Review - Safety Last! (1923 - Dir. Fred C. Newmeyer, Sam Taylor)

It's a silent film. It's black and white. And it's in a 4:3 ratio. It's about as ye olde fashioned as you get without it being shown on a zoetrope. And it's really rather good.

Harold Lloyd (played by the similarly monikered Harold Lloyd) is a small town kind of guy who moves to the big city to find his fortune and pay for a lovely wedding for his bride to be. Things don't go to plan and he ends up living with his buddy, "Limpy" Bill in a small flat. But he comes up with a crafty scheme to get rich quick. (I don't know why he's called "Limpy" because he doesn't have a limp.) "Limpy" is a bit nifty when it comes to climbing buildings so Harold sets it up so that he can climb up the outside of the department store where he works. Again things don't go to plan.

After a cleverly shot start things kick off with the story and some impressive physical comedy (Jackie Chan must have been influenced by some of this stuff). For example, Harold and "Limpy" pretend to be coats on a coat rack to avoid their landlady. 

The whole of the first half is setting up the reasons why Harold would be motivated to climb the building himself in the latter stages of the film. And very carefully set up it is too. As my mum always says, "Everything happens for a reason." That's certainly true here. The first half also shows how resourceful Harold can be in a variety of situations. He's constantly lurching from one scrape to another but he always manages to come good. 

There are some early visual effects that are used to further the story rather than just fluffy eye sweets. At one point Harold eyes up a gorgeous business man's lunch that's being advertised in a local restaurant. Alas he's also seen a necklace for his sweetheart. We know it's meant for her because her face appears in the centre of said piece of jewellery. Then as he puts each coin down to pay for the necklace, one item disappears from the plate of the business man's lunch. So without any words the story is conveyed in a very crafty manner.

Then we get to the second half of the film: the climb. Now I'm afraid of heights and the last half hour is pure torture for me. If torture was fun. My hands go all clammy as I watch because he's actually up at that height climbing the building. (Okay, there is a bit of trickery in there, that I won't spoil for you, but even so it looks completely terrifying.) There are so many incidents on the way up and it goes on for ages and ages. The tension never lapses. He gets attacked by pigeons accompanied by some very Psycho-like music. A mouse goes up his trouser leg and makes him do an amusing little dance on a narrow ledge. Then there's the whole malarkey based around the iconic clock face. It's amazing how many problems they wring out of one simple thing. All in all it's a cracking sequence.

If you don't feel the need to watch this yet bear in mind that there is a scene where a drunk gets netted. Well, not exactly netted by the police or another government agency, but a net does fall on him causing some entrapment.

I had to buy the definitive Harold Lloyd collection to get this. It was a good move though because every film has been pretty good so far (as long as you can put up with a fair bit of political incorrectness). Well worth tracking down. (Don't take my word for it. I took a class of 11 year olds to see Hugo and they were completely bored all the way through - as I was - apart from the clip from this very film. They were literally on the edges of their little seats.)
8/10
evlkeith

If you like this you could also try:
Girl Shy, The Cat's-Paw.

Review - White Zombie (1932 - Dir. Victor Halperin)

I've tried this 'Zombie Grip". Doesn't work.

I thought it was probably time to have a look at possibly the first zombie film, (seeing as though we're drawing near to the end of this mammoth season) and very different it is to the usual films containing our beloved flesh-eating chums we're used to. 

Charles Beaumont is in love with a beautiful lady, Madeline, alas she is engaged to be wed to another, a charming man called... Neil. As anyone would in this situation, Charlie turns to the local voodoo practitioner, the aptly named 'Murder' Legendre (Bela Lugosi) to sort the problem out for him. His solution involves turning Madeline into a zombie. Problem sorted. Time for tea and cake.

Not content with using minimum wage zero-hours contractors in his sugar mill, Mr 'Murder' uses his zombies to do all his sweet goods related work, in a similar fashion to The Plague of the Zombies. The zombies look the part with their white faces and gormless expressions but they're not much of a threat. (Bizarrely the best zombie acting is performed by Neil when he's had a few and he's staggering about in a graveyard.) Only in the closing scenes do the zombies cause any kind of grief when they try to push Neil off a cliff. (Blimey, you can't take them anywhere.) I was surprised at the amount of tension that I felt during that scene though. Slow moving zombies inexorably encroaching on the hero's position seems to have been a winner right from the very origins of the zombie species. 

Another scene that stuck in my head is one where Neil gets a bit depressed and tipsy in a bar. The other revellers are only represented by sounds and the shadows of them dancing. It's a surprisingly effective way to film a bar scene.

One aspect that surprised me about this film is the technical quality. It was only made in 1932 and yet the film makers had already cracked the use of wipes, split screens and matte paintings. (Amazingly the first matte painting appears in Missions of California from 1907.) The compositions are pretty accomplished too. The director often uses other objects the frame the actors, whether it's the lid of a grand piano, the gap between another actors arm and side, or a petal-like mandala pattern that has been cut into a balustrade. Both Madeline and 'Murder' are seen through this pattern, linking them together. Madeline also has the same pattern on her dress, not sure why, but the director obviously had his reasons.

Another surprise is the inclusion of a bit of saucy lingerie. Ooh cheeky. I wouldn't have thought they'd have gone in for any of that malarkey in the thirties.

Something that is not quite as accomplished is the acting. For the most part it is amateur dramatics time. Lugosi shamelessly hams it up, but the worst offender is Neil (John Harron), constantly moaning on and saying, 'Oh Madeline'. Mary's dad obviously took lessons from Neil before embarking on his oscar winning Eastenders performances. Sadly the acting is bad enough to bring down the rating by a couple of points. 

What you have here then is a fairly effective little horror film, with a foreboding atmosphere, that can be proud to have kicked off the zombie genre. Just don't expect anyone throwing up their guts, having their eye punctured or biting their mum's prize begonias.
4/10
evlkeith

If you like this you could also try:
The Plague of the Zombies, Nosferatu.

Review - Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964 - Dir. Stanley Kubrick)

The title gives a big clue to the tone of this film. I'm not that big a Kubrick fan and this hasn't done much to change my opinion. Full Metal Jacket is a classic and The Shining is enjoyable enough. Apart from that, I'm not too bothered. I can see how good his films are technically, the compositions, the transitions and all that business, but I don't find them that enjoyable or fun.

Dr. Strangelove (can I stick with an abbreviated title, please?) tries to be fun. And succeeds at times. Some of the lines had me chuckling away like a baboon that's just seen a You've Been Framed clip of a gibbon falling into a liquidiser. My favourite quote, by the President of America, has something to do with a war room and fighting. Other attempts at humour fall suspiciously flat. The titular Dr. Strangelove in particular was really tiresome with his barely restrained nazi leanings.

As you may know, or have guessed from the title, Dr. Strangelove is about nuclear war. Brig. Gen. Jack Ripper (looking at the photo above, does he remind you of anyone else?) decides it's about time to teach those naughty commies a lesson and so, without Presidential authorisation, makes a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Russia. The planes make a bee line for their targets and prepare themselves for mass slaughter. One pilot even dons a cowboy hat. The President is miffed about the state of affairs and takes advice from his advisors and military (in the form of George C. Scott) who react in a typical militaristic fashion.

Having the eighties as the playground for my teenage years meant that the threat of nuclear war was all too real for me. Threads and When the Wind Blows didn't help matters and neither did the video for Frankie Goes to Hollywood's 'Two Tribes' that was initially shown in all it's glory on late night Channel 4 (preceded by the brilliantly seedy- but sadly not available on YouTube - 'Relax' video). All of these jolly songs and films led me to think that a crispy death was imminent. But strangely, I'd much rather watch any of these again rather than Dr. Strangelove despite their depressing nature.

It's partly down to Peter Sellers. Like Kubrick, I've never seen the fascination with Sellers. Here he plays three characters. And he's basically showing off (in true Doccortex fashion, any display of real talent is classed as "showing off"). Admittedly there's only Dr Strangelove who's irritating but I spent a fair portion of the film thinking about Sellers' acting skills and wondering whether he'd pop up as another character. Grudgingly, I would say that's he's pretty handy as an actor and maybe a comedy is the best place to play multiple roles. It still brought me out of the film though.

Whether you enjoy Dr Strangelove - or love it, as many people do - comes down to whether you like the humour or not. For me, it was a bit hit and miss, but I'll leave you with a quote: a character is talking about how he was tortured by the Japanese in WWII and thinks that they did it just for laughs, but he finishes with, "Strange thing is they make such bloody good cameras."
4/10
evlkeith



If you like this you could also try:
Kind Hearts and Coronets, Threads, When the Wind Blows, The Mouse that Roared.

Review - Castle of the Living Dead (1964 - Dir. Warren Kiefer, Luciano Ricci)

Apologies for this one. This is supposed to be a zombie season. And with a title like Castle of the Living Dead - yep, that's the Living Dead - you'll hopefully excuse me for thinking that this film may actually contain some living dead action. Nope, they lied. A more accurate title would be Castle of a living bloke that just so happens to contain some dead people too. 

Given that, it's still a pretty enjoyable affair. A troupe of entertainers get invited to a creepy old castle to perform for Count Drago (Christopher Lee), and his glamourous assistant Sandro (Mirko Valentin). You'd think that as soon as they saw Christopher Lee in a castle with a disturbed looking butler type, that they'd leg it sharpish. Do people never learn? But for dramatic purposes they stay and soon enough people start dying. Hooray.

I thought that the dodgy butler was called Sandra for about half of the film which make me chuckle. But there are many more laughs to be had. Most of which are not intentional. I think I've ranted before about people suspending their belief and giving old special effects a chance, such as stop-motion animation. But here the effects are so poor, my belief was most definitely unsuspended. Here's an example: a cat is given some poison that causes it to instantly stop in a rigid fashion. Now, I'd have thought that a stuffed cat type prop would have been the order of the day. The camera could have moved round the cat and it would have been fairly convincing. They actually achieve this effect by freeze framing the film. And the cat's not even in focus. It looks shocking. 

What the film does well is atmosphere. There is something about old horror films that seems more horrifying than more contemporary examples. The period setting maybe helps, recalling the only interesting history lessons that I can remember: the ones about executions and people being hanged, drawn and quartered. As I was watching, The Wicker Man and Witchfinder General sprang to mind. Interestingly, this was written by a certain Michael Reeves, the director of the latter film. Due to the atmosphere, I found one scene involving a hanging quite unpleasant and more disturbing than Jason hacking off some fellow's protuberance. 

Lee and Valentin make a fantastic evil double act. Valentin especially lurks around looking as though he wants to do very morally dubious things with his victims. He's got a premium quality evil laugh too. The other characters all pale into insignificance next to these two. Donald Sutherland makes an appearance but gets very little screen time. Not enough to make an impact. (He still gets his face on the DVD cover though, I can't think why...)

Christopher Lee explains the title during the course of the film, and despite the fact that there aren't any literal members of the living dead, I can see where he's coming from. Enough, to let them off and include this in our Year of the Dead. It's nowhere near as good as the two films mentioned previously but it's a passable way to spend an hour and a half. A good late night film.
5/10
evlkeith



If you like this you could also try:
The Plague of the Zombies, Witchfinder General, The Haunting (1963)

Review - Portrait of Jennie (1948 - Dir. William Dieterle)

I was chatting to someone today about a film that I'd watched last night. When the subject of it being a black and white film came up, the person in question said, "I don't watch black and white films." I knew he liked horror stuff so I enquired as to whether he'd seen Psycho. Nope. 

Black and white photography is fine and often seen in wedding albums. It is even referred to as contemporary. 

But black and white films are rarely made, probably due to the fact that they won't make any money. I've seen eyes glaze over and brains switch off as soon as a black and white film appears on the telly. 

There is a huge barrier that could all be down to the perception of black and white films as being dull. Granted, the pace is slower, but the stories are arguably better than anything that's being knocked out today. How many films have you seen that have a great start, then peter out towards the end as the writer discovers they haven't got a clue what the film is about. They just had a great initial idea.

Crikey, I better get round to the film: Portrait of Jennie. This could be a perfect entry point for black-and-white-o-phobes because the end scenes have been colour tinted. In green. And some are even in red. There's even one shot that's in full technicolour. Ooooh. (An even easier entry point could be Pleasantville. It was made relatively recently and it's got some colour scenes too. I spoil you.)

Eben Adams (Joseph Cotten) is a struggling artist trying to bring home the Pek. One day he meets a girl, Jennie (Jennifer Jones) in a park and is inspired by her. Now, I'm not entirely sure how old she's supposed to be, but let's be generous: she's 16. He looks about 45. If not 50. Eben becomes obsessed with Jennie. You can see where this is going. Let's not forget the time that this was made in. Couples were supposed to wait until marriage before they started doing rudes. So the occurrence of an older man falling in love with a younger girl and then waiting for her was fine at the time. A similar relationship appears in Random Harvest. So everything's fine... Oh, okay. He's a paedo.

But there's a fantasy element to this seedy tale. What starts out as a dubious love story evolves into a mystery and then an adventure as Eben tries to discover just what the hell is going on with Jennie. By the end we are treated to some miniature work which results in the emotional climax of the film. Pretty affecting stuff. The impact of the final colour shot is fairly huge too. If it had all been in colour, it would hardly be noticed. The contrast is attention grabbing. (The Hindenburg pulls a similar trick with even greater aplomb.)

Watched with eyes in 1940s mode, ignoring the slightly dodgy perversions of the main character, Portrait of Jennie would make an interesting double bill with Vertigo. All of the actors perform admirably too (Ethel Barrymore is a treat as always as the owner of an art studio). It turned into something that I wasn't expecting, which pumps up the rating, especially when the something else is better than what came before. So if you're like the fellow at the start of this review, dive into the world of black and white and see what you think. It's like olives. The more you eat, the nicer they get.
7/10
evlkeith



If you like this you could also try:
The Mist (black and white version), Psycho, Vertigo, Anatomy of a Murder, The Whisperer in Darkness

Review - Judgement at Nuremberg (1961 - Dir. Stanley Kramer)

Like Doccortex, I get all of my historical knowledge from films and books (see his review of Marie Antoinette for more details). School taught me virtually nothing about history apart from the three field crop rotation, canals and a pork butcher named Richard Arkwright - all thrilling stuff that I've since forgotten. And yet, when a historical story is told well, I'm hooked.

I was aware of the Nuremberg trials but that was it, an awareness. After World War II was over, and the military war criminals had been brought to justice, attention turned to the German judges who had allowed some of the atrocities. It's all pretty complicated, very political and best explained by the film. 

Spencer Tracy plays Chief Judge Dan Haywood, the judge in charge of the trials. As usual, he seems to be just playing himself. But it works and the judge comes across as a fair and sympathetic character. What impressed me most was Burt Lancaster's performance as Dr. Ernst Janning, one of the German judges on trial. For the majority of the film he is silent and still, even when seen in reflections. But despite this stillness, there is a great sense of emotion and thought buried just below the surface. When he finally talks, it is very hard not to listen to him. He has a long speech but it never fails to fully engage. Great stuff.

The film has its powerful moments, and probably the most affecting is when Judge Haywood is walking through the location where the Nuremberg rallies were held. No-one else is in sight but he hears Hitler speaking from the podium and the noise of the crowd in attendance. A really clever use of sound.

One of the odd things about Judgement at Nuremberg is the camera work. Things generally go quite smoothly. The camera tracks around the people who are speaking in the courtroom showing the reactions of the other participants. All very well and good. Then suddenly - wham! - crash zoom action. I'd expect a multitude of crash zooms in a Jess Franco sleaze fest but in a black and white historical drama, I just wasn't ready for it. (I think Jess Franco is on my mind due to the sad news of his death last week.)

This is a long film, clocking in at 186 minutes, double my preferred running time. But it is worth it. I didn't manage it in one sitting but I'll give it another go when I'm not quite as tired. Worthy of your attention, especially if you're as useless at History as me. (You may even notice in the screenshots the appearance of a certain Mr Shatner...)
7/10
evlkeith



If you like this you could also try:
Inherit the Wind, Anatomy of a Murder, 12 Angry Men.