Author: fenrisfil

Avengers Noir

Posted on by fenrisfil

So while “Noirvember” may be over (Meaning November, the month I traditionally watch and review Film Noir I haven’t seen yet), throughout the month I’ve been feeding amusing prompts to Stable Diffusion (An AI art generator) and it seems appropriate to cap off the month by sharing these. This is basically The Avengers and related Marvel Superheroes re-imagined as if the films were being made around 1950 and done for some unknown reason as a hybrid style with Film Noir. Yes it makes no sense whatsoever, especially as most of these heroes weren’t created until the 1960’s or later, but I thought it was fun. So let’s have a look at the cast.

Humphrey Bogart as Iron Man

Th

This is an obvious choice for me. The truth is Bogart is at 5’8”, actually a bit short for Tony Stark, but it doesn’t really matter since the kind of powerful, confident performances Humphrey put out there pretty much makes people just assume he was tall. Certainly I couldn’t pick anyone else for the role as the genius businessman and inventor turned Superhero alcoholic. Bogart of course is most famous for playing “Sam Spade” in the “Maltese Falcon” (1941) and “Rick Blaine” in “Casablanca” (1942), but appeared in many Noirs likely to be seen on top 10 and top 20 lists including “The Big Sleep” (1946), “Dark Passage” (1947) and “In a Lonely place” (1950). The man is a legend and one of the most famous actors of all time.

Glenn Ford as Captain America

Glenn Ford’s most famous Film Noir roles are “Gilda” (1946) and “The Big Heat” (1953). In both he played edgy determined characters that never gave up or backed down. Seems perfect for Captain America. Ford of course actually does have Superhero pedigree, having played Jonathan Kent in “Superman” (1978) and in that film became the man that gave Superman his moral foundation. Still not convinced? Well he also signed up for military service on three separate occasions, refused promotions offered (he thought) for his fame and not service and was frustrated at being kept out of combat.

Sterling Hayden as Thor

At an impressive 6’5” Sterling Hayden has the perfect frame to play the mighty Thor. His looks are just about right too. Hayden’s has strong Noir pedigree including: “The Asphalt Jungle” (1950) “Crime Wave” (1953), “The Come On” (1956) and most famously Stanley Kubrick’s “The Killing” (1956). Of those I have to admit to only having seen the first and the last, but I’ll get to the others soon enough! Sterling was also in the running for my Captain America, but I figured it wouldn’t make sense to cast someone as Cap in 1950 that had been a member of the Communist party (Albeit briefly).

Rita Hayworth as Black Widow

Naturally hair colour isn’t that obvious when it comes to black and white, but there are still a few actresses from the genre famous for their red hair and I wanted one of them for Black Widow. Lucille Ball dabbled in Film Noir with 1946’s “The Dark Corner” (1946), but as great as she is there really is only one actress that for the role, Gilda herself, Rita Hayworth. You can see the AI decided to give her red hair in one of the picture regardless of being in black and white and it looks great. Along with “Gilda” (1946) she was also in the Orson Welles’ classic “The Lady from Shanghai” (1947) and “Affair in Trinidad” (1952). If you don’t like the choice, put the blame on mame.

Edward G. Robinson as The Incredible Hulk

I wanted Edward G to factor in somewhere along the line and I thought it’d a fun choice for the Hulk so here we are. Although more famous for his gangster movies of the 1930’s (Especially “Little Caesar” (1931)), Robinson appeared in quite a few Film Noirs, including one of my personal favourites “Scarlett Street” (1945). He also appeared opposite Orson Welles in “The Stranger” (1956) and had a supporting role in one of the most famous Noirs of all time (Indeed number one on many lists), “Double Indemnity” (1944). Robinson often plays intelligent vulnerable men with a dark burden and aggressive angry men out to prove themselves. Works pretty well in the role for me

Dana Andrews as Hawkeye

Dana’s most famous Noir is “Laura” (1944), but he appeared in several including “Fallen Angel” (1945) and “Where the Sidewalk Ends” (1950). On top of that he was the protagonist in the Horror classic “Night of the Demon” (1957) and played Lt. Ted Stryker in the movie “Zero Hour!” (1957), a mostly forgotten movie outside the fact it was remade into a comedy in 1980, that comedy would be called “Airplane!”. Yes, he was the original Stryker. Andrews definitely deserves a spot on the team. Hawkeye is as good as any.

James Cagney as Nick Fury

Art AI’s can’t do eyepatches to save their uh… programming. But anyway when casting Nick Fury (The original Nick Fury, not the “Ultimate” version, who was basically always Sam Jackson even before the movies), I wanted a veteran that would be a bit older than the rest of the cast and play the elder statesman. Cagney is perfect. Not only is he one of the greatest on screen badasses in movie history he managed to find his way into a couple of Film Noirs late in his career. The fantastic “Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye” (1950) and the absolute classic “White Heat” (1949). It’s a shame the AI couldn’t do the picture any better, but you try getting one to draw an eye patch on someone!

Harry Belafonte as Falcon

The truth is there isn’t a huge amount of choice for black Film Noir stars, but there are a couple of really good ones . The first is Harry Belafonte, primarily a musician but also a pretty good actor. He starred in and produced the Film Noir classic “Odds Against Tomorrow” (1959) and the often overlooked post apocalyptic drama “The World, the Flesh and the Devil” (1959). Outside of his music and acting careers Belafonte was an important member of the civil rights movement, making him the perfect person for Falcon. I have no idea why the AI drew a rocket ship on that last picture, but I still like the picture.

Lauren Bacall as The Scarlet Witch

I decided not to go with a natural red head for Scarlet Witch as I really wanted to get a role for Lauren Bacall and I figured she’d look good dressed as Wanda. The AI generated pictures seem to agree so I feel it was a good move. Lauren of course is most famous for her work with Humphrey Bogart (So I should probably have cast her as Pepper Potts, but I needed a Wanda), including the classics “To Have and to Have Not” (1944), “The Big Sleep” (1946) and “Dark Passage” (1947).

Orson Welles as THANOS

Could it be anybody else? Orson Welles is perhaps the ultimate movie villain actor. This is why when casting the voice of “Unicron” in “Transformers the Movie” (1986) there was only ever one choice. But his villains in Film Noir include “Professor Charles Rankin” in “The Stranger” (1946), the legendary “Harry Lime” in “The Third Man” (1949) and “Captain Hank Quinlan” in “Touch of Evil” (1958). Three of the most memorable villains in the genre. So Naturally only he could be Thanos and it helps that he sort of has the right look for the character too. These pictures sort of show degrees of morph between Thanos and Welles but they all look cool.

Sidney Poitier as Black Panther

This is another obvious one. cis a legend whose most famous film is the neo-noir “In the Heat of the Night” from 1967. However, he was actually in a couple of proper Film Noirs (i.e. ones between 1940-1959) too, ” No Way Out” (1950) and “Edge of the City” (1957). While not the first black actor in Hollywood to lead a mainstream movie (That would be Sam Lucas way back in 1914) he was arguably the first to become a true movie star. For decades he was the symbol of what could be achieved by a talented and determined black actor and he inspired generations of actors that followed in his footsteps. Oh and he wasn’t just dealing with racial prejudice, in an era ruled by musicals he couldn’t sing due to being tone deaf.

Barbara Stanwyck as The Wasp

You can’t do Film Noir casting without having Barbara Stanwyck involved somewhere. I haven’t actually cast Ant Man (Maybe if I do a part two some time), but back in the 80’s when I was regularly reading Marvel comics I preferred The Wasp anyway. Barbara is most famous for being the most famous of all femme fatale in “Double Indemnity” (1944), but she has appeared in a large number of Film Noirs including: “The Strange Love of Martha Ivers” (1946), “The Two Mrs. Carrolls” (1947), “Sorry, Wrong Number” (1948), “The File on Thelma Jordon” (1949), “Clash by Night” (1952) and “Witness to Murder” (1954). If there is a Queen of Noir it is Barbara Stanwyck. I think part of what made her so great was her ability to play broken and flawed women and if you know the comics, you know that does somewhat resemble The Wasp.

Robert Mitchum as Doctor Strange

Another actor that I simply had to include is Robert Mitchum, but it helped that he actually looks perfect for the part of Doctor Strange. At 6’1” he is no Asgardian but tall enough to look imposing and Mitchum’s intense features and world weary eyes really make me thinks of the Sorcerer Supreme (Which will always be Doctor Strange as far as I’m concerned). Mitchum’s biggest Noir roles are “Out of the Past” (1947) and “Night of the Hunter” (1955), but he appeared in a huge number including: “Crossfire” (1947), The Big Steal (1949), Where Danger Lives (1950), The Racket (1951), Macao (1952) and Angel Face (1952). He also took on the mantle of Phillip Marlowe in the 1970’s with “Farwell My Lovely” (1975) and “The Big Sleep” (1978).

Peter Lorre as Loki

Peter Lorre is another legendary Film Noir actor and I couldn’t help but feel he would actually be perfect as Loki (At least if you ignore that he is 5’3”). If anyone was born to play a trickster god it is probably Lorre. The AI seemed to agree because it did a great job with him. Peter’s first villainous role of note was in a sort of Proto-Noir, the Fritz Lang masterpiece “M” (1931), but he went on to appear in what many consider the first official Noir “Stranger on the Third Floor” (1940) and followed that up with the “The Maltese Falcon” (1941) and “Casablanca” (1942) along with a several more Noirs over the next decade. On top of this, he is in one of my favourite comedies of all time “Arsenic and Old Lace” (1944).

Sydney Greenstreet as Odin

After I cast Peter Lorre as Loki really it was no decision at all to cast Sydney Greenstreet as Odin. Though I have to admit he also looks a bit like Prince Vultan from Flash Gordon here, but I’m happy with it. Sydney of course appeared alongside Humphrey Bogart and Peter Lorre in The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca. After the success of those movies the studio naturally tried to pair as many of them together again as possible and so Sydney went on to do “The Mask of Dimitrious” (1944) and “Three Strangers” (1946) with Lorre and “Conflict” (1945) with Bogart.

Robert Ryan as Red Skull.

Another Film Noir regular, though he played a mixture of protagonist and antagonist I thought he would make a good Red Skull. I’m not sure if these pictures are still recognisable as Ryan but they do look pretty cool. Ryan’s noirs include: Crossfire (1947), “The Set Up” (1949), Clash By Night (1952), and “Odds Against Tomorrow” (1959). His characters were often brash, bitter and aggressive. Not the perfect fit for Red Skull but it’ll do.

Richard Conte as The Kingpin

I really wanted to throw another villain into the mix and one that made a lot of sense to me is Richard Conte as The Kingpin. Conte has played several evil mob bosses over the years perhaps more famously in “The Godfather” (1972) as Don Corleone’s rival, Barzini. But he also played crime bosses in the Film Noir’s “Cry of the City” and “The Big Combo” (1955). All of which make him the perfect pick for this role. His other Noir’s include “Somewhere in the Night” (1946) and “The Sleeping City” (1950), “The Blue Gardenia” (1953), “The Big Tip off” (1955).

John Garfield as Spider-Man

Last but not least, I had to add a Spider-Man. Even though he is my favourite superhero, he wasn’t my focus for this little exercise in AI creativity. However I felt that John Garfield would be a good pick (especially given he shares a surname with an actual Spider-Man actor). Garfield was an actor famous for playing brooding, rebellious, working-class characters. Not that Spidey is really a brooder, but can be pretty rebellious and is definitely working-class. His roles in Film Noir include “The Postman Always Rings Twice” (1946), “Body and Soul” (1947), “Force of Evil” (1948) and “Jigsaw” (1949).

Marvel Noir movie poster, apparently for a new hero called “Marnorr”.

That’s All Folks

I hope this was an amusing bit of randomness for you. I figure whether you enjoy Film Noir, AI Art or Marvel Superheroes there is something here to amuse you. I didn’t originally intend to make this a post, but after generating so many imagines I thought it would be nice to share

Raw Deal (1948)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For today’s Film Noir review I’m going for 1948’s “Raw Deal”. A movie that is about as Film Noir as the genre gets. It’s not a greatest hits though like “The Big Combo”, this is more about the story and the characters. But we’ll get into that. The movie is public domain now so can be found at the Internet Archive and various other websites. It’s also on Amazon.

The movie is directed by Anthony Mann, who directed T-Men a year previous in 1947. Mann has directed several Noirs, but the only other one i’ve seen is T-Men (and I liked it). The movie is written by Leopold Atlas and John C. Higgins (Higgins having also worked on T-Men) and stars Dennis O’Keefe, Claire Trevor and Marsha Hunt. O’Keefe was a Film Noir regular and the lead in T-Men. Claire Trevor was also a regular to the genre having appeared in the likes of “Murder My Sweet” (1944) and “Key Largo” (1948). The film also features a key role for Perry Mason/Ironside star Raymond Burr in one of his earliest appearances.

I Want To Breath.

The movie starts with Joe Sullivan (O’Keefe) in prison having taken the fall for some unspecified crime. He is visited first by his good intentioned legal caseworker Anne (Hunt) and then by his girlfriend Pat (Trevor), who quietly informs him of the plans to bust him out, supposedly assisted by his partner in crime Rick Coyle (Raymond Burr) who had promised him $5000 as his share for taking the fall for the crime. Rick however doesn’t expect him to escape and is hedging his bets on him getting gunned down.

Joe does escape however and decides to hide out with Pat at Anne’s apartment before heading out of town and to his meet up with Coyle and to his eventual escape from America via boat. Unfortunately for him though Coyle has no play of paying up and instead plans to send his henchmen to kill him. Through all this Anne, initially kidnapped by the pair starts to fall for Joe. Pat notices this and reacts bitterly, though when Annes life is threatened by the gangsters she must decide if she loves Joe enough to tell him about the situation or have it forever on her conscience and never know if he truly loves her.

This Is What He Wanted.

This is a traditional film noir with tragic characters and an air of fatalism. Joe was a good person once, but allowed himself to be broken down by life and found himself in a life of crime. But even as a criminal he he was willing to take the fall for others, true there was meant to be money in it for him but that is upstanding for a criminal. However, he yearns for freedom and this likely reflects the attitude that lead him to a life of crime in the first place. Feeling trapped where he was and not able to get ahead. But the loyalty he showed Coyle was repaid with treachery and violence. Such is the fate of criminals in the 1940’s. On a side note, Raymond Burr is a real scene stealer in this movie, it’s a shame his appearances are all so brief.

Claire Trevor’s Pat is a tragic character too and this is presented to us mostly through her voice overs, which are admittedly a little strange mostly due to the use of a Theremin whenever she does it. I am probably too used to the instrument being used in horror and science fiction so it makes her narrative sound a little otherworldly. However her words are one of a woman that is desperately in love but seems to know deep down, even from the start that it will never really work out. When faced with her final choice of going away with Joe and living a lie or admitting the truth and probably sending him to his death she opts for the later. Not an easy decision, but her final voice over suggests she felt it was always going to end this way.

RAW DEAL, Dennis O’Keefe, Claire Trevor, 1948

I Never Asked For Anything Safe.

Anne is a bit of a strange character. From the start she sees the good in Joe and it is why she was so keen to work on his case. Throughout the film she moralises about the situation and admonishes Joe for taking the short cut of crime instead of being brave enough to go straight. But despite her complaints she comes to Joe’s rescue when the assassins pull their trap and she then confesses to Joe that she loves him.

Having been kidnapped by him earlier it’s not the best part of the story, suggesting a bit of Stockholm syndrome and perhaps a bit of a silly crush she had before she even got to know him. But she is there because Joe needed someone good to believe in him. Pat by contrast was an enabler for his life of crime and was never going to stand in his way. Indeed, she couldn’t even do it to save his life.

Life Begins With 50G’s

The plot itself moves rapidly and doesn’t waste much time filling in the blanks, like you never find what exactly it is that Joe did, instead we move frantically from location to location with the group nearly being caught at each one to keep the tension up. One key moment involves another man fleeing the police and coming to the same hideout that Joe is at. Joe takes pity on him but ultimately he gets gunned down in front of the house. This doesn’t drive on the story so much as it does the characters and of course teases Joe being captured to keep tension high.

That tension basically drives the entire movie. On one side you have the police trying to capture Joe and on the other the criminal gang that helped break him out, planning to kill him to avoid paying him his cut. The audience knows right away that he will be betrayed so we spend the whole movie waiting for Joe to meet his end at the hands of one group or another and that is about as Film Noir as you can get. Eventually Joe finds an amount of redemption before meeting his end which is about as happy an ending as he was ever going to get (Partially because of the genre, but also of course the Hays code).

Conclusion

The movie has suffered visually and socially due to deterioration of film. It’s worth noting the movie is public domain and while that means it’s easy to find a copy to watch it also means no one has really invested much time over preservation or restoration. Sadly this is quite common with Film Noir, especially for ones from the 1940’s. Still, it’s not as degraded as “The Red House” was and it’s not too difficult to see things in the darker scenes. That’s good because the film features a lot of classic Noir light and shadows, pretty typical lighting and cinematography for the genre, though with the odd flurry of creativity. Some parts work, some not so much.

Overall this is an above average Noir. Quality wise it’s not in the conversation for “best”, but it may be for quintessential. Thematically, there aren’t many movies that nail the genre so perfectly. It’s not a greatest hits like “The Big Combo”, it’s more of a template. If it wasn’t for the degraded film quality this would be a great genre primer. As it is, it’s probably not a good choice for a first noir but it’s definitely worth checking out. This just about hits 6.5/10. Had the audio/video quality not deteriorated this would be a 7, but as always I have to rate for what it is now, not what it may have been back in the day.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

The Enforcer (1951)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Today’s review is the 1951 Humphrey Bogart movie “The Enforcer” also know as “Murder Inc.” in the UK and based off the real life Murder Inc that committed around 400 murders between 1929 and 1940. A Bogart movie I haven’t seen before is a rarity in itself, but a Film Noir with Bogart in I haven’t seen is pretty much unheard of. Yet here we are. So let’s dig in!

The movie was directed by Bretaigne Windust and Raoul Walsh, not as one unit though, the movie was Windust’s but after he fell ill Walsh was brought in to finish the movie. Walsh refused to take credit, but still a good portion of the film was his work. It was written by Martin Rackin. The supporting cast includes Ted de Corsia and Everett Sloane (Both appeared in “Lady From Shanghai”) and Noir regular Roy Roberts (“He Walked By Night”, “Force of Evil”). It was Bogarts last movie for Warner.

Death of a Witness.

The story begins with a close escort and guard of Joseph Rico (de Corsia) a star witness on a trial that is due to start the following morning. The witness is scared though and after an assassination attempt, tries to escape from the precinct only to fall to his death. As the only witness to the case, District Attorney Martin Ferguson (Bogart) is left with no choice but to spend the night going over all the case notes to try and see if he can find something he has missed that may lead to a second witness or some other piece of evidence.

What follows is a series of flashbacks following the police investigation and the story of the gangsters as they come into contact with the police and Ferguson. It follows them unravelling an organisation created to sell murder, taking out “Contracts” on “Hits”. Eventually leading them to the ringlead Albert Mendoza (Sloane) and the original assassination, the only he carried out himself. There was something they missed though, something that can change the entire case when they figure it out, if they figure it out before the villains….

Cops and Killers.

This is very much a film whose strength is in the plot and not characters. While Bogart’s performance is top notch I’d be hard pressed to tell you much about his characters personality outside of “determined to get his man”. While he is the lead, he actually has very little screen time since the majority of the story is told via flashbacks where his character is not present. As a result it’s sort of a selection of short stories where a selection of criminals basically get centre stage.

Fortunately they aren’t just two dimensional hoods, but none of them especially stands out. The best of the bunch is Ted de Corsia’s “Rico”, who due to the way much of the narrative works in reverse chronological order, goes from terrified coward, to cold blooded mob boss and then street level thug. The films real antagonist though, Sloane’s “Mendoza” is unseen for the vast majority of the movie.

Right From That First Crazy Day

The plot though is interesting and unique in how it unravels the mystery. The majority of the story is told in flashbacks, bookended by fairly action heavy sequences involving the two key witnesses. We start out at one point in time, near the end of the story, but after they lose their witness and start going through the police files we see a police investigation from the start through to the current time. However, that investigation unravels the story of criminal events (Though witness statements) from the end, back towards the start. The final reveal being how the whole thing started off and what ultimately the investigation is all about. Effectively there are two timelines, the police and the criminals, one going forwards and the other going back.

Of course flashbacks are heavily utilised in the Film Nori genre with many of the most famous Film Noir’s being almost entirely flashbacks (Occasionally narrated by a dead guy), so it’s not unusual, but effectively having flashbacks within flashbacks is a little different. One of the nice touches is because they go out of their way to not show you Mendoza during the opening, so between that and the slow unravelling the audience is very much in the same position as the cops and the clue to bringing down Mendoza is there for all to see but small enough that most won’t. It’s well played out.

Everything But Himself.

Visually the film has it’s moments, such as Rico’s foolish attempt to climb a ledge of a building. But mostly the high pace and relatively short length of the movie gives little time to really indulge in that aspect of noir. Really it’s not surprising some critics don’t even consider this movie a Noir, but I would argue that as the film is built largely around flashbacks of people revealing the story of their own undoing it is very much a noir, even with the police framework. The police, even Bogart’s D.A. Ferguson are barely characters in this, they are just a narrative device to tell the story of the criminals self destruction. So it works for me.

Conclusion

Overall the film is solid and has a great plot, but lacks interesting characters and provides little in the audio/visual department that I found memorable. Bogart does a good job but has nothing to work with, making this one of his least interesting performances and not quite enough to raise the movie to the upper tier of Noir. I do like that plot though, it’s interesting both narratively and for the subject matter (Loosely based on the real life Murder Inc.). So with that in mind I’m giving this a narrow 6.5/10.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

The Big Combo (1955)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Today I’m reviewing a movie that I should really have watched years ago, “The Big Combo” from 1955. If you’ve ever found yourself googling “Film Noir” (especially images), you have definitely come across some of the films visuals. Indeed quite often if you see a heading that says “Film Noir” in some kind of article or book on the genre the cover picture is probably from this film. So that should give you a clue as to why the film is famous: It is perhaps the movie most heavily packed with classic Film Noir imagery and tropes. But since it came quite late in the era it’s not like it can claim to have invented any of that imagery. It just really indulged in it. It’s sort of a greatest hits.

The Men Behind The Movie

The movie is directed by Joseph H. Lewis, a director renowned for making the most of a minimal budget (We’ll get back to that) and the writing credit went to Philip Yordan, who possibly didn’t actually write it since he often had his work ghost-written by blacklisted writers at the time (Ben Maddow in particular). John Alton provided the cinematography and since this is a very visual film he deserves recognition for his part.

Cornel Wilde (“High Sierra”) stars, along with his wife Jean Wallace (“Jigsaw”) and Richard Conte (“The Godfather”), who stepped in at the last minute in the villain role to replace Jack Palance (Who quit because they wouldn’t give a role to his wife). Notable support includes Brian Donlevy (“The Glass Key”), Robert Middleton (“The Desperate Hours”) and Lee Van Cleef (“The Good, The Bad & The Ugly”).

The Set Up

The story follows Police Lt. Leonard Diamond (Wilde) on his personal crusade to bring down the sadistic gangster Mr. Brown (Conte). Diamond is also somewhat obsessed with Brown’s girlfriend Susan (Wallace). He claims he thinks she is the key to bringing him down but Police Capt. Peterson (Middleton) thinks he is secretly in love with her. After Susan attempts suicide she inadvertently gives Diamond a lead in the form of the name “Alicia”, which leads Diamond to pursue Browns biggest secret: What happened to his missing wife and to the crime boss he took over from?

So the first thing to note about this movie is that it was clearly made on a very tight budget, but as is often the case this just brings out the creativity in the truly talent director and this is Joe Lewis’ specialty. Indeed the movie was originally meant to be a higher budget job but after funding dried up they sought out Lewis to make it work. The vast majority of scenes are done in a single take, with a single lighting source.

The Aesthetics

On occasion though it is all too obvious they are on a sound stage, but those moments don’t last long enough to take you out of the movie. The best example of the film at it’s best and worst is in the opening scene where a brilliant chase through a series of creatively lit hallways and alleys is capped off by a static shot that is clearly on a sound stage. On the whole the film looks great.

There is a very strong focus on lighting and I have no doubt that when I talked about Film Noir influences on Blade Runner in my deep dive this was one of the movies that had a direct influence. It is a masterclass. The composition of each shoot is excellent too, with a great use of objects in the foreground such as brewing coffee in one scene and a lamp (which was also the light source of course) in another. He even throws old wagon into the background of a shot in the airport, perhaps as an in joke on the directors use of Wagon wheels in his 40’s Westerns, whenever he thought the shots looked too boring.

The Characters

As far as the characters go Conte’s Mr. Brown is the clear stand out. He gets the best lines of the movie and is the more interesting of his yin and yang pair with Cornel Wilde’s Lt. Diamond. Brown is evil for sure, ambitious and cold hearted, but he’s also charming and knows how to please a woman. Diamond however, despite being the virtuous hero, severely lacks in charm and is often somewhat callous towards the women in the movie. While it is suggested he is in love with Brown’s girl, Susan he is clearly more motivated with nail brown than protecting her. Wilde shared producer credits on the movie so had a degree of creative control and yet it is Conte’s performance that stands out. Some people just make great villains and he would play memorable ones several times in his career.

Amongst the rest of the characters, the most interesting is the fallen criminal Joe McClure, humiliated by Mr. Brown and forced to work for him, pretty much has his own story arc (Which naturally ends badly) and while Brian Donlevy plays the role well I suspect the reason for elevating the character was so they could make use of his deafness and use of a hearing aid. When we are introduced to him, we see Joe talk loudly into it to humiliate him, but later when they kidnap Diamond it is used as a full on torture device on the lieutenant, complete with a jazz drum solo on a nearby radio. Then finally when McClure is betrayed and faces death, we get to experience that in complete silence.

The Plot

The plot is a bit of a mixed bag. The scenes are strong but there tends to be a lot of conveniences to move the plot on (Such as Mr. Brown responding to the word “Spaghetti” in a lie detector word association test by blurting out the name of a retired gangster that was key to the case). Most of it works though and some of those scenes are very good. Such as the torture scene with the hearing aid, which was one they clearly spent a lot of time over (Definitely not a single take on that one).

The slow unravelling of the mystery works well and proceeds at a constant pace giving plenty of time for character moments and of course visuals. The mystery itself isn’t especially clever but it does it’s job. This is a movie of visuals first, characters second and last of all plot. But it’s coherent and well paced so I’m not complaining. There is a certain edginess to a lot of this movie though and it’s clear they were pushing just how much they could get past the censors. Remember this was a good 10 years before the Hays code was scrapped, so that torture scene was controversial.

Tropes And Controversy

Perhaps more controversial though was a scene earlier between Conte and Wallace which may be first on screen suggestion of cunnilingus, very skilfully implied without actually giving the censors anything to censor. I wonder if perhaps directors doing things like that made such a mockery of the code they decided it was time to just scrap it anyway. Certainly the film has many things they wouldn’t have gotten away with in a 1940’s Noir. Another example that seems to have slipped past most people in the day was the fact that Mr. Browns two henchmen (Played by Lee Van Cleef and Earl Holliman) were blatantly a gay couple.

While presenting an A to Z of Noir tropes and visuals in 1955 wasn’t exactly the most original or inspired piece of work it can’t be argued that it has in many ways become a near perfect example of the genre. If I was to recommend a movie to someone as a genre primer, this would be it and the closing shot of the film with the male and female lead silhouetted on their walk from the airport in the fog is perhaps the most famous visual in the whole genre due it’s overuse in pretty much every article about the genre. If you go and do a google image search right now for “Film Noir” it’ll probably be the first picture you get.

Conclusion.

Is it the best Film Noir? No, not by a long way. But it is probably top 20. There is a suggestion that the producers may have meddled with the film after most of it was film, most specifically Wilde may have felt outperformed by Conte, since much of the apparently added footage involves closeups of Wilde. Many of these worked against the feel of the film and it’s visual style so it’s a shame if true. Outside the great visuals Conte’s performance is the most notable thing about the film and it is probably why he was the original front runner to play Don Corleone in The Godfather. Obviously that changed when Marlon Brando came on board, so he ended up playing Corleone’s rival instead.

Ultimately, this is a great Noir. One of the best looking and Conte is one of the best villains of the genre. The movie’s occasional slip both visually (badly covered up sound stages and awkwardly inserted closeups) and plot wise (Those conveniences) count against it a bit as does the fact the protagonist is far less compelling than the antagonist and so much of it could have been taken directly from earlier movies. However, this still get’s high marks from me. This is a strong 7.5/10.

Rating: 7.5 out of 10.

Clash By Night (1952)

Posted on by fenrisfil

When looking to choose a Film Noir to review there is always a good chance that I’ll be drawn to a Fritz Lang movie (Since he directed one of my favourite Noirs “The Big Heat”). When you throw in the Queen of Noir herself, Barbra Stanwyck as the lead it’s pretty much a sure thing and so “Clash by Night” largely picked itself. The supporting cast is pretty strong too featuring Noir regulars Robert Ryan (The Set Up, Odds Against Tomorrow) and Marilyn Monroe (Asphalt Jungle, Niagra). The main cast is capped off with Paul Douglas and Keith Andes. The movie is written by Alfred Hayes based on a 1941 stage play by Clifford Odets.

More Fish In The Sea.

The story is set around the fishing town of Monterey, California and the follows Mae Doyle (Stanwyck) who has just returned to town after the man she was involved with died. The man was already married and his wife and family made sure she didn’t get the money that he had willed to her. Someone bitter and cynical now she returns to her family home to meet her brother Joe (Andes). Joe works on a fishing boat owned by Jerry (Douglas) and is in love with a cannery worker called Peggy (Monroe). Joe is worried about mae’s bad attitude rubbing off on Peggy and so tries to set her up with good natured Jerry.

Mae enjoys her time with Jerry but is at first resistant to going further, feeling like she is not destined for love. She also meets his friend Earl (Ryan). Earl is in an unhappy marriage and is just as bitter and cynical as Mae. For Mae she immediately dislikes him perhaps seeing stuff she dislikes in herself in him, but Earl just sees a kindred spirit and makes at pass at her. Somewhat disturbed by this Mae decides she needs to change and make a go at a safe loving relationship and agrees to marry Jerry. years later she has a child with Jerry, but she finds herself unhappy and restless and drawn to Earl (Who is now divorced).

Dramatic Tension.

As you can see from the synopsis this is very much a drama based Noir. Not unheard of in the genre or outside my experience as I’ve seen the likes of “The Lost Weekend” and “Mildred Pierce”, but it is unusual. It is a character study more than anything else and unlike most noirs has no body count. This isn’t what I expected from Fritz Lang who is generally known for making more edgy noirs. Many of the characters though are very much Lang characters. Moody, aggressive and feeling like they may snap at any moment. This puts an edge onto what is basically a romantic drama. Though really it’s more of an anti-romantic drama. A story about relationships with a gritty realism to it that tells the viewer, sometimes you have to just be grateful for what you have.

The movie if formatted into two main parts with a time jump in between. Though the story of both is somewhat similar. Effectively starting with Mae worn down, having a moment of doubt and then deciding to opt for stability, the difference between the two is the second half plays out in a far more heated fashion since that doubt manifests into an affair and then the fallout of it being discovered. On the surface it’s not a great plot, but between Stanwyck’s performance and Lang’s directing it still works.

Queen Of Noir.

Stanwyck’s portrayal of the flawed Mae Doyle gives the character a vital likeability. Her cynicism and tendency towards self destruction ultimately comes from a place of self loathing. It’s a complex emotional situation that could be lost with a less capable actress but with Stanwyck you can see her fighting with herself internally and that struggles has you sympathise with her even though she’s stringing along a good man, sleeping with his friend and threatening to take his child. Deep inside Mae wanted to be loved, she just didn’t feel she deserved it. Along with her inner conflict Stanwyck brings fierce independence and a sharp wit to the role that gives her character charm even at her most cynical. By the end of the story though she realises Jerry was what she was looking for all along.

Masculine Aggression.

This isn’t just down to Stanwyck though a lot of this is Fritz Lang’s speciality too. Many of his characters are deeply flawed but have redeemable traits. Obviously Mae fits that description, but so too does her brother Joe. Who is really portrayed as both the best and worst of the hyper-masculine male. On one hand he is sometimes rough with Peggy, even teasing hitting her and makes light of her story about another worker at the cannery that was hit by her boyfriend. On the other hand though he is fiercely loyal and dependable, tells Peggy to leave him unless she can commit for the long term. He also does his best to support Mae even though he clearly doesn’t approve of her actions.

Joe would likely not go down well with modern audiences. But there are also elements of Mae’s personality that may not go down to well. It is a little ambiguous at the end whether it is Jerry’s forgiveness that leads to her wanting to give it another go or the fact that he tried to strangle Earl. Up until that point Jerry had been the “safe” man, perhaps seeming weak. But while he was disgusted with the fact he committed an act of violence, perhaps him finding a touch of inner darkness allowed Mae to find her inner light. There’s certainly a lot of criticism that could be put to these flawed characters, but it does make them seem more genuine.

The Saint and Sinner.

Jerry and Earl on the other hand are perhaps a little bit too simplified, though this is likely deliberate as they effectively represent the two conflicting parts of Mae’s personality. Jerry represents safety and security and is generally optimistic if lacking confidence, while Earl represents aggression, selfishness and pessimism. Really it doesn’t make any sense the two are friends, except that Jerry pretty much refuses to see bad in people.

These archetypes are pushed to the extreme with Jerry being disgusted with himself for even laying his hands on Earl out of anger and making a point to kick out his drunk lodger from his house for use of pornographic photos in his bedroom. Earl meanwhile largely forces himself on Mae, makes racist impressions, regularly gets pass out drunk and rarely has anything nice to say about anyone. He is truly the opposite of Jerry.

Light and Shadows.

Given the movie is based on a drama play you’d probably not be expecting too much in the way of interesting visuals in this one, however Fritz Lang is not one to disappoint and as a result pretty much every scene is framed in visually interesting ways, with good use of shadows and in several scenes water. In addition the opening scene introducing us to a day in the life of this fishing village and the workings of it’s factory remind me a little bit of the opening to “Sweet Smell of Success” and the more modern movie “Lord of War”, though it’s true fish is a lot less interesting than newspapers or bullets, but it’s still a great visual opener.

Conclusion

Overall, while the plot is simple, repetitive and not especially exciting in itself, Stanwyk’s portrayal of Mae raised the story up enough to keep my interest and the aggressive style of Lang’s directing provides far more tension to the events than is probably warranted. It has an air of authenticity to it that made it easy to ignore the weaker elements. The movie has not aged especially well though and I can see modern audiences not liking it at all. Not a huge problem for me though, so I’m giving it a 6.5/10.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

The Red House (1947)

Posted on by fenrisfil

So, we’re a week into November. I’ve had my post-October break, but my fingers are itchy to get to a new review done, so it’s time to start the Noirvember season! I’ve decided that moving forward I’m going to only give a brief synopsis instead of full plot. This way it’s easier to avoid spoilers, should keep my reviews under 1000 words and you can find the full plot on Wikipedia anyway, so you can always check their if interested.

For my first movie found the perfect transition from Horror to Noir by finding a film that shares aspects of both. This is “The Red House” from 1947. The horror aspects aren’t strong enough to justify it as a horror, but it’s pretty close to that line and by being there it moves to the fringes of what counts as Noir too. Interestingly Wikipedia has declared it a horror, but IMDB lists it as Drama/Film-Noir/Mystery with no mention of horror. Having seen it now I’m going to say IMDB was closer there but it shows how it’s not clear cut.

There’s A Red House Over Yonder.

The movie is written and directed by Delmer Daves, who also directed the Bogart/Bacall classic “Dark Passage” that same year (1947) along with the classic western “3:10 to Yuma” (Which is marginally better than the surprisingly good remake). He also wrote the screenplay for “The Petrified Forest” way back in 1936, which is one of my favourite movies of that decade. The movie is based on the novel by George Agnew Chamberlain and stars Lon McCallister in a very typical role for him (Good natured country boy) along with Allene Roberts and the legend and Film Noir regular Edward G. Robinson.

The story revolves around Nath (McCallister) who is helping out at a local farm thanks to his friend Meg (Roberts). The farm is owned by Meg’s adopted father Pete Morgan (Robinson). Pete warns Nath not to go near a certain area of the forest on his land, but he and Meg become curious about it and so keep looking for this mysterious “Red House” that is meant to be there. As they get closer, Pete becomes more unstable and the petty criminal he hired to keep people off his land becomes more aggressive to those trespassers. Ultimately the secret of the red house will be revealed and the lives of all involved will not be the same.

The Tell-Tale Heart.

Performance wise Robinson unsurprisingly steals the show. While he is more famous for his roles in Gangster movies, the Noir era gave him a chance to explore more complex characters with a bit more vulnerability. His role here is pivotal and it is his character and his internal that makes the movie a Film Noir. Like many of the genre the story is really about how dark secrets of your past eventually catch up to and sometimes destroy you. It’s one of those elements that instead of fighting against the Hays code, embraces it. Crime does not pay, but Noir is often based around a characters attempts to delay their inevitable fate.

Pete Morgan has carried his secret with him since Meg was a child, but not just in his tainted soul but in a very physical form. He could have destroyed The Red House and with it all evidence of his crimes, but instead he left it there as a constant reminder and he must have known one day his secret would come to the surface. The truth is there is a definite Streisand effect here. Should someone stumble upon the house it wouldn’t mean anything to them, but his determination to keep people away from it naturally made them curious. Pete’s mental stability weakening every step along the way, with him slipping and calling Meg “Genie” (Her mothers name) several times. When Meg finally stumbles upon the place she found it strangely familiar. Ultimately Pete ends up confessing his crime.

Bad Prints and Good Natures.

The problem is that Pete is not the movies lead. Really it is a joint lead of Nath and Meg, but they are fairly straight forward good natured country girl/boy archetypes. Not characters that really lend themselves to film noir. Though Nath initially being in a relationship with Tibby does give his story a mild Noir twist since she is very much the type of woman that would lead a man onto the wrong path, though ultimately that doesn’t happen and instead she gets herself get in to more trouble than she bargained for with her infatuation with outlaw Teller. Nath and Meg are basically the outsiders in this dark world, which is really where the film starts to bend towards Horror, but only a little as there is no intentional malice with all this.

Another thing to note with this movie is the poor quality of the physical film print. Although most of the 1940’s Film Noirs I’ve seen have been well preserved and and pretty high quality every now and then you come across a movie that has obvious seen significant degradation. Sometimes it doesn’t impact the movie experience, but this movie has a lot of scenes that you can barely see anything in between the lighting and the film degradation. The trouble is I have to judge it on the film as it is now, because it’s not like you can hop in a time machine and go and watch this back in the day.

Conclusion

This would have been a much better movie had it focused more on Robinson’s Pete Morgan and less on Nath and Meg. This is basically a tell tale heart story and for that kind of thing you really want to focus on the person hearing the knocking (or in this case screaming). Not to mention, this is Edward G Robinson we’re talking about and he had top billing anyway, so it seems a missed opportunity. The story is interesting though so between that and Robinson’s performance it just about hits a 6/10.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Halloween And What Comes Next!

Posted on by fenrisfil

I hope those of you that came by over October for my review challenge enjoyed my reviews and maybe found some films to check out (or avoid). As the month went on I found myself writing more and more and while I really needed a break by the end it’s been a strange few days not writing anything. Fun fact, I did the review challenge last year too, I just didn’t have the blog then so it was straight to Facebook and Minds. But I got such a positive reaction and enjoyed it so much it is the reason I started the blog. A few of those reviews have been retrospectively added to the site, but not all as the Facebook reviews were far shorter and only had the one picture.

My Halloween Viewing.

Much like I did last year, the movie I reviewed on Halloween I actually watched the day before and on Halloween itself I treated myself to a triple bill. Last year it was Nightmare on Elm Street 3, Friday the 13th part 6 and Halloween II. Three of the best Slasher sequels you will come across. This year though I went in a different direction. Not sure there really is a theme outside of just being great horror movies (and short enough to make a good triple bill). While I’m not doing reviews I am going to say a little about each one.

Return Of The Living Dead (1985)

The Return of the Living Dead, is the ground breaking “Zomedy” written and directed by the great Dan O’Bannon (Writer of Alien, Dark Star and the comic book that greatly inspired Blade Runner, see part 2 of my Blade Runner Deep Dive on that one). At some point I may have to do a deep dive just on Dan, simply because he just doesn’t get enough credit for his creative input to a number of classics.

Return was one of only three movies he directed, with the rest of his credits being writing, but he did a good job here. The movie was the first to my knowledge that had zombies that that you couldn’t kill by destroying the brain or removing the head. Every part of their body was animated and they didn’t lose their intelligence either. A few months later Re-Animator also used this kind of Zombie (and was also great). It may also have been the first zombie horror comedy.

Prince of Darkness (1987)

Prince of Darkness is part of the great run of films John Carpenter put together in the 80’s and forms part of what is known as his Apocalypse trilogy (Which spans until the 90’s), which includes “The Thing” and “In The Mouth of Madness”. Amongst Carpenter’s output (and especially amongst the 80’s movies) this isn’t likely many peoples favourite, but it’s still a quality movie and 100% classic John Carpenter.

The cast includes several actors from other Carpenter films such as Victor Wong and Dennis Dun (from the previous years “Big Trouble in Little China”) and Carpenter regulars Donald Pleasence and Peter Jason (Who would go on to appear in five more Carpenter movies). It also has a kick ass soundtrack, a random celebrity known for something other than acting (In this case Alice Cooper) and melancholy, claustrophobic theme involving dark secret truths and has a great ending. You know, this may be 110% classic Carpenter.

Event Horizon (1997)

The final movie of my triple bill was Event Horizon. This was panned by critics on release but turned out to be a cult classic and it is in my opinion is a top five horror movie for the 1990’s (or is at least in the conversation). The movie takes the feel of Aliens and slaps on a heavy shade of Hellraiser.

But the funny thing is it could also be in the same universe as the Doom video game seeing as they somewhat share a premise. In the game experiments in teleportation accidentally connect our realm to hell, in Event Horizon an experimental faster than light drive effectively teleports the ship to hell and back, bringing with it an influence of evil.

It fits quite well with the premise of Prince of Darkness, which suggested the evil we know as the devil is actually alien in origin. The other John Carpenter link here is Sam Neil who also featured in “In The Mouth of Madness” (Another one if the conversation for that top 5 spot) and Neil was really on form in the 90’s. Here he proved how good he can be as the antagonist.

Noirvember

When I first started my blog and right after my run of October reviews in 2021, I did something I called “Noirvember”. Since one of my movie passions is Film Noir and there aren’t a lot of websites out there that review both horrors and Film Noir I decided to take some of my momentum from October and channel it into doing a few thematic reviews through November.

I am absolutely going to do that again. Unlike October this isn’t a review a day job. My aim is to do at least four over November (one per week), but after taking a little break out at the start to recover from the Horror season I may well up that. I think I did about six last year, so expect something similar.

If you aren’t a fan of Noir or don’t really know what it is, perhaps this may encourage you to give these old movies a chance. In many ways they have a lot in common with horror between the lighting techniques and the fatalism of the characters. It’s one of the reasons why I find it a good transition back into general movie watching.

Further Down The Road

After November, I may introduce a few more non-review items on the site. I’m unlikely to do another deep dive of the size of the three part Blade Runner one, but not many films are as complicated a thing to get into as that movie. I do want to do more articles on some of my favourites though. Probably the next one will be on The Terminator, but we’ll see. I may do that Dan O’Bannon article too.

I’m also toying with an idea I’m calling “Movie Pitch” where I look at how I would have done something that didn’t work out so well in real life. For example, how I would revive the Terminator franchise (and yes it can be a franchise), how I would have done Universal’s Dark Universe, how I would reboot the Highlander franchise, what I would do to fix Halloween, that kind of thing. These days there are so many franchise down the toilet that I’ll never run out of things to “fix”. But the idea actually came from a Terminator story idea I had. Maybe it’s good, maybe it’s bad. That’s for you to decide.

On top of that, as the new year comes around I will do a year in review again (Maybe not a three part one this time) and of course I may watch and review some new releases.

Pulse (2001)

Posted on by fenrisfil

So for my final review of the Halloween season (and Happy Halloween to anyone reading this on it’s publishing date) I decided to watch the Japanese ghost story “Pulse” from 2001. I have already seen the Americanised version from 2006, which despite a screenplay from Wes Craven, wasn’t especially good. It did however present interesting ideas and after seeing the original I realise where the film went wrong, but I’ll get to that. My hope was my final review would be an easy one, but I was never going to be let off so easily by a Japanese ghost story. Anyway this one was written and directed by Kiyoshi Kurosawa (Who even did his own novelisation). The film features two protagonists with parallel stories, who finally meet in the final act. Michi Kudo (played by Kumiko Asō) and Ryosuke Kawashima (played by Haruhiko Katô).

October Review Challenge – Day 31

Michi works in a plant shop. One of her co-workers has been missing for several days while he works on a computer disk to track the shops sales. Michi goes to the man’s apartment to check on him only for him to be aloof during the conversation and casually walk into another room and hang himself. Michi and her friends inspect the disk he left behind and discover it contains an image of Taguchi staring into his own computer monitor, which has an image of him staring into his monitor in an infinite loop. On the other monitor on his desk however they discover another ghostly image staring out.

Meanwhile Ryosuke, a university economics student has just signed up to an internet service provider and is getting on line for the first time. His computer accesses a website by itself showing him disturbing images of people alone in dark rooms. The next day he goes to the university computer lab looking for answers and meets Harue (played by Koyuki Kato). She suggests saving the bookmark or taking a screenshot so she can examine it. That night he attempts to but the computer won’t cooperate and instead shows a video of a man with his head in a plastic bag and the words “Help Me” written all over his walls.

Vanishing People

Over time (I’m skipping a lot of details here) Ryosuke learns a theory that the dead are invading the physical world as their world is over crowded, and they are coming through as a signal that can be picked up by computer equipment. Harue confides in her feelings of isolation to Ryosuke and begins acting strangely. She has concluded that ghosts wouldn’t want to create more ghosts by killing people and would rather trap the living in their own isolation.

Meanwhile Michi has begun to learn about a trend for people to seal off rooms with red tape and that inside those rooms is a ghost and that seeing the ghosts face causes the victim to eventually disappear. All her friends at the plant shop eventually go this way. More and more people begin to disappear around them with a list of apparently endless names being broadcast on an abandoned television set.

Eventually Michi and Ryosuke meet and may be the only two people remaining (In the city at least). They decide to leave the city. Can they make it out and what will it cost them? You’ll have to watch to find out as I’m not spoiling the ending.

Pacing and Atmosphere

Before I get onto the heavy theme of the film I want to touch on the main negative and that is the pacing and length. As a two hour movie it’s moments of tension are spaced out and a lot of events are effectively repeated to help drive home the themes. I can’t help but feel the choice to follow two characters mixed with the need to drive the theme meant the film would always end up dragging in places. A more minor issue is that there is also a degree of character stupidity in how often they go into forbidden rooms, but that at least could be explained by them already being affected by the ghosts. The only one that was truly grating was the last character to do such a thing.

The film has a very minimal soundtrack, but this is for good reason. The silence between discordant noises and ghostly strings give a feeling of melancholy and emptiness to the events on screen. It is a technique that fits the theme perfectly. The soundtrack itself when it plays doesn’t stand out as especially good but it is how it is used that makes it work. Time to talk about that theme though.

You Feel So Lonely You Could Die

Loneliness is the theme here and in a very strong way and watching this now rather than when it first came out the first thing that came to mind is “Hikikomori”. This is a term first coined in 1998 by Japanese psychiatrist Professor Tamaki Saito. Saito chose the term to describe the many young people he saw who didn’t fit criteria for mental health diagnosis, but were nonetheless in a state of extreme, distressing withdrawal. Over the years since this has been found to apply to older generations too and become a recognised terms for the many Japanese people (Mostly, but not exclusively young males) that now live their lives almost entirely in their own bedroom.

When the film came out, though the phenomenon had been noted in Japan it was largely unknown outside and so reviewers at the time likely wouldn’t have seen the link but to me it is pretty clear. The question is, was this referring to something Kurosawa knew about or was he predicting the future based on what he had noted from the loneliness in his own society. Maybe he never intended it to be a social commentary and was just speaking on his own feelings, but now with the Hikikomori estimated to be 1.2% of the Japanese population (around a million people) it certainly feels like social commentary.

Logging On….

In the early 2000’s a lot of people went online seeking to find a connection with other human being via the internet. In doing so that left many of them chasing a connection with people that don’t even know are real at the expense of those around them that are. As a character in the story is manipulated by the ghosts they withdrawal more from their real life friends, their family and their occupation. Harue Karasawa speaks somewhat directly about this, saying all the people in their isolated rooms on their computers are no different to ghosts. It’s worth noting the ghosts even make modem noises as they approach people.

Most of the characters in the film do not start off physically isolated though most are isolated internally. Aloof from society to some degree and as the ghosts start to mess with them they feel more isolated. One of the minor characters makes a remark to Michi Kudo wondering if friendship is really worth it since you both end up hurting each other eventually, Many interactions between characters have this kind of tone to it. People deciding they are alone even when they are not. Harue takes this negativity a stage further by suggesting that even death may be eternal isolation.

Finding The Will To Go On.

Harue also suggests that if the ghosts are here because their realm is overflowing they wouldn’t kill people, they would seek to trap them in their own loneliness. There is an odd mismatch here though, if the ghosts are lonely, wouldn’t they want more ghosts even if their domain was overflowing? Also half the victims of the ghosts kill themselves and then leave a black smudge while the other half that doesn’t kill themself just fade into a black smudge anyway. Their fate appears the same either way. Perhaps that is a deliberate point, isolation is the same as death.

The two protagonists seem to have the most resistance to the curse of Loneliness. Ryosuke is himself a loner, but it doesn’t seem to bother him that much. He mentions that he wants to live forever at some point, so despite his isolation he has a resolve to keep going. Michi by comparison is very social and seems to care deeply about all her friends. Her desire to keep going seems at it’s lowest at the start of the final act but once she meets Ryosuke her resolve for survival returns. It is interesting then to consider the pairs final fate. Worse for one that the other but sad for both of them.

Conclusion

Before I give my score for this, I want to talk briefly about the American version. The reason that version fell flat was because it switched the focus from loneliness to the internet/signal side of things and with that switch tried to turn it into a fairly generic horror film. The idea of ghosts coming through the internet isn’t a bad one to explore (Indeed for a more fun version of that check out “Nekrotronic” from 2018), but it missed the point of this particular story. That the US wasn’t at the time having the same issues as Japan did with it’s Hikikomori and that the phenomenon wasn’t really known outside Japan at that time likely factored into missing the point. But enough about the remake.

Overall, while the film drags a little the way it digs deep into everyone’s fear of loneliness makes for a great psychological horror and the ghosts themselves present in forms that manage to to be disturbing while not requiring them to really do much. The talking black smudges and the people on the computer screens also manage to be very creepy. Basically the horror aspects are strong here despite a near complete lack of gore or violence (Suicides aside). Of all the films I’ve seen over this October this one actually came closest to disturbing me. This is a strong 7/10 and I think the front runner of the season. That is what you call finishing strong.

Rating: 7 out of 10.

I’m going to have at least a week off reviews now after doing 31 in a row. But November is “Noirvember” so expect at a few Film Noir reviews out later in the month. Till then, Happy Halloween!

The Bad Seed (1956)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Today’s review is for the 1956 movie about a child psychopath, “The Bad Seed”. This was based on the play and novel by the same name and directed by Mervyn LeRoy. Despite the warning at the credits not to spoil the ending for other viewers, I will absolutely be spoiling it, since the ending factors in to my score. So if you feel the need to avoid those for this nearly 70 year old film you may want to skip this one (or come back to it after you’ve watched). Let’s dig in.

October Review Challenge – Day 30

The movie starts with a very traditional 50’s style family scene with parents Kenneth (William Hopper) and Christine (Nancy Kelly) doting on their 8 year old daughter Rhoda (Patty McCormack). Rhoda tells them and their neighbour/landlady Monica (Evelyn Varden), about a writing medal that she should have won, but some boy won instead. Rhoda has a mini tantrum over this but cheers up quickly to say goodbye to her father who will be away on business for an extended period. She then heads off for her schools picnic at the lake.

Tragedy strikes during the picnic as one of the boys dies on the old pier, an area where the children were not meant to be. The boy in question is “Claude”, the one that won the writing medal, which he had with him on the trip. Though it was not recovered. Rhoda returns home but seems in a buoyant mood, not at all impacted by the loss of her classmate. Indeed her main interest is in the fact that they didn’t get to have the picnic and so she wants feeding.

The Little Terror

Christine finds from Rhoda’s teacher that she was apparently the last person seen with Claude and was apparently trying to steal his medal off him. Meanwhile the creepy caretaker Leroy Jessup (Henry Jones) is teasing Rhoda about the boys death saying he knows she did it, assuming she used a stick and saying that water won’t wash off blood and the police will find it. Rhoda then asks her mother if this is true, which confuses Christine.

Later Christine finds the medal in Rhoda’s room and starts to suspect. Something that comes to a head when she catches Rhoda attempting to dispose of her shoes and she admits that she killed the boy. Christine also realises that she killed an old neighbour of theirs too because she wanted to inherit a snow globe the old woman had promised her. Christine is distraught but determined to protect her girl. She tells her to put the shoes in the furnace and says she will dispose of the medal (Which she later tells Rhoda she did at the lake).

Death and Judgement.

Leroy teases Rhoda again, this time Rhoda reveals she used her shoes and not a stick and that she burned them, to which the caretaker claims to have rescued the shoes from the furnace. To which Rhoda gets made and threatens him if he does return them. It finally dawns on Mr. Dalgie that she isn’t just playing along with him but is actually a killer. Scared, he admits he doesn’t have the shoes, but Rhoda doesn’t believe this. This of course spells the end for Dalgie as Rhoda sets his makeshift bedding alight as he slept in the basement and locked him in.

This turns out to be the final stray for Christine that decides the only thing to do is to kill her daughter. She tricks her into taking an overdose of sleeping pills and then heads to her room and shoots herself. Unfortunately her neighbours hear the shot and save both their lives. However while Christine is recovering in hospital. Rhoda goes down to the lake during a stormy night to try and find her medal and is struck by lightning.

Ironically her characters desire for an award she didn’t deserve wasn’t enough to get the actress one she did.

Oscar Worthy?

First and foremost we have to talk about Patty McCormack and Rhoda. The little 11 year old actress puts on an incredibly convincing performance of a psychopathic 8 year old child. Children in horror isn’t totally unheard of at the time (Night of the Hunter was only a year earlier) however, the idea of a child as the villain in a horror was as far as I can tell unheard of. That would make Rhoda a ground breaking character and even more impressive for the performance of McCormack who would have had no frame of reference. By the 1970’s we’d have Village of the Damned, The Omen and The Exorcist, but those were a long way off when The Bad Seed came around.

While Harvey Spencer Stephens was only 6 when he played Damien Thorn in The Omen, I can’t help but feel that role was a lot simpler, most of the time he just had to look moody while the effects dealt with the actual horror part. McCormack however actually isn’t seen doing any of the crimes, so selling her evil is entirely down to her actions and dialogue on screen and her performance was top notch. Linda Blair on the other hand had a few extra years of maturity before she played the possessed Regan (She was 14 I think, which is probably still too young for what that role required). Rhoda isn’t as scary as Regan, but the fact that The Bad Seed feels like something that could happen in real life means the film is on some levels more unsettling.

Minor Issues

However you frame it, it was a very impressive performance and one for which she was nominated for a Oscar as best supporting actress. I’ve not seen “Written on the Wind” so I can’t just say if Dorothy Malone (the winner of best supporting actress that year) deserved it more than Patty McCormack, but this is another performance that certainly was good enough for a win. One of the things I noted in the film was how much more convincing her performance was than her nemesis’ the families handy man “Leeroy”, played by Henry Jones. In their scenes together 11 year old Patty is acting rings around the 44 year old man. Fortunately Nancy Kelly as lead holds up better and the pair had a great chemistry together.

The story itself is mostly good but isn’t without problems. Rhoda has clearly been evil for a while, but the film relies on her mask slipping just over the period of the film, so much so that her mother starts to suspect her. While there is a trigger event and a few of the other character suspect she’s not what she pretends to be, the amount the mask slips during the film makes it hard to believe it hasn’t slipped before (and regularly). On top of that Christine’s side plot with her fears of being adopted fits uneasily into the story by trying to find a genetic cause for Rhoda being a sociopath. Of course this thread leads to the name of the film and possibly Christine’s final solution, but it could probably have been dealt with faster.

Crime Does Not Pay, at least not between 1934 and 1968 Anyway.

The Hays Code And The 1950’s Audience.

Speaking of Christine’s solution, the ending of the film unfortunately has “The Hays Code” written all over it and in an unfortunate way. The code would have called for Rhoda to be punished for her crimes. That, I don’t especially have an issue with but how it was done felt false and tacked on. They actually had a perfect ending already in the bag but instead of allowing the very sad ending of a mother killing her own child and then herself, they played it out, then had both miraculously survive and then had the movie end with Rhoda randomly get killed by lightning while trying to retrieve the medal she was so covetous of. As satisfying as it was to see Rhoda basically get blown up, it felt a painfully contrived.

This then is followed up by a cast parade and a little scene where Rhoda gets a spanking from her mother. Clearly they wanted to remind people this was only fiction. Clearly the film was considered too dark and that is likely too why they had both characters survive Christine’s murder/suicide. I understand that in 1956 this may have been shocking to the audience but for me it just seemed sloppy. I can’t help but feel if they didn’t want Christine to succeed but did want Rhoda to die they should have found a more natural way for one of her schemes to backfire. I mean the Hays code had been in place for a long time by now, so they must have known the ending was an issue going in.

A Post Credit Spanking

Conclusion

Overall, this is a pretty good film, but one severely limited by the time it was made. Had it come out 12 years later it wouldn’t have been restricted by the Hays Code and wouldn’t have had the messy ending. The movie is ahead of it’s time, but there is a point where you can be too ahead of your time (Sega Dreamcast anyone?) and The Bad Seed is at the very least right up against that line. However, despite the ending and some minor pacing issues (and some bad acting from the supporting cast), this is a compelling story with great performance from Patty McCormack, a very gifted eleven year old (Who is now in her late 70’s of course) along with a strong lead performance from Nancy Kelly. Even with the Hays code stuff, this is still a strong 6.5/10

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Cronos (1993)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Tonight we delve deep into past of legendary film maker Guillermo del Toro. I first came across his work with Blade II in 2002 (Which I still maintain is way better than the first film), but it was actually a decade earlier that Guillermo made his feature film debut with the movie Cronos, a mostly Spanish language film (With some English in places). The film was made for a mere $2m, small even for the day and the lowest of all of Del Toro’s films. Interestingly amongst the cast is Ron Perlman, effectively playing the movies main antagonist. Perlman would have been known from the Beauty and the Beast series of the late 80’s, but didn’t really make a name for himself on the big screen until a decade later in Del Toro’s “Hellboy” (2004).

The lead of the movie though is Federico Luppi as “Jesus Gris”, Claudio Brook supports as the rich and powerful De La Guardia though his ambitious nephew and henchman “Angel”, played by Perlman is the real antagonist. Tamara Xanath completes the main cast as Jesus’ granddaughter “Aurora”. Del Toro is sole writer as well as director.

October Review Challenge – Day 29

The movie begins with an explanation of the Cronos device, created by an ancient alchemist to give him immortality. It seems to have prolonged his life a good 400 years, but after after an old building he was in collapsed and his heart was pierced by debris he eventually died. He was described as having marble skin and his mansion was discovered to the scene of multiple murders. The device however was never found.

Our focus then changes to antique shop owner, Jesus Cris. A strange man takes a particular interest in one of his statues (one of an Archangel) and then quickly leave the shop, which leads to Jesus investigating it and discovering it has a hollow base. Inside of which is a strange device that looks a bit like an insect. He puts the statue back together and returns it to the shop, but sets the unusual device aside. Not long after the statue is purchased by a large man called “Angel”.

Age and Addiction

While investigating the device with his granddaughter Aurora, the decide opens up some sharp leg like sections that grip his hand, puncturing the skin. He tears the device off and goes to treat his wound. Later that night though, he finds himself drawn to use the device again, this time allowing the process to complete it’s cycle. He reacts to it like he is taking a hit of heroin, and is observed by Aurora who is disturbed by this. Jesus assures her he is okay. The next day he discovers he is looking younger and he feels younger too.

On his arrival at the antiques store he finds it has been broken into and a note is left telling him to go to a particular address and bring the device. He arrives to find the man that purchased the statue and is taken to his uncle, De la Guardia who questions him about the device and notices the wound on his hand. Jesus admits he accidentally used the device and De La Guardia calls him an idiot. He points out there are very specific rules for using the device. Jesus gives him a box and leaves, but the box turns out to only contain the broken locks from his store. De La Guardia warns him he may have the device but he will never share with him the instructions.

Funerals and Finales

Later at a New Years Eve party Jesus finds himself drawn to the blood of a man who suffered a nose bleed. He is busy licking some of the blood off the floor when he is kicked in the face by Angel. When he wakes up, Angel beats him and eventually sends his car off a cliff apparently killing him. However after being declared dead and having a funeral Jesus returns from the dead, narrowly escaping his own cremation. With his skin appearing to rot and him now being burned by sunlight he seeks his Granddaughter who creates a space for him in their attic so he can hide out for the moment.

Eventually Jesus determines he must confront De La Guardia and find out what is happening and seek a solution. This leads to a final confrontation with both his antagonists and the decision he must make over his future and what is of most importance to him.

Visuals and Symbolism

As his first feature and with the limited budget it’s no surprise the film doesn’t quite achieve the impressive visuals that Del Toro is known for, but that’s not to say it totally lacks any traces of it. The shots early on of the macabre mansion in which the alchemist lives, along with the visuals from inside the device itself give a hint of the visual imagination that would become one of his trademarks. Even in the rest of the film, while the visuals aren’t quite so lavish they still manage to find time for symbolism, such as a man wearing a clock outfit (part of the NYE celebration but having a additional meaning here).

One of the more subtle elements of this movie I like is the quiet but vitally important relationship between Jesus and his granddaughter Aurora. This is pure Del Toro and puts the story into a more personal level. Aurora’s love allows her to see past the monster he has become, to try and stop his addiction and to stand by him when no one else likely would. She does all this while barely saying a word and ultimately it is this love that saves Jesus. It is the heart of the story.

A New Take On An Old Myth

What does stand out here though is Del Toro’s gift for doing something original with a not so original idea. In this instance it is the story of the vampire (Which of course he would hit once again with Blade 2). Perhaps tied with the space aliens from “Lifeforce” (1985), this is the most original depiction of Vampires I have seen and it is done in such a clever way that it really doesn’t feel like a vampire film until the final act. Interestingly there is something Cronenberg like to how a lot of it is depicted, but Guillermo practices restraint and makes sure to keep focus.

This form of vampirism is something man made, not a curse from god as was depicted in 1992’s Francis Ford Coppala’s “Dracula” and I wonder if that is a deliberate move to be counter to that idea. It’s also not romanticised or even sexualised (part of what prevents it seeming overly Cronenberg) as it tends to be with Vampire stories. Vampirism here is presented as an addiction, with Jesus himself making a direct comparison to how he used to be addicted to cigarettes and the way he humiliates himself to lick drops of blood off the floor is a dark place many addicts have gone to find their hit.

Heaven and Hellboy

The religious symbolism is in full force here and is perhaps a little too obvious. While Jesus is a pretty common name amongst Spanish speaking communities, Gris is not a common surname in those communities (At least not as far as the few minutes of research I just did suggests), so when you have a character called “Jesus Cris” and he gets to return from the grave a few days after dying and is associated with a guy called “Angel” who has been collecting statues of arch-angels, it’s sort of hard to miss. Though I do have to take into account cultural differences here. The Latin countries tend to be more religious, so perhaps this isn’t as heavy handed as it seems to me.

Probably the weakest part of the film is, perhaps surprisingly, Ron Perlman. A decade later he’d be performing his career best as Hellboy under Del Toro’s directorship, but here he puts in a somewhat unconvincing performance, but to be fair a part of that is in the character design. As someone not directly involved with or understanding the vampire curse he is somewhat removed from the main story and yet he is the one that has the most direct confrontation with Jesus and the one he fights in the final act.

It’s not helped that Perlman also seems the main source of comedy relief in the movie (The only other real source being the mortuary worker), so the main antagonist is also the main comedy relief and that didn’t really work for me. I feel like it would have been better for Angel to be relegated to lacky status with his uncle finding a way to the final confrontation. Fortunately the films focus is more on Jesus than on his conflict with the La Guardia family.

Conclusion

While the movie is not perfect and in my humble opinion not Del Toro’s best (certainly not his most visually appealing), it is a movie that deserves accolades both for it’s originality in a well trod genre and for the many layers of substance to the story. From the religious aspect, to the metaphor for addiction to the strength of family bonds it makes for an interesting movie that feels like it has meaning. This is a sturdy 7/10 and possibly the new front runner of my October Horrorthon (I’ll figure that out at the end).

Rating: 7 out of 10.