Reviews

Historical drama from the production of Alexander Korda's.

A mysterious Englishman rescues noblemen from the rages of the maniacs of the French Revolution - namely from the guillotine - and brings them to safety in England. He operates under the pseudonym of "Scarlet Pimpernel" and has a whole squad of assistants and spies working for him. Nobody suspects that he is hiding behind the deliberately silly facade of aristocratic Sir Percy Blakeney (Leslie Howard) - not even Blakeney's wife (Merle Oberon), who is blackmailed by the French ambassador (Raymond Massey) to find out the true identity of the mysterious avenger.

The film begins on a promising note, highly atmospheric and exciting - the legendary studio buildings by Vincent Korda create a gorgeous and picturesque Paris. The French Revolution serves only as a pretext for the narrative and is not discussed in more detail. The good/evil split is clearly defined: English aristocrats are good, French revolutionaries evil.

For about half of its runtime, the film is interesting, a feast for the eyes and, above all, very funny. But then its narrative suddenly starts to stumble; unimportant sequences are dragged out excessively, more and more dialogue takes over the narration and the locations look increasingly poor. Finally, the showdown feels cheap and rushed.

To me, "The Scarlet Pimpernel" loses quite a portion of the good impression it made in the first half.

Wealthy Alec Walker (Cary Grant) meets widowed designer Julie Eden (Carole Lombard), they fall in love and - cut to the home of Alec, where his parents (Charles Coburn & Nella Walker) talk with his wife (Kay Francis) about Alec's absence from their party. From this moment on, we see amicable Alec in another light - and not for the last time. In the first half hour, we only can be sure about the character of Julie, all the others appear shady; then the fog clears, and a harrowing divorce drama develops. At the same time, part of the tension of the beginning is gone. The three leading actors (Lombard, Grant & Francis) carry the film over a few lengths and earth it a in a refreshing way. Although it is a heavy drama, glimpses of comedy can be detected almost through the whole film. Lombard was also a great dramatic actress, even Cary Grant's acting skills dwindle in direct comparison to her. Kay Francis on the other hand stands up to Lombard's standards. "In Name Only" is a satisfying drama which must have been ahead of it's time.

Screenplay: 8 out of 10 / Directing: 8 out of 10 / Acting: 9 out of 10

Having four directors, this early british horror film is a mixed bag; its content ranges from exceptional (Cavalcanti) to average directing (Chrichton & Hamer). The same is to say about the actors: Michael Redgrave and Mervyn Johns stand out while the rest of the cast ranges from good to... laboured. Fortunately the screenplay is consistent, as it is written as one piece; it is the strongest component of this film. The two segments in which the acting, the directing and the writing are at a level - the linking narrative with Mervyn Johns having his nightmare come true and the famous ventriloquist segment - stand out and carry "Dead of Night" over it's weak middle parts (esp. "The Mirror" and the "Golfing Story").

Screenplay: 8 out of 10 / Directing: 7 out of 10 / Acting: 7 out of 10

Clint Eastwood and his Son Kyle shine as country singer Red Stovall and his nephew Whit, crossing the country to reach Nashville's Grand Ole Opry, where Red hopes to find success during the Great Depression. It's sort of a casual road movie with lots of great stories along the way that blindsides you with it's unforgettable and intense last half hour. Clint Eastwood's acting is wonderfully subtle - and so is his singing. His son is an equally good actor - he later became a musician. This is a highly recommendable early Eastwoodian directorial work; his skills still grew in later films, but in "Hokyton Man" he's already close to perfection.

Screenplay: 9 out of 10 / Directing: 8 out of 10 / Acting: 10 out of 10

What's the point of this movie? A remake of one of the greatest classics ever produced in Hollywood, a remake that adopts the old screenplay without significant changes? It makes sense if you look at it from a theater point of view (the center of "To Be Or Not To Be" is a theater company): Why not take this film as a play that is preformed by another company? The Lubitsch troupe did a wonderful job back in 1940; now, here is another staging by the Brooks company. And they also do an wonderful job! Their production is a tad faster and gayer than the original, but the cast is outstanding as well (Charles Durnig as "Concentration Camp" Ehrhardt and Christopher Llloyd as "Schuuuulz" even manage to exceed the oriniginal actors in the first version). Only the film director (Alan Johnson) can't cope with the skills of his predecessor. So stop worrying about the "why" - just enjoy the wonderful Brooks production of the Lubitsch material!

Screenplay: 8 / 10 Directing: 7 / 10 Acting: 10 / 10

This satisfying little spy/crime movie is full of memorable characters - and they're all extremely well played by a memorable cast. The acting stands out here, and I'm sure the film would'nt have worked so well with an other cast. Lorre and Greenstreet of course steal the show, but Steven Geray, Faye Emerson, Victor Francen, Kurt Katch and - last but not least, Zachary Scott manage to cope with them. Together they form a marvelous ensemble. So never mind the sometimes lacking plausibility of the screenplay (written after an Eric Ambler novel): This is an enjoyable - and quite gripping - showcase for character acting.

Screenplay: 7 out of 10 / Directing: 8 out of 10 / Acting: 10 out of 10

The story line of this forgotten little comedy is quite good - but somehow the team managed to fabricate a disappointingly mediocre film out of it. The silliness is staged too clumsy to be really funny and the dialogues are way too uninspired and too long. There are many great supporting actors like Una Merkel, Eugene Palette or Donald Meek in this, but they all have to play rather dull characters and not one of them gets the opportunity to show his or her talent. Only Charles Butterworth stands out. His outlandishness is quiet unique - he plays it so convincingly it kept fascinating me from start to finish. No laughs here, but Butterworth is worth the ticket. PS: I always thought of Raoul Walsh as a really good director, but the failure of this film goes partly on his account; he seems to be overchallenged with comedy...

Screenplay: 2 out of 5 Directing: 2 out of 5 Acting: 3 out of 5