Reviews

Ultimately, this is a disappointing film. There are too many characters for a short film, all except Karloff being predictable and undeveloped. And Karloff has done better work than this. The plot is simplistic and expects the viewer to accept the idea of restoring one to life after being dead. There is a 30's flippancy in the first trial scene that is undoubtedly intended as comic relief but succeeds is doing nothing more than being intrusive. It would seem that a mood would be essential for a horror film, but there is none to be found. Yes, the camera work is more than adequate and the score is at times quite nice. However, there are too many strikes against the film. Hardly a classic, and only worth the effort if this genre of film appeals to you.

One of the best paced of all Keaton films, `Battling Butler' is not uproariously funny but is consistently amusing and entertaining. Being mistaken for an up-and-coming boxer, Alfred Butler (Keaton) falls in love and marries on the basis of this mistaken identity. Trying to keep his wife from finding out creates the needed comic situation to allow the humor to emerge. His leading lady, Sally O'Neil, sparkles in her supporting role. Snitz Edwards, humorous in his own right, is a delight as Keaton's valet. The final scene is a gem!

Perhaps it is the clichéd framework of the film that puts me off; perhaps Keaton is not quite as ingenious in this film as in others. Whatever, `The Love Nest' lacks the effervescence of many of Keaton's shorts. He is quite innovative in some scenes, the best his being caught with a rifle in his hands; without losing pace, he proceeds to go out and shoot a fish. This is part of his true mastery, salvaging a situation with hilarious results. Joe Roberts, who appears in several Keaton films, is good as the sinister whaling captain.

A comic short with some wonderful scenes, `Day Dreams' unfortunately is not as consistent as it should be. Some of the comedy just doesn't have that Keaton magic. Going to the city to make something of himself so he can marry his home town sweetheart, Keaton naturally finds himself in a variety of entanglements. The scenes outside the clothing story are great. But the highlight is the hilarious chase by the cops; it ranks with the pursuit scenes of `Seven Chances' and the cattle scenes of `Go West' for sheer ingenuity and fascinating orchestration.

There has never been a more comic use of a `train' (if the label is appropriate) than in this film. This is ingenuity at its finest, the most sustained comic sequence I've ever seen. Travelling from New York ca. 1830 to the Appalachians to claim an `estate', Keaton on this journey provides the highlight of the film-and what a highlight it is! From the bouncing actions of passengers to the lifting and moving of track, this series of images is non-stop pleasure. A dog, a hobo, a man throwing rocks at the engineer, a mule-all are inspired catalysts to laughter.

Once Keaton (a McKay) reaches his destination, the movie changes pace. And despite many good moments, especially those when Keaton has taken up `permanent residence' at the Canfields, the humor never reaches the level of the first portion of the film. Nonetheless, Keaton's genius is evident throughout the film, and it is this ability to innovate that constantly amazes.

With a promising beginning, Keaton finds himself atop a balloon, descends to the basket only to find there is no floor and then uniquely brings the balloon down to ground. What follows are a series of loosely connected and often amusing gags. However, the whole ends up being less than the sum of the individual parts. No compelling strand effectively connects these humorous moments. The movie is worth watching because Keaton's genius always offers the unexpected; it will, however, provoke chuckles rather than laughter.

The sudden and mistaken marriage of Keaton to an unlikely bride is the incident that forms the basis for the plot. Confronted by animalistic in-laws, who would be any groom's nightmare, Keaton maneuvers through their opportunism and materialism. Somehow the pieces don't quite fit together. There are episodes that are almost very funny, but not quite. Perhaps grounded too deeply to contemporary reality, I'm never able to accept the premise that Keaton would acquiesce to this marriage without any form of challenge. Perhaps that direction in plot would have produced a greater opportunity for Keaton's brand of comedy to shine.

Keaton plays a character that is somewhat bewildered by life-he meets the wrong train, he asks permission to quit winning at gambling, he is even inept in getting arrested. All is done with his deadpan expression and his intense eyes. This combination of innocence adrift in a life of circumstances provides Keaton with ample humorous moments. At times, I found the comedy to be somewhat muted; yet the pacing was well done and the stock market scenes are thoroughly delightful. `The Saphead' is not on a par with `The General', ‘Sherlock, Jr.', or `Seven Chances', but the film has its share of riches for the viewer.

Our protagonist is resourceful, tenderhearted, homeless. He finds himself with a baby, someone else's, and suddenly his life shifts focus. The child, thankfully, does not redeem the main character whose actions are a natural extension of who he is-a nameless person. Without home and name doesn't mean without personality, and a life, and the instinct for survival. The main character suddenly has to be concerned for someone other than himself, and this is the charm of the film, charm without sentimentality.

This is an intriguing contrast of the humorous set against the plight of the homeless in NYC; it works, partly because it is so outrageous and comic in its implementation-e.g. the conflict with the other street artist, the use of the bathtub. A gentle, good film whose final moments still resonate in the mind, not because of their greatness, but because of the unexpected but successful shift in focus and technique. It achieves.

Charles Lane as writer, director, and main character has done a very fine job in three areas, none suffering because of the others.

If this story were filmed today, the treatment would be much more stark and realistic. But for a film in the mid-50s, it provided quite a punch in conveying the agony of growing up with a loving but very demanding father. When I saw it in the theater, I never questioned Anthony Perkins as a teenager in the first part; today, this is much more difficult to swallow. Even though dated somewhat, the film is still worth a watch.

Karl Malden is excellent as a father driven by his own sense of failure to attempt to live vicariously through his son. As a result, he literally orchestrates his son's life. Never accepting the `glory' of the moment, he places constant expectations and demands on his son. Possibly this is Malden's best role.

Tony Perkins has some fine moments of anguish and neuroticism as the ball player, Jimmy Piersall. One scene between his father and him after his breakdown is superbly acted with Perkins running through a panoply of emotions. That this emotional turmoil is somewhat subdued is to the credit of the film. Norma Moore gives a competent and rather understated performance as his wife. The doctor, played by Adam Williams, is appropriately comforting, but he's not up to delivering the big line, especially in his intense scene with Malden. Regretfully, Perry Wilson as Piersall's submissive mother, didn't have more of a role.

Some very nice photography using the angularity of steps and bleachers and railroad stations conveys the underlying jaggedness and tension of emotions. Elmer Bernstein's soundtrack is effective in supporting the mood of the film.

Six-foot Charlotte Greenwood is brash, just on the edge of being irritating; but she is also likeable. Dominating the scenes with amazing energy, she leaps and strides and races through the film. Yet, the movie is hardly up to her vigor. The plot is quite flimsy and improbable with a scene at the beginning that seems totally out of place. The film is obviously a vehicle for Greenwood, showcasing her talents. Grant Withers is good in his role as a husband who doesn't wish to be too domesticated. It's interesting to note that the men work, apparently, but one never knows at what. The musical numbers are mediocre.

No matter how hard I try, how objective I attempt to be, I do not care for Harry Langdon. He is more irritating that amusing. His vacant face provokes annoyance rather than sympathy. However, he has one very strong point-the way he moves his body, for instance, changing abruptly from an agitated to a controlled movement. Although some scenes are amusing, nowhere in the film did I laugh out loud. Getting Lily upstairs to her room, the weightlifting routine, the cannon scene-all are good moments, yet the film as a whole ultimately fails to entertain.

De Mille had filmed the story previously in 1923. He failed then too.

Here he has created spectacle for the sake of spectacle and wrapped it in Biblical trimmings. The sets are great as are the special effects. However, the lines the actors deliver are awkward, stilted, unnatural, and ultimately quite annoying. This is perhaps as unmoving a film as I've ever seen for one with so much passion, tragedy, spirituality, anger, vengeance, love, etc. All in all, the film is a great emotional void.

Sir Cedric Hardwick gives a good effort and manages not to sink beneath the dialogue. The real performance is from Yvonne DeCarlo who is remarkably subdued and strong in her role as Sephora. Edward G. Robinson is wasted; Anne Baxter is wasted; Vincent Price is wasted. John Derek should never have been allowed on the set. But the greatest mistake in casting is Charlton Heston who plays Charlton Heston. He undergoes a transformation when he sees the burning bush. He then walks through the role as Charlton Heston delivering lines in stentorian tones. I miss Moses.

The Elmer Bernstein score makes for a great soundtrack! But neither the music nor the wonderful sets can salvage this travesty.

This is a marvelous work of comedy, perhaps one of the very finest of all short comedic films. The ingenuity of Keaton is endless as we see him and his roommate eating breakfast. The dual function of common household objects is incredible. Other stand-out scenes are those with the dog and Keaton as the scarecrow. Although this short work consists of a series of segmented scenes, there is still a fluidity that is quite pleasing. I introduced this work to a couple of teenagers. No complaints about black and white, no objections to its lack of talking. Just laughter and more laughter. `The Scarecrow' is a masterpiece.

Keaton gets married and is given a lot on which to build a house and the building materials which are in boxes arranged by number. The numbers get altered and the fun begins. Although there are many amusing scenes, the best is near the beginning when Keaton uses a cop to his own advantage. Keaton is deft and efficient.

This short film has Keaton playing a role that is a curious blend of cleverness and ineptitude; and it is this uncertain persona that is the major weakness of the film. Nevertheless Buster Keaton is a great comic and the house-building provides many chuckles.

Storm Fear is a contrast of brothers, both of whom have failed in life. Cornel Wilde plays the `bad' brother, fleeing from a bank robbery. Dan Duryea is the `good' brother who can't come to grips with his own artistic and personal failures. I do not like Cornel Wilde, yet I found he created a sympathetic, very human `good-for-nothing', a surprisingly less intelligent role for a lead actor to play. Duryea, on the other hand, is much less sympathetic, perhaps because he is reaching for stars that are obviously out of his grasp. Jean Wallace is quite good as Duryea's wife and Wilde's former lover. She effectively straddles the worlds of both men. Steven Hill portrays the unstable member of Wilde's gang, but he doesn't seem quite sure how far to take his character at times.

This should have been more claustrophobic with 6 people cooped up in a house in a snow storm, but the script handles this nicely. The film gives the appearance of being an inexpensive production; yet, it makes the most of what is there in set, actors, etc. Wilde does a credible job of directing. Elmer Bernstein's score is a plus. The ending, however, is totally unsatisfactory, obviously bowing to conventions of the mid 50s when uncompromising films were not the norm.

We have moved far beyond this tentative foray into a forbidden area-drug addiction-for the 1950s. As such, the film may seem dated. The Man with the Golden Arm served its function is peeling back a layer of the underside of society, an eye-opener to a Southern country boy in 1955 when I first viewed this film in the theater. After some serious consideration about being too young, I was allowed to go. It was powerful and affecting then and still maintains some sharp, painful moments of the soul stripped naked. As a movie depicting the loneliness at the core of being, it succeeds.

Filled with angst, Frank Sinatra, in his best role, creates a vulnerability that makes him sympathetic to the viewer. He conveys his helplessness and ineffectualness in a beautifully restrained performance. As a voice of common sense in the dead-end urban jungle, Kim Novak as Molly is quite good. She is compassionate and yet stands on solid ground. The interaction between Sinatra and Novak is really good. Darren McGavin plays a slimy character and does it very well. Eleanor Parker is superbly irritating and painfully insecure in her role of the pathetic Zosch, the crippled wife of Sinatra. Arnold Stang is another unlikely survivor of the street. Regarded as pitiful and despicable, his character Sparrow provides tart comedic moments.

The music is almost the star of this film-brooding, frenetic, moody, poignant. Elmer Bernstein's score perfectly accentuates the tensions of Frankie Machine's spiritual weakness and physical need for heroin. Molly's theme is bittersweet and captures aurally what the film depicts visually. I know of no other soundtrack that effectively complements the tension and defeat within a man as effectively as does this one.

This is a period piece, set in what appears to be the late 1800s. Much of the film is narrated by the main character, Wildfire, a bull terrier, who moves upward from the Bowery in this "rags-to-riches" fantasy. At times Wildfire's narration may be `too cute', but remarkably it doesn't stray too far. This device of personifying the dog truly works, particularly due to the script. Wildfire gets high praise for his performance. Dean Jagger is excellent as is Edmund Gwynne.

The film is well-paced and I found it much more entertaining that I anticipated. This is good escapist fare-the good guys are good and the bad guys are bad, but not too terribly so.

The script of this film is excellent, with some delightful, ironic lines. With literate dialogue, the action is well-paced, a necessity for the tension that builds up after Joan Crawford discovers that her husband (Jack Palance) is up to murder-hers. Crawford is excellent in her portrayal of the terrified woman, although is seems a little melodramatic at times. The supporting cast is quite adequate.

However, believability is stretched in a few places, specifically the age difference between Crawford and Palance. From Crawford's pure terror of one night to a resolved woman the next morning is a little difficult to swallow. The transition is too quick.

I would rather the film had done more to create mood. It depends on effect , thus diminishing some of the possible depth.

Here is a film of stereotypes-an innocent, wide-eyed lad who wants to become a jockey (Johnny Stewart); a cynical manager who is down on his luck (William Holden); an avaricious owner of horses (Ed Begley). The script is incompetent with unbelievable responses to situations, with solutions that are too easy. The direction is pedestrian and the camera work uninspired. This is typical 50s escapist fare that fails to look at the underlying problems of the leads. A great cast of character actors is wasted-Harry Morgan, Ralph Dumke, Ed Begley and Basil Ruysdael (who does the most with his role as Preacher). However, listen to this early score by Elmer Bernstein, an indication of greater soundtracks to come. The movie, however, is watchable but with no scene memorable.

Bagdad Café is an atypical feel-good film with a great deal to say about human relationships and the impact one person can have on others. The offbeat characters who have virtually no past history-and none is needed-interact naturally and wonderfully. The viewer finds out all he needs to know when it's time for him to know it. The temptation to present these individuals as misfits has been avoided; instead, this odd group is portrayed as a microcosm of society as a whole. Their ultimate transformation is effected smoothly and believably, except for a jarring `musical' sequence near the end, which appears as an attempt to tie up loose ends. Symbols abound-the magic kit functioning as a metaphor for the changes effected by Jasmin, the unlikely protagonist of this story. The boomerang suggests that what one puts forth emotionally comes back to them. Many visual clues serve to connect the `incidents'-the coffee maker, the painting in the motel room, the box of magic tricks, a finger tracing dirt on the desk in Brenda's `office'. This is a film that is better on the second and the third viewing, when the directorial skills of Percy Adlon become more evident. He achieves a remarkable non-judgmental attitude in a nearly plotless story. Marianne Sägebrecht is superb as Jasmin; Jack Palance gives a wonderful performance as a retired Hollywood set-painter whose lust for Sägebrecht constantly boils humorously below the surface. CCH Pounder, as Brenda, holds back just enough in her performance to make her transformation unquestioned and acceptable. This is not a film of sex or violence; it is, instead, a film about people we might have encountered, the nature of being human, and the pleasures of being alive.

This movie which relies on the sensational, is not very sensational. The film treats of the white slave trade with immigrant girls to this country as likely candidates for kidnapping. The interior scenes are stultifying (with cheap painted backdrops and hideous wallpaper). There is no camera movement. This static approach to efforts to wipe out the slave trade does not work. Coincidence piles upon coincidence to the point of absurdity. There are too many characters and sub-plots. The only time the film has an opportunity to breathe is during the exterior scenes, such as at the docks or on the rooftop. The film stands, however, as a good introduction to what film used to be before creative elements jelled in the industry.