The Gambler and the Lady (1952) Starring: Dane Clark, Naomi Chance, Meredith Edwards, Kathleen Byron, and Erich Pohlmann Director: Sam Newfield, Patrick Jenkins and Terence Fisher Rating: Seven of Ten Stars
An American hood living in London (Clark) wants more than to just be the guy who made his fortune owning popular night clubs and running successful after-hours gambling parlors... he wants to accepted among the circle of the British ruling class the admires so much. When he befriends the beautiful and truly noble-in-spirit Lady Susan (Chance), it appears his dream may come true. But will gangsters trying to take over his businesses, bitter ex-employees, and his own naive belief that the British upper class is inherently more honest and decent than men of the street like himself conspire to destroy him first?
"The Gambler and a Lady" unfolds like a Greek tragedy, with everyone around Jim Forster, the American street tough turned die-hard Anglophile, warning him that the upper-crust is not a place for him, nor are those who are already there the kind of people he imagines. But, like all tragic heroes, Jim forges ahead, pursuing his hopes and dreams... and ultimately dooming himself and everyone and everything he ever cared about. The end of the film is its starting point, but even if it wasn't, it is no surprise that Jim comes to a sad end, nor how he got there; each step that he thinks leads him closer to his dream turns out in the end to be another factor in his downfall and only Jim is blind to this fact until it's too late.
Although Dane Clark will never be enshrined among history's great actors, he had a real knack for portraying Everyman and tough guys with soft interiors, both of which made him perfect for the role in "The Gambler and the Lady". In the hands of a lesser actor, or a more handsome one, the character of Jim could easily have come across as pathetic rather than sympathetic. While the entire cast is good in their parts--as is the case with most of these black-and-white Hammer crime dramas given that we see the same supporting actors over and over again--it really is Cook who makes the movie.
"The Gambler and the Lady" was reportedly shot in less than a month, and with a configuration of three directors in order to allow American writer/director Sam Newfield to help the project without drawing flak from the British labor unions, but any production difficulties aren't to be seen in the final product. It's a fast-paced, interesting and compelling drama that features more action than is the norm for Hammer's black-and-white thrillers and it easily ranks among the best of the films born from the partnership between the English studio and American B-movie producer Robert Lippert.
This is a movie that doesn't deserve the obscurity it has languished in for the past many decades. It's worth checking out for anyone who enjoys classic movies.
A Shriek in the Night (1933) Starring: Ginger Rogers, Lyle Talbot, Purnell Pratt, Harvel Clark, Lillian Harmer, Louise Beaver, and Arthur Hoyt Director: Albert Ray Rating: Seven of Ten Stars
A series of murders take place in an upscale apartment building, and reporters Pat Morgan (Rogers) and Ted Kord (Talbot)--working for rival newspapers but involved in a romantic relationship--are hot on the trail of the killer, or killers. Morgan happened to be working on an investigative piece about one of the victims, so she is in a perfect place to help both her career and the police... so long as she doesn't end up a murder victim herself.
"A Shriek in the Night" is, for the most part, a fairly typical early 1930s low-budget mystery, with dimwitted maids, cranky police detectives (although in this one the detective is not incompetent, just cranky), and wise-cracking reporters running circles around everyone and ultimately providing the clues needed to solve the mystery. The acting is above average here, and the characterizations of the two reporters and the police detective are also a bit more intelligent and three-dimensional than is often the case in these movies. (The comic relief maids are still as annoying as ever; if this is what American-born house-servants were like, it's no wonder we took to importing illegal aliens to turn down our beds and clean our homes!)
What really sets the film apart from others like it is its villain, and a surprisingly chilling sequence where he prepares to burn Pat Morgan alive. This character feels in many ways like an ancestor to the mad killers who came into vogue during the 1970s, and which continue to slash, strangle, and mutilate their way across the movie screen to this very day.
Another thing I found interesting in this film is how different Ginger Rogers' character was from the one she played two years later in "The Thirteenth Guest".
Many actors and actresses that appeared in these B-movies gave pretty much the same performance in movie after movie--for instance, there's very little difference between the smart-ass character Lyle Talbot plays here and the one he played in "The Thirteenth Guest." I haven't seen enough of Rogers' performances to really know why there is this difference--was she lucky enough to have a chance to show different facets of her acting ability, or did she make each part she played different somehow?--but it was an unexpected surprise.
Those of you out there with more than just a passing interest in suspense and horror movies may want to check this film out for its very modern, proto-"maniac killer" character/sequence. Those of you who just enjoy this style of movies--mysteries that get solved by wise-cracking reporters who take nothing seriously--should also check it out. It's a fun way to spend an hour.
Whistle Stop (1946) Starring: George Raft, Ava Gardner, Victor McLaglan, Tom Conway, and Jorja Curtright Director: Leonide Moguy Rating: Five of Ten Stars
When Mary (Gardner) returns to her home town after two years away, she rekindles a rivalry between Kenny (Raft), a two-bit loser she's always loved, and Lew (Conway), the local hotel owner--and hood-- who has always been in love with her. This time, the rivalry leads to more than just a few thrown punches... this time, it leads to robbery and murder.
"Whistle Stop" feels more like a summary of a story than the actual story. We learn learn next to nothing about the characters other than their most obvious traits (Why does Mary really come back to town? What was she really doing for those two years in Chicago? Why does Lew go to such extreme measures to get even with Kenny... is he really just a bastard?), we learn very little about the deep relationships that exist between them (Why does Gitlo--a resentment-filled employee of Lew, who is played by Victor McLaglan--have such a soft spot for Mary? Has Mary and her family always been the landlords of Kenny's family and is that how they met?). Perhaps if we knew a little more about the characters in the film, the ending would have felt a little less strange.
This is one of those films that's technically well made and features decent performances by all the actors, but which is ultimately undone by a bad script. The end result is okay but unremarkable.
Edward D. Wood Jr. is remembered by history as a cinematic sad-sack. He was a dreamer who never put in the effort to learn the craft of writing or filmmaking, and all his excitement and hopes couldn't replace craftsmanship. His films are universally shoddy to say the least.
Wood's most famous pictures are the ones he made with Bela Lugosi (including his best work, the very heartfelt and bizarre "Glen or Glenda?"). You can read my reviews of those films here, at a blog closely related to this one, The Bela Lugosi Collection.
In this article, however, I discuss Wood's two attempts at the film noir genre, one which was a solo effort and another where he simpl wrote the script for another (equally inept) filmmaker.
Jail Bait (aka "Hidden Face") (1954)
Steve's Rating: Four of Ten Stars
Starring: Herbert Rawlinson, Lyle Talbot, Dolores Fuller, Timothy Farrell, Clancy Malone, Steve Reeves, and Theodora Thurman
Dirrector: Edward D. Wood, Jr.
Hoping to save his son, a kindly old plastic surgeon (Rawlinson) is forced to give a gangster (Farrell) a new face.
"Jail Bait" is average Ed Wood, which means it's pretty bad.
The acting is universally awful, although in the case of Rawlinson and Talbot, I think the performance is more a result of what they had to work with and WHO they had to work with than a lack of talent; both men have been much better in other films. Talbot was never particularly amazing, but he was far better in "Trapped By Television," for example. (Although, it might speak volumes of Rawlinson's professionalism that he was willing to deliver a classic Ed Wood lines like "This afternoon we had a long telephone conversation earlier in the day." Although, why no one on the set didn't say, "Hey, Ed... should this line be 'We had a long telephone coversation earlier this day' or 'This afternoon we had a long telephone conversation'?" I can't possibly imagine.)
The story is also padded and drawn out, first by a pointless bit of older footage of a boring burlesque dancer and then by a handful of overwrought scenes of questionable value. Basically, Wood crams 45 minutes of excitement into a 70-minute running time.
There are some interesting ideas plot-wise, though. I think that with a more competent director, a better cast, a script that had been revised by someone who could read, and a budget of more than $32 for sets and make-up--even the most generous and most imaginative of viewers couldn't possibly consider the shabby set that is the home of gangster Vic Brady's kept woman "fancy", no matter how much the characters insist that it is--this could have been a decent crime drama. It might even have been touching at times, with its message about supportive fathers and love between family members.
But, none of that is the case, and this ends up being a weak effort, even by Edward D. Wood, Jr. standards.
Still, there's enough quirky charm here to make "Jail Bait" worthy of adding to the line-up for a "Bad Movie Night." Just know that the title is misleading--its taken from a line delivered by Fuller's character, where she refers to her brother's unregistered handgun as "jail bait"... the phrase must have meant something different in 1953, or at least something different to Ed Wood.
The Violent Years (aka "Female," "Girl Gang Terrorists" and "Teenage Girl Gang") (1956)
Starring: Jean Moorhead, Barbara Weeks, Joanne Cangi, Gloria Farr, Therea Hancock, Timothy Farrell, Arthur Millan, I. Stanford Jolley, and Lee Constant
Director: William Morgan
Rating: Four of Ten Stars
The neglected daughter of a socialite and a workaholic newspaper editor forms a gang of other girls who receive everything but attention from their parents. Together, they go on an ever-escalating crime-spree that involves gas station robberies, the rape of young men, and even the desecration of the American flag!
"The Violent Years" is a film written by the infamous Edward Wood, a screenwrite and director whose flims only redeeming qualities were that the passion he had for filmmaking managed to show through the cheap sets, bad acting, and incompetent direction, and the quirky sort of poetic cadence that was present in his dialogue. (Of course, also present were awful lines like, "It's hard for an old friend to sit in judgement of an old friend.") Although one might think that another director at the helm of this movie might elevate above Ed Wood's usual low standards, but it happens that William Morgan is about as skilled a craftsman as Wood.
That said, this film still has has its decent points. First off, it has a message that is equally valid today. Parents need to do more parenting--as in, they need to set aside their own interests and desires for the years when they should be focusing on guiding and nurturing the young lives they've brought into this world--if we're to pull American society out of the tailspin it's been in for the past 50 years. It's delivered in so hamfisted a fashion that it makes "Reefer Madness" seem subtle, but it's a message that I wish would reach reach the appropriate ears and one that I wish would be heeded. It also features a nice reversal of the oft-featured gang-rape scene in these sorts of youth crime films, and perhaps one of the most creative executions of a car crash in a film where the budget didn't allow for a car crash. Oh... and just about every female character who you might want to see in tight clothes is indeed wearing tight clothes. If only real life had so many firm bosoms in tight sweaters!
On the downside, we've got some pretty horrible acting that's matched only by the film's horrible casting. The teenage wild things, who are around 15 or 16 years old according to the film's story, are played by actresses who are obviously in their late 20s or early 30s, something which lends an air of rediculousnesses to the story. Further, we once again are treated to some of the cheapest looking homes of rich people that have ever been put on film. (Ed Wood kept writing about fancy homes, but the sets in his movies never rose to even being close to believable on that count.)
Of course, there's also plenty of "so bad they're good" moments in the film, such as the pajama party, the shoot-out, and the aforementioned rape scene which is on one hand as creepy and disturbing as it needs to be, but undermined by an illogical simultaneous escape scene.
Like Ed Wood's other message picture, "Glen or Glenda?", "The Violent Years" delivers a point that is worth taking to heart--while the previous film asked for tolerance of those who are different, this film calls for parents to live up to their responsibilities and presents us with an over-the-top example of the consequences of parental neglect. And it has the added benefit of delivering its message wrapped in tight sweaters.
A Life at Stake (aka "The Key Man") (1954) Starring: Keith Anders, Angela Lansbury, Claudia Barrett, and Douglass Dumbrille Director: Paul Guilfoyle Rating: Four of Ten Stars
An architect (Anders) attempting to come back from a business failure is approached by a wealthy couple (Lansbury and Dumbrille) who claim they want to help him get back on his feet so he can build houses for them. The husband insists the architect takes out a large insurance policy so their investment can be recovered if something should go wrong. When the architect starts having unexplained accidents, he starts to fear that he is the investment, and that his death is the pay-off.
"A Life at Stake" is a slow-moving, completely predictable (despite the far-fetched, convoluted nature of its plotline) film with a fairly dull main character and a pair of villians who aren't much better. In fact, the only performer here who displays any charisma whatsoever is Claudia Barrett, who is featured as the innocent younger sister of Lansbury's character.
"But what about Angela Lansbury?" some of you ask.
Well, I think she is horribly miscast here. She simply isn't the slinky, femme fatale type. This part required either a Lauren Bacall-type, or, at the opposite end of the scale, a Heather Angel-type. Lansbury is neither, and she is terribly miscast.
That said, she was more convincing in a similar role in "Please Murder Me", because she wasn't playing a straight-up "scheming trophy wife" as she is here. In the other film, Lansbury WASN'T playing an evil hussy... or so it seemed....
"A Life at Stake" is deserving of its obscurity. It can be found with 49 other black-and-white film noir/crime dramas, or on a double-feature DVD with the above-mentioned "Please Murder Me". As such, it's harmless filler. It's not a film worth seeking out, unless you're the president of the Angela Lansbury Fan Club.
The Wrong Road (1937) Starring: Richard Cromwell, Helen Mack, Lionel Atwill, and Horace MacMohan Director: James Cruze Rating: Five of Ten Stars
Jimmy and Ruth, a young, down-on-their-luck couple (Cromwell and Mack) steal $100,000 from Jimmy's employer that they intend to live off it once they get out of prison. A private detective charged with recovering the loot (Atwill) believes they are just a pair of desperate kids deserving of a second chance, and he arranges their early parole. As he encourages them to give back the money, a coldhearted, murderous criminal (MacMohan) is stalking them in the hopes of getting the loot for himself.
"The Wrong Road" is so heavy-handed in delivering its "crime doesn't pay" and "it's never to late to reform and become a law-abiding citizen again" messages that it borders on the goofy educational films that were so popular in the 1950s and 1960s (and even into the 1970s, because I remember watching a few...). However, a cast far classier and talented than is usually found in that sort of films, and a fast-moving story that actually has some tension to it makes it better than the educational shorts and film-strips it resembles.
The best part of the film is Atwill's character. Private detective Mike Roberts is almost a proto-Colombo, with his ability to pop up in Jimmy and Ruth's path at just the right (or wrong, depending on your point of view) moment, and his technique of annoying the criminals into coming clean.
Prison Shadows (1936) Starring: Edward Nugent, Joan Barclay, Lucille Lund,and Syd Saylor Director: Robert Hill Rating: Four of Ten Stars
When boxer Gene Harris (Nugent) kills two men in the ring in two fights seperated by a three-year manslaughter stint in the clink, his trainer (Saylor) smells a rat and tries to investigate.
That's not the best summary of "Prison Shadows", but a more detailed one would give away too much of the plot. Unfortunately, that plot is one that will barely make sense to even the most attentive viewer. It's not that it's overly complicated... it's just that it's dumb, with bad guys that are even dumber. (And they're not dumb for comedy... they're just dumb.)
And speaking of dumb. I think the character Gene has got to be one of the most frustrating characters I've ever experienced in a film. The level of obliviousness he shows to the affection that Good Girl Mary Comstock (Barclay) has for him while he carries his torch for Femme Fatale Clair Thomas (Lund) is maddening.I usually don't mind romantic subplots, but this one bugged the heck out of me.
It's a shame the script for this film is so awful, because all the actors are good in their parts--Nugent is perhaps the weakest of the bunch, but I may feel that way due to his bone-headed character more than anything. He wasn't exactly bad... he was just "blah" when compared to everyone else.
