIS

A big game hunter (Joel McCrea) is returning from an expedition, when his boat sinks killing everyone but him. He makes it to a nearby island and finds the home of a Russian, Count Zaroff (Leslie Banks,) who's also a hunter. He has two guests who also survived a recent wreck (Fay Wray and Robert Armstrong.) Zaroff is bored having hunted every kind of animal... except man. And he's got his eyes on his three guests!



MY THOUGHTS

An entertaining horror/adventure from the makers of King Kong.

Director Ernest B. Schoedstack and Producer Merian C. Cooper made this film concurrently with King Kong. The film utilized the jungle sets from Kong as well as many cast (Robert Armstrong, Fay Wray) and crew members (most notably composer Max Steiner.) The films also share the same pulpy, straight-forward, fast-paced storytelling.... though the monster at the center of the story couldn't be more different. Kong was sympathetic, lacking the knowledge of right and wrong and being thrown into a world (New York) he just couldn't understand. The evil Zaroff knows exactly what he's doing and revels in it.

Leslie Banks is excellent as Zaroff, and is the highlight of the film. He's over the top, but not too far as to make his character completely unbelievable. His creepy stare could give anyone the willies.
Joel McCrea is solid as the standard cardboard cutout hero.
Fay Wray offers up some good screams, but like most female characters in films like this, has little to do but react with screams and the occasional fainting spell.
Armstrong's role seems to be made purposefully annoying so we don't feel too bad when he's offed.

The film is very atmospheric and holds its own in this regard with the classic horror films produced at Universal of the era (Frankenstein, Dracula, etc.) There are no overt scares like modern horror films, but a general atmospheric eeriness that makes Dangerous Game and the Universal horror films succeed. The dead body and head in a jar in the trophy room are genuinely creepy and along with Banks' performance add immeasurably to the atmosphere of the film.

The film's short run time (under 1 hr. and 5 minutes) ensures there's no unnecessary dialogue or scenes. Everything moves the plot along at a fast pace.

The Most Dangerous Game is not as huge of a cinematic achievement as King Kong, but a remains as an amazing and entertaining film in its own right.

A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints

A Guide To Recognizing Your Saints
2006
Directed By Dito Montiel



SYNOPSIS

A writer (Robert Downey Jr.) returns to Queens for the first time since he left as a teenager when his father falls ill. The reasons why he left are recounted in a series of flashbacks featuring his younger self (Shia LeBeouf) and his dirtbag friends and suffering girlfriend.



MY THOUGHTS

Young people growing up in a tough neighborhood. It's been done countless times since the silent era. This film is one of the many, and offers nothing new.

All the characters are quick to anger and violence and no one is happy or has anything resembling a sense of humor. This gives them a real two dimensional appearance which detracts from the fine performances.
Robert Downey Jr. is very understated in his role. He's not the manic character he's played in several recent films like A Scanner Darkly or Iron Man. He matches LeBeouf's strong performance well. The other actors are solid, but the script hampers them from being great.

The cinematography offers a very gritty, grainy view of New York, appropriate for the subject matter.

Oddly, the film's flashbacks were set in the mid 1980's... yet the music played were all clearly from the 1970's which didn't fit. Cat Stevens and disco were rarely heard back in the 1980s. The fashions seemed 70's-ish as well, which left me even more confused.

Overall, not a bad film, but far from the great one it could have been with a better script.

The X-Files: I Want To Believe

The X-Files: I Want To Believe
2008 - 20th Century Fox
Directed By Chris Carter



SYNOPSIS

A missing FBI agent has the agency baffled. A pedophile priest (Billy Connolly) claims he has visions of her capture. The FBI brings in former agents Fox Mulder (David Duchovny) and Dana Scully (Gillian Anderson) to determine whether the priest's visions are for real.... and the case may be something far more sinister than a simple abduction.



MY THOUGHTS

It's great to see Mulder and Scully back in action, but the film doesn't add much to the legacy of a classic TV series.

The story is solid, but is no better than an average episode of the series. In order to be a film, the stakes should have been raised, the settings grander and much more should happen. This was done well with the first film (Fight The Future) but not here. That makes the entire thing bland. Suspense and chills are also hard to come by here, which would help.

The cinematography is excellent. Everything is dark, bleak, cold and snowy, which fits perfectly with the tone of the film.

The acting is solid. Duchovny and Anderson know their roles well and are as good as always. Most every other role doesn't really stand out. All the FBI agents are particularly bland.

Although not a bad film, this is for die-hard X-files fans only.

Stagecoach

Stagecoach
1939 - United Artists/Walter Wanger Productions
Directed by John Ford



SYNOPSIS

A stagecoach full of troubled souls must travel through hostile Indian Territory with Geronimo on the warpath. Along the way, they pick up a wanted outlaw, the Ringo Kid (John Wayne) who is on the way to avenge the killings of his father and brother. One the way he falls for a female passenger with a secret (Claire Trevor.) Every one's plans for the future are put on hold... when the Apaches strike!



MY THOUGHTS

John Ford and John Wayne's first major team-up propelled them both into the stratosphere... while remaining in the old west.

The film succeeds on numerous levels.
The small stagecoach is crammed with interesting characters that bring color to the black and white film. Claire Trevor plays a prostitute, being kicked out of her town by a legion of decency. Doc Boone (Thomas Mitchell) is also given the boot for his continual drunkenness (he won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for the role.) Boone takes a liking to a timid whiskey maker (Donald Meek) who carries samples with him. A notorious gambler (John Carradine) takes a liking to a woman (Louise Platt) on her way to meet her soldier husband. She becomes ill and we soon find out why when she gives birth to a baby daughter. A cantankerous banker (Berton Churchill) is also aboard, with loot stolen from his bank. To round out the group, the noisy Andy Devine drives the stagecoach, with the tough as-nails Marshall (George Bancroft) riding shotgun.
John Wayne offers little different from his screen persona. This film elevated him from B-movie western hero to a full-fledged star. He's not even given top-billing in the credits (Trevor is.)

All the characters contrast against each other well in a very credible way. All are from different walks of society and clash with each other at first... but through the course of the journey learn to understand, tolerate, and some even like each other.

The film's short run time (1:30) keeps the epic story moving at a fast pace and there's rarely a dull moment. When there's no physical action, the verbal conflicts between the characters propel the story thanks to the great script.
The climactic battle with the Apaches is the highlight of the film. The stunt work is amazing. The horses alone should have won an Oscar for all their amazing stunts. The stuntmen were also shockingly good.
The camerawork is equally breathtaking. There's only a few static shots. Most of the cameras were moving (likely on trucks) in and around the action. That gives a real feeling of 'being there' amongst the fight.
The camerawork also shines a bit earlier in the film when the stagecoach forges the river. The camera is actually set up on the top of the stagecoach looking over the shoulders of Devine and Bancroft, also adding to the 'being there' feel.

The film clearly shows John Ford's mastery of film and he was nominated for an Oscar, and the film for Best Picture, but both lost to Gone With The Wind. Ford did however win Best Director the next two years for The Grapes Of Wrath and How Green Was My Valley.
This film is not his masterpiece, but comes close.