October has rolled around once more and that means it is time for the Horror Review challenge. For the third year running (Fourth including my pre-blog Facebook/Minds reviews), I’ll be reviewing a horror or horror adjacent movie every day for 31 days. First up is A24’s Porno gone wrong story “X” featuring two modern Scream Queens in Mia Goth (In a double role) and Jenna Ortega. But did the movie live up to they hype? Let’s have a look.
King of Average.
First thing to note here is that this is a Ti West movie. If you’ve been following my blog you will know I was not impressed at all with his “The Innkeepers” (2011). I am yet to watch “House of the Devil” (2009) or the prequel to “this “X”, “Pearl” (2022) both of which are fairly well regarded, so I’m not viewing this with especially high expectations. However, West certainly has a lot of experience in the genre having worked on many Horror based TV shows over the years. If I was to compare him to another director it would probably be Mick Garris. Competent, experienced, but not especially outstanding.
The premise is a fairly standard Horror affair. A small group of young people heading to a remote location, having lots of sex and getting picked off one by one. In this instance we’re in a 1970’s setting and they are in the location to shoot a porno. It’s a pretty similar set up to “Wrestlemaniac/El Mascarado Massacre” (2006), which isn’t a great sign since that was an awful movie. The key differences are this movie actually does show a lot of the porno side and instead of a crazed Rey Misterio Snr. killing everyone it’s two old farmers. Neither of these are really improvements!
It’s All About Mia
The movie relies a lot on trying to creep you out because the old people are old. That’s probably something that only really works on the younger audience, for me it just seemed a bit sad. Other than that there is a whole lot of sex and then about half an hour of standard slasher stuff. Mia Goth does stand out as the only characters with any real depth though the film essentially revolves around her so not surprise.
Jenna Ortega is totally wasted and the rest of the victims are generic and forgettable. The Villains meanwhile are not terribly believable, given their age and their motivation is a little off given they agreed to rent out their farmhouse to this group and then seem angry they are there. Admittedly they didn’t know they’d be shooting porn, but it still seems like their motivation is really: This is a horror film, we need to kill people.
Double Act
The only point of interest in the movie really comes from the focus on Mia Goth. The actress plays both the “Final Girl” and the primary psycho, two roles that are meant to parallel one another The only problem is the movie didn’t really need to have the same actress play that role to achieve that and doing so largely robbed the theme of it’s subtilty, while ensuring the only thing of value was Mia Goth. I can’t fault Goth’s performance though, it’s just the concept is a little on the nose.
Overall this is another clanger from West and I’m starting to wonder if his Modus Operandi is simply to make generic horror with obvious, “On the nose” themes. I will probably give “Pearl” a run next year or “House of the Devil” and see if West can finally convince me he has something to offer in the genre. If he does it’s certainly not with “X”. This is a 4/10 for me.
Marvel has lost all momentum in the cinema in recent years, so much so that some of their movies have even lost money. Everything is relevant of course and these movies are still bringing in hundreds of millions. However when your budgets reach$250m (That they admit to), you are basically looking at $600m just to break even. These are films that need the majority of the general audience to turn up to make a profit. Yet, Marvel have been putting out an increasingly niché product, that fails in broad appeal. On top of this franchises tend to suffer a delayed impact on box office from underwhelming entries. In this instance the previous MCU film, clearly made people cautious for Guardians 3.
Marvel of course is fairly unique in having sub-franchises. Two of these run largely independently from the greater MCU, namely Spider-Man and Guardians. Despite the long gap between the second and third movies there is still a strong fanbase for this franchise. What we’ve seen in the box office so far is a cautious opening weekend. This reflects a lack of faith in the MCU in general right now. The second week however had a very strong hold. My interpretation of that is that a lot of people held off until they heard the word of mouth. So is it worthy of that hold? Let’s dig in.
Synopsis (First Act Spoilers Only)
Part three part picks up a fair way after the second movie. Like many characters in the MCU, the team were heavily impacted by the Infinity War. The Gamora that was in a relationship with Quill was sacrificed by Thanos and is not coming back. However an alternative version of her from her own past has been transplanted into the modern day, rolling her back to where she started with the franchise. Quill is naturally not too happy with this and has found himself spiralling into depression.
This story actually picks up shortly after the Christmas Special, but with minimal impact. Basically just the groups new home and the revelation that Mantis is Quill’s brother.
The Guardians have settled down on Knowhere (The former base of the Collector) and renovated it into a a decent sized settlement for former Ravagers and other space misfits. Things are relatively peaceful (Outside of an increasingly drunken and mopey Starlord). That peace is disrupted by the sudden appearance of Adam Warlock. You may remember Adam as the genetically modified super being from the end of GOTG2. Warlock attacks the settlement, leading to Rocket Racoon being badly injured. As the Guardians attempt to give him medical treatment, a failsafe inside Rocket activates threatening his life. The Guardians then find themselves in a race against time to deactivate the failsafe so they can safe their friend.
Their quest brings them into conflict with The High Evolutionary, a powerful super genius whose past is heavily linked with Rocket’s. They find themselves working with another group of Ravagers, including the alterative Gamora. Neither Quill nor Gamora are especially happy with this arrangement. In classic James Gunn style, every character big and small gets their moment in the story. The downside is this pushes the run time up to a whopping two and a half hours. That gives us a lot to talk about, but don’t worry I’m keeping this as spoiler free as I can.
Villains
Let’s have a look at the move’s characters, starting with the big bad, The High Evolutionary. It’s hard not to compare Chukwudi Iwuji performance to that of Jonathan Majors as Kang. It’s a comparison that has Iwuji coming up on top… by a long way. Frankly Majors is overrated and has been over promoted.That’s understandable given how important the character is to the Phase Five. Iwuji however is severely underrated, has not really had any kind of push. Indeed he is barely in the promotional material for this film.
This is a shame, because he really nails it. He brings a sinister calmness to the role with a dangerous rage quietly bubbling under the surface. Iwuji delivers a superb performance and in my view is the best Villain the MCU has given us since Thanos. Admittedly that’s not a terribly high bar for phase 4/5 of the MCU. This is a villain you could build an entire phase around. But, Iwuji is a Gunn recruitment not a Fiege one, so this was probably never on the table. Fans of the Gunn TV series “Peacemaker” will recognise Iwuji from there and I wouldn’t be surprised to find him returning to DC in the future (In a new role).
We have a different story with Adam Warlock however, but this is a complicated one. Will Poulter is fine in the role. The problem is that Warlock feels superfluous to the entire story and has been made into yet another goofy, fish out of water “Bim-Bro” type character. Effectively he’s MCU Thor. Now fans of the comics will know that Adam Warlock is actually a great character. They will also know he was central to the entire Infinity Saga. So here he’s effectively missed his own destiny leaving him directionless. So it’s unsurprising he’s being set up as the next Thor. I fully expect his next few appearances in the MCU to involve him going off to find himself.
A character missing their own destiny isn’t new for the MCU. The Mandarin also missed his chance as Iron Man’s primary antagonist by not turning up until Tony had sacrificed himself. At least that character managed to slip into the role left by Shang-Chi’s comic book father Fu Manchu. Adam has no role to take over and it tells. It is likely only here because he was promised in the post credits scene in the previous Guardians movie. It’s impossible to know if Gunn had larger plans for him originally, but now he’s just sort of there. To be fair, he does get to kick some ass early on. For the rest of the movie though he’s just sort of hanging around. Honestly, he could have been cut entirely and the movie may have been better for it.
Heroes
So that leads us to the heroes. This is a bit of a mixed bag. As I mentioned earlier, everyone gets at least one moment to shine, but not much more. It is possibly too large a cast at this stage to do give everyone serious character arcs. Gunn’s style is somewhat similar to Joss Whedon in that the stories are heavily character based and rely on smaller moments of character banter to gradually develop the characters. The result is that many of the characters don’t develop in a significant way throughout the movie. This is a bit more realistic but not always as satisfying as a story focused approach.
Case in point Quill (Minor spoilers) doesn’t really develop much. He starts out lost and ends up trying to find himself. At this stage that is basically a generic Marvel cliché for the male characters. Drax meanwhile has his character arc sort of thrown at him late in the movie. This is very small, but is actually quite satisfying for the character and will no doubt resonate with some audience members. Nebula is just sort of there. To be fair she has gone through a lot of character development prior to the movies and the Infinity War. What we get instead with Nebula is to see just how much she has evolved since her introduction.
Alternative Gomorra has some development, but is effectively just repeating the development her other version had during the first movie. Mantis has a small amount of development, but quietly in the background and Groot is Groot. Kraglin, despite being a minor character, basically get’s an 80’s martial arts movie character arc. Just replace the special ancient technique with controlling the Yaka Arrow). Perhaps though Kragin’s real story is in his relationship to the telekinetic super-dog Cosmo. That’s one thing I’m sure all the dog lovers in the audience will get a kick out of.
Then we get to Rocket Racoon and be in no doubt this is his movie. We get to see his origins and what made his personality the way it is. Through all that, he gets a serious amount of character growth. It’s just a shame that the set up to all this actually eliminates the popular character from the majority of the movie. Despite this it is an emotional journey for him and the audience. If you are a fan of Rocket Racoon, expect it to be both frustrating and emotional.
And the Plot?
Story wise, I have issues and this really reflects how much of a character based writer Gunn is. The first point of note is the often self defeating actions of the antagonists. On several occasions the villains do things that seem to sabotage themselves for no readily apparent reason other than to drive the plot forward. This wouldn’t be so bad, if those errors of judgement weren’t the driving force for the majority of the movie. The film is very lucky to have such a capable actor as it’s main villain, since his performance can at least in the moment let you ignore all that. Hard not to question it after though.
A big issue for the movie is it’s length. There is a lot of debate to be had on whether the inclusion of either Adam Warlock or Gomorra was really necessary for the movie. The truth is they are both there just because they were expected to be there. Gomorra is there because she was a key character in the first two movies and that’s it. There is some purpose for her though in showing how circumstance can change where someone ends up, but doesn’t change who they are at heart. It’s a nice sentiment, but wasn’t really needed to conclude the story.
Adam Warlock is perhaps the films biggest issue since his presence seems to damage both the movie and the character. The truth is he wasn’t needed for the film and had he not been revealed in the post credit scene after Guardians 2, he probably wouldn’t have been in it. Removing either him or Gamora would probably have reduced the films run time by a good 15 minutes without any real impact. There was also a random scene involving giant space monsters that basically don’t do anything, making the entire section superfluous. Removing all of that would probably have had the runtime down to a solid 1 hour 50. Just about perfect for a superhero movie.
That said, the movie doesn’t drag much. It is basically split into three very distinct acts, each with their own build up, major action scene and wind down. The format kept me interested and each section had it’s positives and negatives. They movie is packed with references and cameos too, which while not something that helps the overall quality. It does add a little bit of fun on the first viewing though, and some talking points. Naturally the cameos include yet another appearance from Howard the Duck, but we’re also treated to a brief appearance of Sylvester Stallone, reprising his role of Stakar Ogord from the second film.
Mix Tape Vol. 3
That brings us to the final element we all expect from a Guardians movie: The music. Well… yeah, it’s not that great this time out. It’s not that the music is itself bad, it’s just not quite up to the level of the previous movies and when the music has been so good previously, you notice the drop off. Some of the choices are quite strange too, for example Alice Cooper’s version of “I’m Always Chasing Rainbows”. That is far from Alice’s best track and the song itself is a cover, with the original being over a hundred years old.
I can’t help but wonder if the music clearance budget for the film was slashed this time or if Gunn simply chose to keep back the really good tracks so he can make use of them in his upcoming DC movies. Gunn has good taste in music, but his choices are usually pretty big hits from their era/genre. Not obscure gems such as the ones Tarantino tends to dig up. I imagine there is a limit to how many good tracks he can dig up. Perhaps he didn’t want to waste his best ones at a company he is departing? Who knows. Either way, the soundtrack is the least memorable of the series. It’s not actually bad however, it’s just not a selling point like it was for the previous films.
Assessment
As a critic, I have to be critical. But despite all that I want to be clear, I had a lot of fun with this movie. Despite the flaws and the step down in some regards from the previous movies this was an emotionally satisfying movie with fun action scenes and some good humour. The length didn’t damage my enjoyment, at least not on the first viewing (Remains to be seen how I feel in the years to come) and while I didn’t leave the theatre humming any of the tunes I wasn’t putting my fingers in my ears either. The story focus on Rocket definitely works and the villain is the best MCU villain since Thanos.
That said, we don’t have a very high bar in regard to villains in the MCU and even when Marvel was more consistently good, the villains were rarely the selling point. They really need to nail that Doctor Doom casting if the MCU is to have any hope going forward. This was a final chapter for the Guardians and it may be a final chapter for many’s journey with the MCU, but the good news is it’s a pretty satisfying ending. If you were to watch Phase 1-3 and follow that up with just Spider-Man No Way Home and then this you would feel pretty content with your journey. This movie is a strong 6.5/10 and a hairs width short of a 7.
VERDICT: 6.5/10 – Recommended, especially to fans of the previous movies.
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Rating: 6.5 out of 10.
Bonus Round – The State of the MCU
With this movie and Gunn’s departure it seems certain this is the end of the Guardians as we know them. Sure Disney still owns the rights, but without Gunn, it won’t be the same and many of the actors will not want to return. On top of this there is no announced Spider-Man film suggesting that Sony may be pulling out of their deal with Disney. Things look bad for the MCU. This of course follows the departure of Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanov, T’Challa and probably Thor. The MCU desperately needs to bring in some top name draws again to prop up the smaller sub-franchises, but there is no sign of this happening any time soon because of Kevin Feige’s stubborn refusal to change his plans for Phase 4-6 despite the Fox purchase.
The comic book giants of The Fantastic Four, The X-Men and huge names like Doom and Wolverine have just been sitting on the shelf while Marvel rolls out it’s E, F and J list heroes. I’m not kidding with that either, there are definite tiers for Superheroes, the A list for Marvel is just Spider-Man. The B-List are Hulk, X-Men and until a string of failed movies downgraded them, The Fantastic Four, then you have Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Wolverine and Magneto/Prof-X as the C-List. That was the level on which the MCU was built. Blade, Daredevil, Ghost Rider and maybe She-Hulk and a few of the X-Men as individuals are the D-List level. The rest, including Ant Man and The Guardians would have been E-List or lower, which shows you can make it work on an individual basis, but you need some bigger names for the larger franchise.
The Downward Spiral
The problem with using the lower tier heroes is you need someone with real talent and creativity to make it work. They had that with James Gunn and now he is gone and Marvel don’t have anyone else that can pull that kind of thing off. With budgets increasing and returns decreasing, each new Marvel movie represents an increasing poor ratio of risk to reward. Ant Man Quantumania lost money, Guardians 3 will likely only generate the same profit level as a successful Horror (About $100m in profit), but Horror does it on about a tenth of the budget of a Superhero movie, so far less risk. The next three movies Marvel has on it’s slate may struggle to even achieve Ant Man numbers and when they finally get to Blade, it most likely will be back in that Horror film profit range (But with a Superhero film cost).
Logic would suggest Disney needs to radically slow down on the number of Marvel movies it puts out and focus on the bigger B and C list names, leaving the D and E list to the TV shows and relegate the rest to supporting characters for now (Until they can find a new Gunn or Whedon and even then probably best to focus on the teams instead of individuals at that level). It’s worth noting that the original plan was probably for Phase Four to cash in on the momentum from the Infinity Saga, bringing in the expectedly large audiences by default for those lower tier characters. But Covid struck and by the time they could get any of those titles out, the momentum was gone. Still, the failure to find a pivot to a new plan is entirely on Feige.
Meanwhile at DC…
But as one door closes another opens and a new chapter begins over at Warner/DC. James Gunn has a vision, it remains to be seen if that vision is any good but chances are it will be better than what Warner has been doing for the last decade (Aside from the excellent Joker movie of course). Before we get there though, we have to find a path through the last remnants of the older regimes. Namely we need to get past the Ezra Miller Flash film and Jason Momoa’s likely final appearance as Aquaman. Momoa is probably not going anywhere, but if rumours are true may be switching roles to one he is better suited for, namely Lobo. Miller meanwhile is almost certainly gone after The Flash, yet his movie is the pivot on which the old DCEU morphs into Gunn’s new DCU.
The new era truly begins with “Superman:Legacy”, a film that will make or break DC in the coming years. But even if it turns out to be a good film, it could be a case of too little, too late for Warner to properly cash in on the Superhero fever of the last decade. Superhero fatigue may well be a thing. We will have to wait and see. At the time of writing, though Gunn has announced a slate of films, he hasn’t cast anyone for them yet and we are a long way away from seeing trailers. Who knows where he goes from here. Chances are though, as someone that likes to work with the same people we may well see the actors behind the Guardians turning up in DC. Karren Gillan has already suggested she’d like to play Poison Ivy for instance. Sounds good to me.
For today’s review I’m looking at the 2023 movie “Infinity Pool”, staring the underappreciated Alexander Skarsgård (Most recently staring in one of the best movies and yet biggest flops of last year “The Northman”) and rising horror starlet Mia Goth (Who hit a double whammy last year with “X” and it’s prequel “Pearl”). The movie is written and directed by Brandon Cronenberg, son of David Cronenberg. This is his second feature film after 2020’s “Possessor”, which I haven’t had the pleasure of seeing yet, but much like this film it sounds very much like something that could have been made by his father. So let’s find out if the apple falls far from the tree!
Under The Sun.
Our movie starts with obscure novelist James Foster (Skarsgård) and his rich wife “Em” (Played by Cleopatra Coleman) spending time at a resort in the fictional island of Li Tolqa, which appears to be, at least on the surface, some form of Banana Republic. Despite claiming no one has read his book, one of the fellow tourists, “Gabi” (Goth) claims to be a fan. She invites the pair to join her and her husband “Alban” (Jalil Lespert) to spend time with them and despite warnings that they should not stray from within the resorts walls, they decide to spend the next day driving in the countryside.
After an evening on the beach drinking heavily, James drives the group home and accidentally runs over one of the locals. The group panic and return to the hotel hoping it will go unnoticed, but the local police turn up the next morning and haul James away. It turns out the justice system in Li Tolqa is swift and harsh, with James condemned to be executed by the eldest son of the man he ran over.
Killing Yourself to Live.
However, this is where the film introduces some science fiction elements. It turns out for a hefty fee (Presumably paid for by his wife) they will create a fully grown clone of him, including his memories and kill that instead. Confused, but desperate he agrees. On return to the hotel James finds his passport missing and so must remain at the resort while this is sorted out. His wife however heads off.
Stuck on the island, James finds himself falling in with Gabi and her nihilist friends, a spoiled, dangerous group of people who seem to get their kicks from tormenting others and abusing the islands legal system and it’s loophole for the rich. This isn’t a spoiler review, so I’ll stop there with the plot. Suffice to say this is going to be a life changing experience for the man.
Tomorrow’s Dream.
Probably the main thing David Cronenberg is known for is using body horror as a study on humanity. The focus has never really been on the plausibility of the situations since they largely exist as a sort of metaphor anyway, instead they are really more character studies with a focus on their deeply flawed and often self destructive protagonists. Brandon has clearly gone for a very similar approach.
You have to basically just accept this island nation that in every other regard is a typical banana republic has the technology to create perfect clones of people (Including their memories) and that they use this amazing technology in the most bizarre and twisted way, as a frankly unnecessary side show to allowing the rich to pay their way out of trouble. None of it really makes any sense if taken literally. But beneath the surface it is clear that the film is a study in Nihilism.
Into the Void.
To some extent it is about the form of Nihilism that comes naturally from power (Specifically the power that comes from being rich). Certainly this is where bored sociopath Gabi comes in. James however, is not especially rich and not at all powerful. His wife and step-father are rich, but his Nihilism is somewhat different and perhaps more related to his creativity. He wrote a book no one read, married his publishers daughter and has effectively landed on his feet but without any real sense of achievement. He is empty inside and without a real direction or purpose. This much is obvious.
At one point in the story the dangerous crowd James has fallen in with poses the question: “How do you know if you are the original or the clone”. It’s a common sci-fi trope and the first place my mind went once it was revealed it was a clone story. However, the important part of the conversation was the follow up: “Perhaps you just watched the real you die” to which James answers “We can only hope”. The group seem to approve of the response and there we have it. The ultimate nihilism, death without consequences. This sets up James journey for the rest of the film.
Thrill of it All.
Infinity Pool is ultimately simpler than the usual David Cronenberg affair, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. The story still contains the elements you would expect from a Cronenberg body horror, but it’s presented a more accessible package. It is dark, violent, horrific, filled with deeply flawed characters and ultimately thought provoking. The ending is in some ways disappointing, but has purpose. This probably won’t be everyone’s cup of tea but if you like the films of his father’s this Brandon Cronenberg movie may be worth your time, otherwise probably not. I do, so it’s a solid 6/10 for me. Would be higher, but you need a LOT of suspension of disbelief for this one.
When following the films of Nick Frost and Simon Pegg it’s hard not to be underwhelmed when you get to this little number. It seems clear that while Frost may be a walking encyclopaedia of pop culture references, the creativity and flair of his more famous movies likely came from Edgar Wright, because this completely lacks either, but it does have a LOT of references in it. So if you are the kind of person that enjoys movies just because they reference other, better movies, TV shows and comics then this will be for you. If not… Maybe give it a skip.
Paul is written by Pegg and Frost and helmed by “Superbad” and “Adventureland” director Greg Mottola. It stars Pegg, Frost as a couple of Brits visiting America to attend comiccon and the talentless Seth Rogen (Sorry, but I don’t get why he keeps getting so much work) as the titular alien that stumbles into their path late one night after attending the con. The pair decide to help Paul return home, but are pursued by the FBI and various groups of rednecks… because rednecks, I guess.
By The Numbers.
The story itself is a pretty generic by the numbers, protect the friendly alien story. It could be “E. T.” , “*Batteries not Included”, even “Short Circuit” (If you ignore he’s not an Alien). Though those movies have a lot more heart to them. It could also be “Bumblebee” or “Monster Truck” or any number of similar stories of more recent years. The only thing different here is the Alien looks like a generic grey type alien…. So basically it’s a double cliché.
That’s really the game this film is playing. It substitutes any originality or heart for tired tropes and just out of the blue references that could have been stuck at any time in the film since they are only there to be references. This is exactly the kind of film I’d expect a pop culture junky to make and perhaps in the late 90’s to early 2000’s when those kinds of films/shows were relatively fresh and popular (I was a fan of Pegg’s own “Spaced”) they could have gotten away with it, but by 2011 that was all feeling pretty stale. Roll on to 2023 when I’m making this review and it’s still being over done but notably a lot less popular. Everyone is tiring of it now.
Clichés and Stereotypes.
Of course those pop culture referencing films of that period were also funny, which helped them a lot. Some even had artistic merit (The first Clerks film for instance). This doesn’t have either of those. It’s just references, tropes and cameos (Well, one cameo, but that’s also a reference).The closest it.
When the film isn’t doing pop culture references, it is basically just stereotyping people instead, because making a character that isn’t a hundred percent generic would apparently be beyond Pegg and Frost’s writing partnership in 2011. Honestly, it’s shocking to see the gulf between this movie and Shaun of the Dead/Hot Fuzz. Both of those also featured a tonne of references, but actually had a good plot, some really funny moments and… well… style!
Conclusion.
Ultimately this film exposes the limitations of the Pegg/Frost partnership without Edgar Wright’s involvement. Pegg especially is a one trick pony, only able to throw in pop culture references (It’s even how he wrote his Star Trek script, that’s why you had a major scene involving playing The Beastie Boys). Wright brought the quality and style to that partnership and is sorely missed here. This is a 4/10.
Time for my first review of a 2023 movie. In what is already looking like a decent year for horror (Possibly just because we don’t have another bad Halloween sequel to deal with, though we do have an Exorcist remake to be annoyed at later in the year), one of the first to hit theatres this year was the AI gone rogue/Killer doll movie “M3gan”.
Viral Marketing.
This has been building itself a nice bit of hype as the release date drew near and featured an interesting viral marketing campaign a little reminiscent of the one used for Smile. The main feature of the campaign was creepy M3gan doll dancers turning up in high profile events/locations. The campaign also had some fun on Twitter with some playful interaction between the M3gan account and the Chucky one. Both being owned by the same company, you have to wonder if a crossover is on the cards.
But anyway, what about the film itself? Helmed by “Housebound” (2014) director Gerard Johnstone but from the mind of Horror legend, James Wan (scripted by Wan’s “Malignant” (2021) collaborator Akela Cooper), M3gan stars Allison Williams as under pressure robotics engineer and toy maker “Gemma” and upcoming child actress Violet McGraw as her orphaned niece “Cady”. The titular character herself is a mixture of animatronics, body actress Amie Donald (provider of M3gan’s dancier moments), and voice actress Jenna Davis.
The Set Up.
The story is pretty simple and built around two key strands that intertwine. One is a much more personal story about Gemma and Cady. Gemma is a woman that clearly put her career first in life, largely driven by her inventive nature and ambition to break new ground with technology and AI. Suddenly she has found herself as guardian to her young niece after both the girl’s parents are killed in a road accident. Cady is obviously traumatised by the experience and Gemma doesn’t really know how to cope and is torn between trying and attempted to hit deadlines at work.
The second part of the story is in Gemma’s passion project “M3GAN” an AI robotic doll, that she has been working on in semi-secret (much to the chagrin of her bosses). After a failed test she was told to abandon work on the project and return to the next line of fury robotic toys that her company is famous for. However after sharing her designs with Cady she realised that she could perhaps kill two birds with one stone by having a prototype of her design bond with Cady, helping her through a tough time while also allowing Gemma to spend more time with her niece while she works. Good intentions it seems, but that road to hell is paved with just those sort of intentions.
Comedy and Critique.
What we see unravel then is a fun horror/comedy wrapped around a quite intelligent critique of both irresponsible science and parenthood. It is a double mistake that ends up costing several people their lives. Cady ends up become so emotionally bonded to M3gan that the relationship has become unhealthy, meanwhile the capabilities of the doll to learn and adapt to the emotional state of it’s primary user has led to the AI become dangerous unstable itself. Meanwhile Gemma’s focus on making the product a success has lead to her missing the warning signs of both issues. I couldn’t help but be reminded of that line from Jurassic Park: “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”. It definitely applies here.
Friend, Entertainer, Murderer.
But that’s the nuts and bolts, what makes the film really work is the fun approach to the character. Really gave the movie a sort of 80’s feel in it’s slightly silly approach where the killer is firmly there to entertain the audience first instead of just terrify them. That said though, she certainly ups the creepy factor when needed. The doll taps into a lot of horror history, providing some fun “Chucky” like moments, some parts with more in common with “The Terminator” and a good helping of “Village of the Damned” too, with it’s creepy dead eyed children.
The doll appears realistic and humanlike at one moment (going into dance routines for example) and then in a moments notice changes into something far scarier, with a clear influence from the movement patterns of the more impressive Boston Dynamics robots. It’s those moments that M3gan transitions between lifeless doll, imitation little girl and savage robot that makes the movie really work and the great thing is those moments can be moving, scary or funny depending on what was needed at the time.
Conclusion
M3gan is a straight forward movie and makes for easy viewing, which is really what you want from a Horror Comedy. It’s a fun movie but most importantly it firmly establishes a new member to the Horror Icon hall of fame. Even though horror has been making a big comeback in recent year, there hasn’t been many iconic characters added to the list. Indeed the last addition was probably Annabelle and that killer doll has been more miss than hit (“Creation” was fantastic mind). If you’ve only gotten into horror in recent years perhaps this won’t be what your looking for but if you were a Horror fan in the 80’s, I’m pretty sure you’ll love it. It’s a 7/10 from me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.