1930s_Time_Machine Reviews

Stormy Weather (1935)

Carry On Farcing

[5/10 · 9 June 2024]

Very much the Carry On films of the 1930s complete with enough double entendres to make Barbara Windsor blush. This isn't quite the best of the Aldwych farces but if you like a proper old style comedy or are just interested to see what made people laugh between the wars, you'll enjoy this.

We are conditioned to enjoy the familiar. Consequently a lot of us love classic 1930s comedy such as Laurel and Hardy, Will Hay and Marx Brothers This slightly more obscure and forgotten style of comedy takes a little while to get into but these professionally made, tried and tested pictures from "The Aldwych Gang" - which are funny - endear themselves quickly to us.

Tom Walls, the leader of the group and director of the films was immensely popular in the thirties but I am not sure he comes across as a likeable person. It might be just his screen persona but these days he seems a little arrogant and unpleasant. As someone doing a 1930s Sid James, some degree of likeability feels necessary. It's difficult to root for someone you don't like.

I've mentioned that these were the Carry On films of the day and that Tom Walls was their version of Sid James. There are two other similar roles: Ralph Lynn, the silly toff makes a fabulous Kenneth Williams and Yvonne Arnaud, the sex starved matron is Joan Sims. Then there's the hilarious Robertson Hare is....well he's just unique - my new comedy hero!

So if you fancy a silly story with people chasing along corridors running into the wrong bedrooms, losing their trousers and hiding strange women under their beds, give this a go.

Disgraced (1933)

I wasn't expecting this to be as brilliant as it was!

[7/10 · 8 June 2024]

This is definitely not the usual predictable society cad seducing the innocent girl from the wrong side of the tracks story. Well it is but it's also a hard hitting, exciting and intriguing drama that will have you on the edge of your seat - I know it's ancient but honestly it's fabulous and not just for 30s aficionados.

The beginning of this superb picture gives the impression that it's going to be that same old story, so common in pre-code movies of the over-privileged rich boy worming his way into the affections of the sweet naive young thing and ruining her life. To start with that's exactly what this is but it actually tells that story so extremely well that if that's all this was it would be one of the very best of that genre. You can see what Mr Wealthy is up to, you want to shout 'no' to Miss Innocent but you yourself can also understand - no, feel exactly what she's feeling too. Perfect storytelling.

Half way through, just when you think you know how this is going to end we are thrown some jaw-dropping plot twists which you'd never guess yet it all seems so believable.

Earle Kenton is certainly not one of those directors with a fan base. I doubt anyone makes a list of his pictures then works through them! The direction of this film however is outstanding - it's up there with the best of them. That this also has Paramount's top cinematographer Karl Struss on board, giving us some gorgeous fluid camerawork which also helps of course but this is Kenton's film.

His actors don't just act, they become real people, people you care about. There's none of that residue from the silent days of over gesturing or acting like they're on stage. Everyone looks natural, acts natural and talks natural. Helen Twelvetrees is remarkable and even Bruce Cabot - whom I thought was quite wooden in KING KONG comes across as authentic and genuine - in a sneaky sort of way.

We're also treated to the impossibility beautiful epitome of sophistication, Adrienne Ames as Cabot's other woman (and in real life, soon to be wife). She doesn't have to act too hard because she basically plays herself - the society glamour model turned fashion icon and celebrity of the age. She's perfect for this role.

If you watch this on that free Russian website you'll find that the sound quality is atrocious - don't let that put you off. Stick with it - you'll be so glad you did.

Sons of the Sea (1939)

Fuller's Earth or Fuller's Duck?

[2/10 · 8 June 2024]

Boring is such a lazy word to use in a review but unfortunately it's the only word which is appropriate for this. How they made a story about spies, murder and intrigue on the brink of a world war so dull is quite astounding.

I wondered why such a third rate production was chosen to showcase the new Dufaycolor system - Britain's rival to Technicolor. Presumably corporate politics? Compared with earlier 1930s British colour films made in Technicolor like WINGS OF THE MORNING and the excellent DIVORCE OF LADY X, this looks a little blurry - almost like one of those dreadful colorised black and white films, so maybe the major British studios didn't want to risk switching from a (slightly) more established system?

Enough about Dufaycolor! That most reviewers focus only on that aspect rather than the actual film says a lot about how entertaining this film is as a film. To be able to watch this from start to finish you'll need to have a sharp pin handy to keep poking yourself with.

It's astonishing just how unengaging all the characters are. You'll wish that the spy would kill everyone off simply to get this over with. Mackenzie Ward's character is the only one with any personality but even his larger than life extrovert man-about-town comes across as totally flat and lifeless. Maurice Elvey wasn't a bad director but it seems that the entire purpose of this film was just to highlight the Dufaycolor system rather than making something's that actually entertaining.

South Riding (1938)

OK but far too short to engage

[5/10 · 6 June 2024]

This is a drama about a small selection of diverse people all living in a small town in mid-thirties Yorkshire. Dramas and indeed novels like this can really grip you, they can become addictive when you can engage with the characters and want to know more about them. With a 400 page novel or a ten hour tv show you can get to know them but when, like with this picture, you've only got an hour and half, it simply doesn't work.

Philistine that I am, I've never read this book - it's not really my thing but believing it to be semi-iconic I thought I out to dip my toe into its water. I can vaguely remember as a young boy being forced to watch the ITV series back in the seventies so I subsequently avoided the BBC series about ten years ago. I thought that if it could be condensed down to an hour and a half it might be more palatable. Oh dear no!

I did find it reasonably enjoyable but hardly something I'd watch again. It's competently enough made and does look quite good - it is after all produced by Korda and directed by Victor Saville, but with a character driven drama like this where very little actual action happens, to try and squeeze a long nuanced story into a short feature film format results in it being little more than a glorified trailer.

Screenwriter Ian Dalrymple clearly loved the novel too much to sacrifice any of it which was what was needed to create a manageable movie. In his adaptation, all the themes of the novel have to be explored and all the characters have to be there. Instead of focussing on any one particular theme or person, what we end up with is therefore 4 minutes on snobbery, 3 minutes on poverty and the class divide, a couple of minutes on male chauvinism, 3 minutes about the value of girls' education (which could certainly be a film in itself), a minute on traditionalism vs. Progress, 2 minutes on hypocrisy and 6 minutes about corruption. And all that has to be done whilst developing the characters including a couple of romances. One has to give Victor Saville some credit, he takes an impossible task and whist he doesn't quite succeed, he does a reasonable job of it.

I said earlier, over condensed like this is it's like a glorified trailer - well one thing this film has done is inspired me to watch the ITV or BBC adaptation.

The Man from Yesterday (1932)

A superbly made and brilliantly acted little melodrama

[6/10 · 4 June 2024]

Talented German director Berthold Viertel is perhaps most well-known for the superb (and memorably titled) 1935 British film THE PASSING OF THE THIRD FLOOR BACK but between escaping Nazi Germany and settling in England he made a few pictures in America. This modest little film is one of his best and demonstrates his skill in filling a space with atmosphere and story.

His cinematographer was Karl Struss, not just Paramount's leading cameraman but an actual famous photographer of the 1920s as well and his artistry combined with Viertel's imagination and vision create a beautifully rich and fluid visual cocktail.

If you watch pictures from this period, even if you haven't, you might think you've seen this before because the story isn't that original. It's not original however because this was made only fifteen years after the First World War so incidents like this (soldier is reported dead - wife falls in love with someone else - soldier didn't actually die and turns up later) probably happened quite a lot. This telling of that familiar old story is however executed so much better than in some of its contemporaries.

The acting isn't what you'd call naturalistic - it's definitely 1930s film acting but it's not that terrible silent movie style which polluted a lot of early talkies. There's no longing looks into the camera, no over-gesturing, no speaking as if addressing a meeting of people with hearing issues - no, although you know you're watching a movie, not real life, everyone is very believable....even Clive Brook (whom I can't for the life of me think why was so popular.... or indeed managed to get Claudette Colbert's character to marry him - he was definitely punching above his weight there!)

Clive Brook plays the stiff upper-lipped English officer type which clearly must have really existed back then. Whilst his character isn't particularly endearing (showing emotion was probably a court martial offence for a British officer back then), one can really appreciate his acting skill because he does actually make you feel sorry for such a wooden character. Claudette Colbert is of course, as she always is, remarkably good (exception being the terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE SIGN OF THE CROSS - but she did give us the famous boob flash in that so it can more than be excused!). She doesn't need to do anything whatsoever to develop her character in this, she has that and magic touch of being able to engage with you instantly.

The Count of Monte Cristo (1934)

Superbly entertaining but not quite a classic

[7/10 · 2 June 2024]

This excellently made picture is one that those you can watch over and over again. It's not however going to be anyone's all time favourite because you can't help feeling that it could have been a bit better. It's a great film but the extra magic which a film like this should have seems missing.

It was the STAR WARS of its day. It's a proper big budget, exciting adventure story and although it's as old to us now as it was to the makers of this film from the writing of the novel, it's still the most accessible and easiest to watch. There are none of the old fashioned traits of silent movies sometimes seen in some 1930s films in this. Perhaps it's because it's set in the past but the style of acting feels absolutely perfect for a story like this. It's almost a classic.

Although as a film it's faultless, in the hands of a different director I am sure it could have been even better. The themes of vengeance, justice and hope are explored well but they don't quite engage on an emotional level. Had this been made by someone like David Lean - or possibly even by Michael Curtiz or George Cukor, the nuances of those themes could have spoken to our hearts rather than just to our heads. There's nothing wrong with this film at all, it's just lacks that spark of magic to raise it to the next level.

Street of Women (1932)

There's no point in watching this.

[2/10 · 31 May 2024]

It's just a pathetic mushy melodrama with a script that sounds like it was written by a 12 year old girl from the eighteenth century. It's so staggeringly unspecial that you might start to think that AI generated pictures have been around a lot longer than you thought.

When I find a film made by Archie Mayo that's good - and there are a few: PETRIFIED FOREST, BLACK LEGION are fantastic, I'm really surprised because most of his output is bland, lazily directed rubbish like this.

He clearly could be a great director when he needed to be but usually he didn't need to. For most of his career, his job wasn't to be a good director because he was just part of the Warner Brothers factory. His function was to turn up, get a bunch of people to dress up and read their lines then his product would be used to fill some screen time in the Warner cinemas for a few days then it would get thrown in the bin. Throw-away films like this didn't need to stand the test of time, they weren't meant to be watched afterwards. If the story was any good it might get remade a few years later. Nobody would ever think of rooting around in the archives to dig out something like this even if it was only a year later. If Mr Mayo is looking down on us now watching this he'd be completely dumbfounded....and possibly embarrassed.

Once you realise that it's Kay Francis who gives the best performance in this you need to be worried. She just does what she always does but the rest of them seem like they've simply turned up for the paycheque.

The Dance of Life (1929)

One of the very best films from 1929

[6/10 · 30 May 2024]

Other than APPLAUSE, I can't think of any 1929 films I'd class as 'good.' The advent of sound seemed to imbue most directors with creative impotence and turn even great actors into talking statues. This one however is actually a genuinely watchable piece of entertainment.

If you're a weird masochists like me who like to torture yourself by watching early talkies, this will be a pleasant surprise for you. It feels like a big budget, high quality Paramount spectacular - a typical 1930s Hollywood movie - even though it's not actually a Hollywood movie. Paramount's new state of the art studio had just burned down so they had to relocate to their old New York studio for this.

Besides APPLAUSE and to a lesser extent THE LADY LIES and BROADWAY MELODY, most 1929 productions can only be viewed as interesting (or in most cases, boring) curios. This one however lets you sit back and, kick off your shoes and enjoy it as a proper picture. It's got proper modern style acting delivered with dialogue which sounds natural and authentic. The actors do what actors are meant to do: make you think they're real people.

One reason for this must attributed to David O'Selznick's decision to use two directors: one with a movie background and one with a theatre background - it works well. (David O'Selznick at Paramount? Working for MGM and RKO was clearly not enough for him!) The photography is as fluid and imaginative as it was before the restrictions of sound recording came in and the sound recording itself is superb. Also, another big plus is that although it's to some extent a romance, it is refreshingly not one of those nauseating, mushy, sickly sweet pictures which polluted our screens in the late twenties.

It's a bit longer than a typical early talkie but lovely Nancy Carroll thoroughly keeps your attention for the whole two hours. Like a lot of actors and actresses who became massively famous in early talkies, she virtually vanished after the mid thirties. You can understand that with many of those stars like Helen Twelvetrees for example who just didn't fit in with the style of filmmaking which the early talkies evolved into. With Nancy Carroll however it doesn't make sense because, certainly in this picture, she was so believable and engaging. She's not just beautiful and super-sexy like say Alice White, she's a real, normal person whom you think you might have gone to school with.

Woman to Woman (1929)

Pretty awful, even by 1929 standards

[2/10 · 28 May 2024]

There were a few really fabulous films made in 1929 but most were dreadful. This is not one of the worst but it's still one of the dreadful ones. Only if you like cringingly sentimental Victorian melodrama made by people who don't know how to make pictures should you brave this one.

To be fair, this was Victor Saville's first full talkie and only the fifth film he'd ever directed so he was still finding his feet - Gainsborough's head of production had clearly not fully developed any directorial skills yet. To learn the ropes, he'd set up yet another company where he'd produce and direct talkies in collaboration with the equally ambitious Tiffany-Stahl company over in America.

Unfortunately for all concerned, T-S's sound recording system was RCA Photophone. Like Warner's Vitaphone, this was a cumbersome sound on disc system which meant that the film's dialogue had to be delivered at a glacial pace giving the film a horribly stilted feel. The sound on disc system also didn't allow for any editing or re-takes so once it was shot, that's what you got.

So this picture isn't terrible simply because of poor direction and poor acting - although the direction and the acting were exceptionally poor! Curiously however the first half hour of this, the scenes set in France aren't too bad - in fact I'd go as far as saying, quite impressive and even engaging. I was actually thinking: Hey, this is quite good for 1929. Were this just my review of the first half hour I'd say that Betty Compson is lovely and I can understand why George Barraud would fall head over heels for her. I'd say that the picture cleverly shows how his feelings develop and loads the screen with tension for the inevitable catastrophe.

Unfortunately you get the impression that Mr Saville went back home to England half way through this picture because once the story has moved on to London, that lively style of delivery, that interesting and imaginative camerawork and that empathy with the characters completely vanishes. It feels like a different film all together - a really bad one! Everyone suddenly starts speaking like they've some horrible disease and Betty Compson forgets she's meant to be doing a French accent.

If you can overlook the awfulness of the production (of the last 2/3 anyway) what is quite interesting is to note that whereas in the original wrote just after the war, soldier David was already married and playing away from home with Lola whereas in this film, such immorality could never be shown - certainly not with a British officer. It's also fascinating to see that the whole crux of the sad denouement relies on the almost impossible to accept today fact that the future of a child born out of wedlock could be so awful that you'd sacrifice your life to avoid it! I'd imagine crowds would have burned down London and hanged Ramsay MacDonald had the original story been filmed! (Or does the example of that beloved Prime Minister disprove this?)

It's weird how in the late twenties a handful of silent movie stars and theatre luvvies suddenly made it big in to the talkies - they were for a few years at the top of the tree, but within a couple of years they were history. Those big new superstars of 1929 of that transition stage between 1929 and 1931 when some great movies were made but most filmmakers were just learning on the job, just vanished. Even the sexiest, cutest and prettiest woman in the world, Alice White who came from nowhere to be absolutely massive in 1931 but was virtually forgotten by 1933. Unlike the divine Alice, Betty Compson was a big silent star - one of those who became a superstar of the talkies. She was perfect for them but as the talkies of 1929 evolved into the talkies of 1931, as they became films we'd recognise as films today, she just couldn't adapt. Most (but not all) of the moving pictures made before about 1931 were essentially silent films with sound. It wasn't really the advent of sound which somersaulted filmmaking, like life in general, the massive social changes in the early 30s were the main driver....... but back to this film - I think I'd prefer George Barraud's amnesia than remember this.

Sadie McKee (1934)

Better Alternatives are Available

[3/10 · 26 May 2024]

Unlike a lot of pre-code movies this doesn't really convey a genuine feel of the early 30s. It's primarily just a Joan Crawford vehicle so fans of Miss C should enjoy this but as an actual film, it's synthetic, a little flat and predictable.

OK, it's well made but possibly too well made to be authentic. It feels like it was written by a committee based on recommendations from a focus group. Joan Crawford plays the Joan Crawford character that her fans expected her to play. There's no originality involved, you can guess exactly what will happen next and you feel like you've seen this before even though you haven't. Surely even Joan Crawford fans must get bored with seeing her in the same tired old stuff? Give me the craziness her character in RAIN any day - at least she was different in that.

During The Depression, Viña Delmar wrote lots of great stories about struggling working class women, several of which evolved into films. BAD GIRL was one of the best. Their appeal was that they were believable stories about real down to earth people. Her original story for this, serialised in a 5c per magazine was apparently quite gritty, salacious and scathingly critical of the male patriarchal unfair society of America in the 1930s. This polished MGM product however feels just like a polished MGM product. It's the equivalent to one of those commercialised manufactured pop bands!

Funny how tastes change, back in the 1930s Gene Raymond was considered to be a bit of a hunk, a pin-up for the ladies. I can't too many women swooning over him today but what do I know? He's certainly not the most naturalistic actor but to be fair, he's got a reasonable singing voice as he demonstrates a few times with 'All I Do Is Dream Of You.' On another music related note, it's interesting to hear a rare guitar solo in the band's rendition of 'After You've Gone.' Not quite Jimmy Page but still something you don't often hear.

Susan Lenox (Her Fall and Rise) (1931)

MGM sure knew how to make a movie!

[7/10 · 25 May 2024]

This is one of THE classic romances! It's extraordinarily well made - not just for 1931, I doubt it could be made better even today. It will guarantee to keep you glued to the screen for an hour and a half.

The story is about a couple who meet just for a couple of days, decide they are meant for each other but are then separated so spend the rest of the film looking for each other. You can't get a more classic romantic fairytale than this but it's believable enough for you to believe that it could actually happen to you. If you don't believe that's possible then maybe you won't like this but if you have a trace of romance inside you, it's pure magic. As romantic as this is, it's not slushy - after all it's still a Mr Macho Gable picture so even the roughest toughest alpha males can enjoy this without impunity.

I've never really 'got' Greta Garbo but watching this I can start to appreciate what her appeal was. Her acting style isn't modern but somehow, in this anyway, she's completely authentic and natural - mesmeric even. Clark Gable is, as always Clark Gable, his character isn't the most developed and the multiple writing team make him a little inconsistent at times but he's still great and even his dog (Gable's own dog) acts brilliantly too - he mimics his owner's expressions perfectly!

Why doesn't Robert Leonard have a statue? His imaginative and creative direction is magnificent - he creates the perfect blend of tension, anticipation, happiness and sadness. Apart from the inexplicably overrated THE DIVORCE, I can't think of one of his films which aren't excellent. His clever montage of Helga literally and allegorically growing up in the shadows is inspired. The camerawork, lighting and set design is amazing throughout.

Comparing a film from the very early 30s with a modern production is usually a stupid thing to do but when something is as professionally and well made as this, you can. This film has class. It's not one of those cheap (but nevertheless often great) Warner Brothers flicks which were thrown together in a few days.

This would have been "an event picture", something everyone would have made the effort to go and see. The best stars, a top director (yes he was!), over a dozen top writers (different stages of their lives need different moods but it all blends together - nearly) and a huge budget were lovingly crafted together to create this near-perfect masterpiece.

Honor Among Lovers (1931)

Like a good soap? You'll love this.

[7/10 · 23 May 2024]

You might think that one of those early 1930s 'women's films' about a girl who marries the wrong man is not for you? Don't think that - this is brilliant! OK, essentially it is just a trashy soap but it's fantastic - honestly!

So why would a Cagney fan watch this? It's made for women, it's written by a woman, directed by a woman and staring THE woman of the 1930s. This isn't the usual type of movie I'd consider watching but because I'm weirdly infatuated with Claudette Colbert I gave it a go. So glad I did! It might be because I wasn't expecting much but I found this absolutely enthralling.

For a film made in 1931, it's extraordinarily well made and the acting is outstanding. We've got none of that theatrical, silent movie type over-gesturing or gazing wistfully into the camera which plagued many early 1930s pictures - this has naturalistic acting and realistic, believable real characters.

The story is nothing original - a pretty girl, chased by two men marries the wrong one. It's not however a sickly sweet romantic melodrama (like one of those mushy Kay Francis films), no, this works so well because its two leads are so utterly real and likeable. You become totally engaged with the romantic dilemmas and emotional traumas of Colbert and March. They're both so natural and real, avoiding the usual clichéd stereotypes.

Claudette Colbert is dazzling, her perfectly well developed character is flirty and bubbly but also sensible and intelligent. Fredric March, playing a millionaire isn't the usual over entitled cad, he's charming and suave but he's also sensitive and a genuinely really nice guy. Dorothy Arzner's supporting cast also give refreshingly proper performances as well portraying real people: Charlie Ruggles plays his usual inebriated friend and Ginger Rogers, still in her 'Betty Boop' phase is fun.

This has a much more modern feel to it than a lot of early 30s films whilst still retaining that naive charm of the era. It's 100% entertaining.

Fallen Angel (1945)

More of a Film Gris rather than a Film Noir

[3/10 · 22 May 2024]

If you're expecting a classy Film Noir, you'll be disappointed. This is completely lacking in that characteristic moody atmosphere. Everyone is so unlikeable in this it's hard to engage making it quite a feat of endurance to get through what seems like hours and hours of dullness.

Fox were trying to recapture the magic of Preminger's earlier picture, LAURA with this but failed miserably. Although his earlier picture had the same talented writer along with cynical and snarky Dana Andrews, it lacked that film's witty dark humour. It also lacked the absurdly beautiful Gene Tierney - lifeless Alice Faye and plastic Linda Darnell are no substitute - they're simply too one dimensional to be credible people.

Nothing quite works. The story just isn't interesting or realistic (as Film Noirs need to be): why the town's entire male population seem to be infatuated with Linda Darnell's character makes no sense. She venomously spits out every single word she speaks as though she despises everyone she meets. How she got a job as a waitress is unfathomable - can't imagine she got much in tips.

You can't develop any empathy for any of this miserable cast. Although Linda Darnell is dreadful in this, Alice Faye is worse. She doesn't manage to pull off doing a serious role, her goody-two shoes character isn't remotely believable. The rest of them seem to be playing clichéd stereotypes of what they think characters should be in a film noir. It's a real disappointment.

Let Us Be Gay (1930)

Nobody can flirt quite like Norma Shearer!

[5/10 · 18 May 2024]

This comedy is very different to what you might expect. Its first ten minutes is the little drama that sets the scene but from then on it's a 1920s style drawing room farce, the type of thing you'd expect to hear the phrase: Anyone for tennis?

Surprisingly, once you get used to its theatrical style - necessary for this type of comedy, you might enjoy this. I didn't think I would but despite my initial reservations (were I around then, I'd have been watching Cagney at the Warner Brothers cinemas), I actually found myself laughing at this.

If someone asked you what 1930s movies were like, this type of picture would definitely not be what you'd think about. Today such gentle, gentile plays would play to empty houses but if you put yourself into the mindset of a 1929 theatre goer, you'll find this quite amusing: it's not what these days you'd call funny but it's not without some charm.

Like all of her films, this is another excuse for Irving Thalberg to say to the world: Have I got a hot wife or what! Inexplicably although Miss Shearer is no classic beauty, she somehow exudes 1.21 Gigawatts of sexuality. Don't know how she does it....maybe it's because she was such a good actress!

In this picture, Mrs T after divorcing her unfaithful husband reinvents herself as the most brazen, sex-hungry man eater you've ever seen outside of a Carry On film. The rest of the cast are the usual stock characters for this type of thing but it's made so well (ok, it's a bit creaky because it was made in 1930) it's a cut above the usual. As long as you know what you're going to get: the acting isn't meant to be naturalistic, it's in the style of a farce - it's actually quite entertaining.

The Little Giant (1933)

One dimensional, one joke movie

[5/10 · 16 May 2024]

Like a lot of comedies made in the pre-code era, depth and believability of characters and subtlety of story were sacrificed for jokes. In this example, there's just one joke which gets a little bit too childish after a while to make a proper picture.

That approach worked with talented comedians such as Laurel and Hardy, Marx Brothers or even today's SpongeBob SquarePants but not with character actors who don't bother to display any character. Comedy dramas only work when you can believe in and empathise with the people you're watching - when you can believe you're watching real people not actors. This film however simply feels like Edward G Robinson having a bit of a laugh. It's not a bad film but its gentle humour relies solely on the fact that Robinson was that tough guy actor being silly.

Despite its significant flaws, reliable Roy del Ruth keeps this bouncing along at a good pace so it's easy to watch. EGR is actually quite amusing and although you'll not laugh, you'll smile. Essentially however this is nothing more than a famous actor enjoying some in-jokes.

Good-Time Girl (1948)

As if we didn't have enough to be miserable about!

[7/10 · 8 May 2024]

England was in a terrible state in the late forties: the cost of the war had bankrupted the country, industry and employment was decimated and crime rates were through the roof. Not too different to America in the early thirties. So, to cheer us up - to give us some escapist entertainment Rank Films gave us this misery fest!

It's no GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933! Optimistic is not an adjective anyone would use to describe this but nevertheless it will keep you glued to the screen. It's not escapist fun, it's not sexy but it is beautifully made.

You'll be cringing as Gwen, 'the good time girl' played brilliantly by Jean Kent, makes stupid decision after stupid decision plunging her life spiralling down the toilet. Virtually every man she pairs up with is worst than the last one - indeed it doesn't paint a pleasant picture of men at all. What it does do is paint a picture of a land where the victory jubilation has given way to an utterly grim and cold reality.

If you've watched lots of pre-code Hollywood movies you'll be familiar with such plots but because it feels much more realistic than a lot of what Hollywood made during those lean years of the thirties, it feels more personal. You can really empathise with poor Gwen and think; there but by the grace of God go I.

Personally I think this would benefit from not having what feels like a morality lecture bolted on to the beginning and the end but the main body of this film is incredibly compelling. Unless you've just watched BICYCLE THIEVES, which manages to be even more relentlessly grim, you're not going to feel especially happy after watching this but it's very satisfying. It's a superbly well made film.

The Sea Wolf (1941)

I think I need a drink after that!

[9/10 · 7 May 2024]

What an experience! Michael Curtiz, the master of the action movie, the master of romance shows that he's also the master of drama with this magnificent and magnetic film which makes you think without you realising that you actually are.

You'll not hear the Amazon man knocking once you've started watching this. Margot Robbie could be banging on your door desperate for a night on the town with you but you'll ignore her advances until the final credits roll - nothing will drag you away from this fabulous picture. Right from the start you're hooked because you know you're watching something special.

It's a real dramatic drama but since it's made by Michael Curtiz and is a Warner Brothers picture you know not to expect it to be too high-brow or intellectually taxing. Expect in-depth and complex characters, emotions running at a hundred and ten percent, one of those scripts which make you feel like applauding for the beautiful and clever use of the English language, an exploration of what it is to be human and the meaning of society ...and as it's a Michael Curtiz picture, pirates (well, sort of)

I quite like Edward G Robinson but I've never really been a fan of his - in this however he's fantastic. He overacts like crazy but that's exactly what his character is like. He makes Captain Bligh seem as chilled out as The Fonz! Watching him is what I imagine it must be like jumping out of an airplane with a parachute for the first time. And as for John Garfield, I don't think I've ever seen him not overacting, even if he was ordering a Big Mac I'm sure he'd do it with such passion and intensity that at least half the people serving would have a breakdown. But again, his violent, reactionary temperament (similar to that in OUT OF THE FOG...although there's more fog, both real and metaphorical in this) fits in perfectly with the crew of The Ghost. In this film however, on this crazy other-worldly ship everyone overacting is the natural state of being. It sounds contradictory but all those intense emotions and passions, all that sheer hatred and unconditional love seems completely and utterly normal. Not everything Michael Curtiz did was brilliant, a lot was pretty poor but this shows his true genius in making this nightmare world, hidden in layer upon layer of fog so real. At times it reminded me of BETWEEN TWO WORLDS/OUTWARD BOUND inasmuch that that crew that captain, the way people just accepted their fate I thought to myself: I know what this is about - it's one of those films where you find out that they're all dead. This was much cleverer - death would be too simple for these people.

You probably know that Curtiz, Robinson, the film's writer Robert Rossen and not forgetting Jack Warner himself were all passionately anti-Nazi so the story was adapted to reflect the perniciousness of the Fascists overrunning Europe. That's as maybe but far more earth shattering is the fact that the song sung in that rough dockside bar at the beginning was 'Hello My Baby' - the song which that frog sung in the best Warner Brothers cartoon ever: ONE FROGGY EVENING!

The Devil's in Love (1933)

If you enjoy pre-code dramas, you'll love this.

[7/10 · 6 May 2024]

The first five minutes might make you think that this will not be your cup of tea - a Foreign Legion story, no thanks but stick with it. It's a proper in-your-face, full blown melodramatic storytelling from a master filmmaker, master storyteller.

Besides the genuinely engrossing story (yes, even ninety years later it'll keep you glued) what's thoroughly outstanding is the fabulous photography. William Dierterle's German expressionist heritage - which he'd exhibit amazingly a few years later his HUNCHBACK OF NOTE DAME is thoroughly evident here. The lighting, the shadows, the use of light and dark to express the mood is beautifully employed in this exceptionally well made picture.

It's just shame that like a lot of films from Fox Film, it hasn't been that well preserved. This means that a lot of the subtlety of the photography which is virtually a character in itself is sometimes lost. It also means that you can't fully appreciate the utter gorgeousness of Loretta Young as well as you should. She was surely the prettiest actress in the world! Her part however isn't that demanding and is only secondary to Victor Jory who is exceptional in this. Yes, Victor Jory is the romantic lead.

The more early thirties pictures I see, the more I keep finding him - especially at Fox Films where he was one of their leading men. After Fox went belly up, his star status slipped and he became a supporting actor on countless movies and to my amazement I have only recently realised that he was Wilkerson in GONE WITH THE WIND.

In this he's the principled and stoic if somewhat sanctimonious hero but shows real depth of character - people like this did exist... or at least after watching his superb authentic performance you'll really believe they did. A shame that as Hollywood grew, there wasn't room for him at the top but you see so many 'big names' from the pre-code days with minor bit parts just a few years later. Fame was very transitory back then.

A Tale of Two Cities (1935)

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

[9/10 · 5 May 2024]

This is the best and most entertaining version of one of the best and most entertaining novels ever written. Those who think a 1935 film will be old fashioned and creaky will be surprised by this. It's not just for old movie fans.

For some nebulous reason I love films from the 1930s but that's not why I love this - I don't really consider this just a 1930s film. Those early pictures have their own style: a kind of naivety, a sense of experimentation in terms of working out what the acting should be and what levels of emotion should be employed. There's nothing about this one which feels it could be improved on.

Most 1930s historical movies whether they're about QUEEN CHRISTINA or QUEEN VICTORIA all feel like you're watching something from the 1930s with people who look like, talk like and think like they're from that decade. It's the same with films from every decade - 1970s films are probably the 'worst' offenders for this! This however feels timeless - you don't feel like you're watching a product made with 1930s people- it feels like Dickens should feel. Wearing its heart on its sleeve, its explicitly emotional style which was common back then gives just the right tone for this story.

Some might say that this is too melodramatic but to say that is to ignore that Dickens himself was the king of melodrama. All his characters were larger than life - that's what his Victorian readers loved and it's what makes his stories so engaging all these years later. So Basil Rathbone is unbelievably evil, Mdm Defarge becomes a crazed inhuman monster, the doctor and his daughter are almost nauseatingly sweet but Dickens used such black and white characters to contrast with the real in-depth personality and nuances of his protagonist: the alcoholic, self-loathing lawyer who believes his life and indeed any life has meaning.

Ronald Colman isn't just perfect as Sidney Carton, he IS Sidney Carton. As we see his true personality break through we're there with him, feeling his every heartbeat. Selznick's big budget production along with Conway's dynamic direction make this not an art film or an intellectual exercise but simply great story.

The Rules of the Game (1939)

Dance on a Volcano

[6/10 · 3 May 2024]

It's not instantly engaging, the characters aren't that easy to like but somehow you get drawn into their lifeless and facile somnolence. It's thoroughly entertaining, it makes you think but it's not that enjoyable.

Renoir paints a pretty depressing picture of the society he was both an integral part of and also the outsider looking in on. It's hardly a loving reflection of the country's upper echelons but as we slowly get to know them (a bit too slowly in my opinion) we realise that they're all decent people, well meaning and very normal people - it's just that their own personal realities are different.

If you're expecting a comedy or 1930s style silliness you will be horribly disappointed. A screwball comedy, this ain't! There are some elements of slapstick and farce but the overriding sense of impending tragedy masks any humour. Nevertheless the upbeat mood is ever present and even in its most miserable moments such as the killing of the rabbits, you know that for every dark moment there will be some lightness on its way. Is it optimistic and uplifting? No, definitely not but neither is it depressing - it's just good drama, cleverly written, well acted and gorgeous to look at.

Director and writer Jean Renoir might not have been the world's greatest actor but he holds all this together. Not only does he link the dissolute upstairs and downstairs stories, his quirky and cheerful presence brings this to life. Without him, this would just be a well made but very dull and worthy film - like the world's most overrated film known as CITIZEN KANE.

You Can't Take It with You (1938)

For a Capra film, this is rubbish

[5/10 · 1 May 2024]

Speaking blasphemy like that, I'm now living in fear of being struck down by a thunderbolt. The Capra-Riskin partnership was responsible for some of Hollywood's greatest pictures ever....oh, and this.

Maybe it's because we expect so much from Capra and Riskin that this feels so sadly disappointing. All their usual tropes are in abundance - but in too much abundance - it's like they're pumped up on steroids. Most of characters are absurd stereotypical cartoon caricatures - so unlike real people you can't develop any empathy with them. The rich folk are just so ridiculously pompous, greedy and nasty and 'the little guys' are virtually saints living - somehow without needing money - in utopian bliss.

It's based on Kaufman's stage play which live was probably really great fun to see but as a film, where you've got time to take in the story, it's just stupid: annoyingly stupid.

If this was half the length and had half the characters it might have been really good. The scenes with Barrymore and Arnold are superb - they're exactly what you'd expect in a Capra film. The scenes with Stewart and Jean Arthur are fun and romantic but the film is ruined by being infested by countless utterly annoying stupid characters. It won't take you more than one minute to want to throw something at Essie, Jean Arthur's teenage sister who is constantly - and I mean literally constantly ballet dancing instead of walking. And as for her husband who plays the xylophone at every opportunity, he just makes you angry.

The bunch of misfits who live in Barrymore's house are meant to be quirky and idealistic. They're meant to show that you don't need to conform to what society expects, that you don't need to be a wage slave, that you don't need a job or money to be happy. Maybe to the unemployed masses of Depression stuck America in 1938 this stuck a chord but to us today they seem loathsome. If they'd shown this film at Woodstock in '69, I'm sure even the hippiest of hippies would have been shouting that this bunch of wasters would benefit from a spell in the army!

For a Cara film this is awful it, it sometimes feels like a parody of itself but being a Capra film and starring the great Lionel Barrymore being brilliant, it's still entertaining and worth seeing....once anyway.

Dishonour Bright (1936)

Dirty Rotten Scoundrels without any humour

[3/10 · 29 April 2024]

This is a pretty embarrassing failure. An attempt to make a Hollywood style romantic comedy in England. Tom Walls made this picture himself starring himself as a man totally irresistible to women - hmm?

Half way through I had to google this to confirm that it was indeed meant to be a comedy - you'd never guess. I'm a big fan of 1930s English comedies but this one is awful.

They hired space at Korda's studio to make this so it does actually look really good and professional but that's about all you can say about this which is positive. Tom Wall was a very funny character actor who had been in some very funny, very silly farces. He was marvellous in those but as a 'serious' actor albeit in an alleged comedy, he was as atrocious as he was a director.

He also looks about a hundred years old and yet he's meant to be God's gift to women. The word delusional springs to mind. Betty Stockfeld and Diana Churchill who are besotted with his dazzling good looks are just as unbelievable. Cecil Parker does his typical one dimensional upper crust caricature and Eugene Pallette, straight after filming MY MAN GODFREY clearly must have been kidnapped and forced to do this. His presence doesn't enhance it (especially with Tom Wall's flaccid direction) but makes you think how much better this would have been had it been made by a Hollywood studio or even here by Gaumont-British or Korda.

Some old films deserve to be lost films.

The Man Who Changed His Name (1934)

It's so bad, it's good...almost

[2/10 · 29 April 2024]

It's pictures like this which give English films from the early thirties such a bad reputation. Saying that however it's not without some charm - it gives you a similar feeling of excitement to seeing your little one in the school play and relief that she managed to get through it without forgetting her lines. I did watch it all the way through though so it can't have been that bad.

Julius Hagen's Twickenham Studios did create a handful of excellent pictures (particularly those made by Bernard Vorhaus) but the main purpose of his studio was to make the quota quickies, screen fillers to satisfy the legal legislation to ensure that a certain proportion of films shown in the UK were made in the UK. Quality wasn't important, speed and cheapness were. They would often see how much film they had and work out how many scenes they could take with that length and make a movie sometimes in a day.

This one however does have quite a clever story but Henry Edwards is certainly no Alfred Hitchcock and his actors are certainly not actors. Not fair because they were working under absurd conditions and the titular Man Who Changed His Name himself was the headmaster in GOODBYE MR CHIPS so he must have been able to act give a proper script/director/budget/salary! Sometimes you start to watch a old film and it's so bad you can't continue. I didn't get that urge with this - there was some sort of residual primal energy or enthusiasm from 1934 still there which kept my attention. Oh my God, I'm starting to sound like I actually enjoyed this aren't I!

Lady in Distress (1940)

I'm being serious - this is fantastic!

[8/10 · 28 April 2024]

You probably don't believe that an obscure English film from 1940 that you've never heard of directed by nobody you've heard of is worth watching. I didn't either until I saw this - what a surprise, it's great!

Let me qualify that 'great.' If you enjoy a good old fashioned gritty, film noir drenched in melodrama without any mushy sentimentality, you'll love this. All the characters are superbly realised with genuine personalities and back stories - they just seem so believable. You can engage with them all and empathise with their tangled and toxic relationships.

Nobody is particularly fun but Michael Redgrave (wearing a flat cap to make him working class!) is constantly cheerful, oblivious to the mayhem he's causing. He's a rather imperfect husband with a pretty wife who becomes infatuated with the wife of a third rate magician. She is played by Sally Gray who is so drop dead gorgeous it's quite understandable. Her husband is Paula Lukas and he's brilliantly over the top as paranoid, insecure utter failure as a magician, husband and man. I'd go as far as saying that this is one of his best roles.

Director Herbert Mason, hardly a well known name, doesn't have any particular style or tricks but succeeds completely in making this totally engrossing. His story was a tried and tested one as this is an English remake of a French film made a year earlier so he had the advantage of knowing the story worked. He really brings his talented cast to life. Lucas and Redgrave are excellent as you'd expect but so is Sally Gray. Whilst she's absolutely stunning, she's also a superb actress.

Although it's very English it has an almost similar feel to those gritty Warner Brothers pre-code movies but with the benefit of a decade's worth of technological advances in filmmaking. Its lack of sugar coating and sentimentality is also refreshing and the likeability of its imperfect characters makes this sublimely entertaining.

Dark Journey (1937)

Tales from Topographic Oceans

[8/10 · 27 April 2024]

A stylish and mature modern feeling espionage film with enough light and shade to keep you glued to the screen. ...and Vivien Leigh is simply stunning.

Like the YES album mentioned above, this picture is exceptionally well made, intelligent and thoroughly entertaining - but lacks a bit of heart. The romance element, which should be the hook of the picture doesn't quite ignite. That's quite understandable really since the protagonists are both cold hearted secret agents, not an occupation where wearing one's heart on one's sleeve is an asset. This unsentimental approach does however make the characters seem both relatable and believable.

Again like Tales from Topographic Oceans, its plot is a little over-complicated but hey, it's a spy film, you're not meant to understand everything! What does make it very confusing is the fact that the English, the Swedish, the French and the Germans all have exactly the same accent. I suppose with so many different nationalities, were everyone to try to do foreign accents it might make it sound a bit silly. Thank God for the Scotsman on one of those boats at the end otherwise you'd have no idea that was a British vessel.

The other odd thing is that although it's set in 1918 everyone is dressed in 1937 style clothes with 1930s attitudes. This was a peculiarly common practice in the 30s - it's weird but doesn't detract from the enjoyment because it's such a superbly produced piece of filmmaking.

Conrad Veidt (who was a genuinely great guy as well as a great actor) is phenomenal and Vivien Leigh (who is unquestionably the most beautiful woman who's ever lived) is mesmeric in this. It's directed by Victor Saville (who jumped ship from his own Gainsborough Pictures to Korda) with his usual flair and perfect pacing. Compared with his previous spy film, I WAS A SPY this is less heavy and more accessible - even though you've no idea who or what most of the cast are meant to be!

And just because I haven't said it for a few seconds - Vivien Leigh - wow!