|
|
Post by topbilled on Oct 26, 2022 17:47:02 GMT
Reviews for Monogram & Allied Artists films will be placed here.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 8, 2023 18:01:14 GMT
This neglected film is from 1952.
Stop the railroad at all costs!
Monogram star Whip Wilson was a somewhat generic cowboy. He appeared in 22 quickies produced by the poverty row studio between 1949 and 1952. These aren’t great movies, but they aren’t bad movies either.
MONTANA INCIDENT is the 21st offering and this penultimate vehicle has become one of the more remembered Whip Wilson pictures. It has a fairly strong script with a good supporting cast. Sidekick duties are taken by Rand Brooks, who is certainly a pleasant enough fella. Whip Wilson is pleasant too, even when they ride into a remote Montana town and encounter trouble.
There’s a land baron who owns most of the local establishments. He’s semi-retired and has turned the family empire over to his oldest daughter. She is played by Peggy Stewart, who specializes in tough western women. Similar to Barbara Stanwyck’s character in THE FURIES, Miss Stewart is a greedy gal who tries to keep daddy in the dark about her various schemes.
There is also a man in charge of a shipping company (Lyle Talbot) who is profiting from the community’s lopsided economy.
Wilson and Brooks are surveyors for the U.S. government, whose intention it is to build a railroad through the valley. It’s a pretty basic set-up in terms of drama.
Miss Stewart, Mr. Talbot and several henchmen are opposed to the construction of a railroad since it will infringe on their businesses. Stewart will resort to any means necessary to impede the railroad’s progress, up to and including murder. The actress has a field day playing an 1880s Cruella DeVil, and she increases the film’s overall entertainment value.
Meanwhile there is a younger sister (Noel Neill) who is against these schemes. She tries to get dear old dad to see the light and step in. She is naturally on the side of law and order and works with Wilson and Brooks (her love interest) to stop her nefarious sibling.
These types of B westerns do not exactly challenge a viewer to think in new terms. They are easy to enjoy no-brainers where goodness always triumphs over evil in the end.
While watching MONTANA INCIDENT one starts to believe most of these performers were hired because they were simple people who knew how to handle a gun and ride a horse capably.
In Whip Wilson’s case he knows how to smile nicely when a scene calls for it. Also, he knows how to put a bit of authority in his voice if a situation requires more gravitas. None of these folks were ever going to be mistaken for Oscar winners and that’s okay really.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jan 8, 2023 19:34:05 GMT
Peggy Stewart could be Ella Raines' sister. (Sorry, these pictures showed the resemblance well, but I couldn't size them the same.)
Peggy:
Ella:
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 8, 2023 19:40:08 GMT
Peggy Stewart could be Ella Raines' sister. (Sorry, these pictures showed the resemblance well, but I couldn't size them the same.)
Peggy:
Ella:
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 17, 2023 15:40:21 GMT
This neglected film is from 1953.
A way of life that possesses the weak
This is a film that merits on-going appreciation, since there are so many ways to interpret the narrative. Deeper meanings can be found and enjoyed with subsequent viewings. I think what I love most about this film is the way we are kept off-guard about who the title character is, and why she has this power over a meek caretaker played by Ida Lupino.
To say Jennifer is a ghost is only half-right. Maybe it is easer to say she is a living woman or a way of life that possesses the weak. The story maintains its hold on the viewer as Lupino’s character struggles to get to the bottom of things. It plays out in spots as an unhealthy obsession. Howard Duff, Lupino’s real-life husband, is cast as the love interest. He seems to have his own obsession where she is concerned, wresting her away from Jennifer.
If you get the chance to look at JENNIFER, and especially if you see JENNIFER twice or more, listen carefully as you hear the dialogue. The lines lead in multiple directions…the mystery only grows deeper about who and what is overtaking Lupino and Duff until they finally confront the truth about the life they live.
Also, listen carefully to the music. There’s a record that Lupino’s character finds and plays, that is replayed throughout the story. During a nightclub scene, we are shown a man singing a tune called ‘Angel Eyes,’ while Duff holds Lupino close and looks into her eyes. But Lupino may not actually be using her own set of angel eyes just yet. So while everything may not be clear for her, it is certainly clear for us the audience as to what is unravelling.
It’s a profound film, infused with the type of atmospheric touches that can only come from smart cinematography that takes full advantage of on-location filming. And it is anchored with an extraordinary performance by its lead actress. Ida Lupino shined in so many classics over the years, but I think this one has to be her best.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jan 17, 2023 17:31:08 GMT
⇧ Nice write-up, you've piqued my interest. To be fair, though, I'm always willing to watch an ida Lupino movie.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Jan 17, 2023 19:07:25 GMT
I wasn't even aware of Jennifer and I'm a big Ida Lupino fan. I also love the song Angel Eyes which was introduced in this film. I'll have to check this film out. Related to the nice write up here is what I found on Wiki related to the "atmospheric touches that can only come from smart cinematography" that TB writes about:
"Time Out magazine (London) writes of the film, "This is gothic romance crossed with early-'50s noir, worth a look for the sake of the great Wong Howe. Grey-listed and taking what work he could get, he tackles even this B-picture for Monogram with unfailing artistry, creating images that are strong without being showy, atmospheric yet perfectly naturalistic."
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 25, 2023 0:51:00 GMT
I hope you guys have had a chance to see JENNIFER since I posted my review. It's a good one.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jan 25, 2023 0:54:37 GMT
This neglected film is from 1953.
George Brent's last starring role in a film
George Brent had his last leading role in a movie when he made this low-budget drama for Monogram/Allied Artists. He plays a writer who goes south of the border to find an old missing pal. In Mexico, he gets mixed up in a murder.
While the picture is entertaining and is an acceptable time passer, it is still a bit of a letdown considering the great stuff he had done earlier at Warner Brothers. His days costarring with the likes of Bette Davis, Barbara Stanwyck and Olivia De Havilland were now over. Interestingly, those actresses would continue to make big budget films for some time after this…but Mr. Brent’s career was on the downswing.
The popular leading man of the 1930s and 1940s still looks fit for a guy of his age, and his pleasing personality is apparent in all his scenes. But the routine plot is hardly exciting, and the by-the-numbers character he plays is certainly no challenge for him.
In some ways, you can see the influence television was already having on mainstream films such as this one. It does not differ from any crime yarn that would be made on the small screen during this era, except that at around 70 minutes and with no commercials, it’s a longer drama with several lengthy outdoor sequences.
Helping the production is actress Hillary Brooke who specialized in playing crooked “dames” as well as Marjorie Lord who appears as Brent’s girl Friday. Miss Lord’s movie career never really went beyond B films like this, and she would soon make a more lasting mark on television as Danny Thomas’ wife on his long-running sitcom.
I’d recommend MEXICAN MANHUNT not exactly for the story (it’s been done a million times) but for anyone who likes George Brent. He deserved a better script but shows us he still had considerable charm and was still every bit a class act though his days as a movie star were now over.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 5, 2023 15:28:05 GMT
This neglected film is from 1956.
His own demons, helping the children
Edmund Purdom plays a Korean war vet attempting to readjust to civilian society. He is discharged from the army and decides to visit the family of a pal that died in a prisoner of war camp. The pal (Donald Murphy) had learned that his wife (Ida Lupino) was cheating on him. Since he was dying, he asked Purdom to make sure his kids were looked after, but he did not want any other man to raise them.
As the story gets underway, Purdom is on a mission of sorts. He has no relatives of his own, and he’s decided to look up his friend’s family. He’s doing this because of the promise he made, but also because he feels empowered to right a few wrongs. This may not seem too strange at first, but he’ll be intruding on their way of life and that may not be good.
After he arrives on the doorstep, he gets acquainted with the widow. It’s obvious Lupino’s character still feels guilty about having committed adultery while her late husband was serving in Korea. She has broken it off with the other man, but is now being blackmailed.
Meanwhile, Purdom gets to know the children. During his time with them, he decides that Lupino is not a decent woman and concocts a plan to spare them a life with such a mother. He’s going to kill the children to save them and ensure that they’re not raised by anyone else. Yes, it’s that unconventional a story. Purdom is no great shakes as an actor, but director Irving Rapper and costar Lupino (herself a director) each guide Purdom to a credible performance.
The film also benefits from strong supporting work by Ann Harding in her last big screen role as the mother-in-law. She is the one who starts to realize the danger they all now face. Meanwhile, Jacques Bergerac is on hand as the cad that’s blackmailing Lupino. But it’s really Rapper’s sharp compositions that make this a compelling melodrama to watch. A lot happens in this film, both within the characters, and around them.
This is conveyed by the intelligent way that Rapper stages and frames the action. In particular, there is one shot where Purdom goes to open an old grandfather clock to set the time. As he pulls back the mirror-like glass panel, we see multiple images of his face reflected. Rapper shoots it through the hollowed out insides of the clock– and we get a glimpse of how the guy ticks, literally and figuratively.
There are also scenes where Purdom plays the piano and Lupino hovers around him, trying to find out from him if her husband knew about her infidelity. They are both at cross-purposes. The music stops, and the focus goes back to the children and how Purdom must “save” them.
The scene in the barn is the most intense. This is where he wrestles with his own demons about what to do to help the children. At one point, he decides to drown them. They are looking at their reflections in some water, and he puts his hands on the back their necks to submerge their faces all the way. It’s a shocking scene, especially for 1956.
Somehow, miraculously, there is a happy ending. And the ending is certainly plausible, if unexpected. Purdom has not been able to bring himself to kill the children. And now, he has decided to go to a V.A. hospital to get psychological treatment. STRANGE INTRUDER is a smoothly played film, with Lupino’s flawless performance at the center of it all. It stays with the viewer a long time afterward, and that’s what classic films do.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 21, 2023 12:26:31 GMT
This neglected film is from 1959.
Worthwhile family western
George Montgomery made quite a few westerns in the 1950s. The handsome actor also starred in his own weekly western television series when this Allied Artists B film was produced. So he was very familiar to fans of the genre. Of course, nobody was ever going to say Montgomery was the next Olivier, but he always did a serviceable job with his screen assignments.
The title character is a dark-colored mustang called Lightnin’ who get a bit more screen time than Montgomery does in the beginning of the story. The film starts with a nice outdoor sequence shot in the Vasquez Rocks park near Agua Dulce, California. Lightnin’ and his equine friends have come looking for water in a section of land where two rival ranchers covet important grazing rights.
One of the ranchers is a lovely widow (Diane Brewster) who is assisted on her property by Montgomery and a world-weary sidekick (Edgar Buchanan) who aim to keep her from bankruptcy and losing everything. Brewster has a young son (Jerry Hartleben) who is fascinated by Lightnin’ after spotting him up on the ridge one day. The boy intends to capture and tame the wild stallion.
Complicating matters is the fact that the rival rancher (Emile Meyer) is resorting to some rather underhanded tactics. His goal is to prevent Brewster from obtaining a much-needed loan to remain in operation.
It turns out Brewster needs $500 to retain the grazing land she’s been using. In a neat bit of irony, Meyer has offered anyone in town five hundred bucks if they can capture and tame Lightnin’ for him. You can see where this is going.
Montgomery and Buchanan work to catch the animal, in order to collect the money from Meyer and save Brewster’s ranch. However, they are not successful in their efforts. Though unbeknownst to them, Brewster’s son has caught Lightnin’ and is taming him. From here it becomes a story about a kid who must part with a beloved horse to save his mom’s land. The lesson of a child making a sacrifice is a fine one, sure to teach something important to youngsters watching the film.
The tale could be called a family western. What we have here is a mild and gentle motion picture with pleasant cinematography, above average performances and a sturdy narrative that reflects moral mid-century American values. I don’t think anyone can go wrong spending time watching this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Jul 21, 2023 12:41:12 GMT
That's a nice review.
One of the fun things in your neglected film reviews is running into an actor you recognize, in this case, Emile Meyer, and thinking, "wait, I know him or her from...." For Meyer, I know him from several movies, but my first "ping" was of him playing the fat, nasty and corrupt cop from "Sweet Smell of Success."
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Jul 21, 2023 13:59:58 GMT
That's a nice review.
One of the fun things in your neglected film reviews is running into an actor you recognize, in this case, Emile Meyer, and thinking, "wait, I know him or her from...." For Meyer, I know him from several movies, but my first "ping" was of him playing the fat, nasty and corrupt cop from "Sweet Smell of Success."
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 3, 2023 14:29:26 GMT
This neglected film is from 1948.
Foot notes noir style
Some poverty row productions have done the unthinkable…they’ve stood the test of time. In this case, Monogram’s economically produced noir thriller I WOULDN’T BE IN YOUR SHOES goes the distance. Of course, a strong story by detective fiction writer Cornell Woolrich doesn’t hurt, and neither do two very likable leads in the form of Elyse Knox (mother of Mark Harmon) and Don Castle (best man of producer Jack Wrather and wife Bonita Granville).
Things get off to an interesting start in the opening scenes, where we learn Castle is on death row and scheduled to die for a murder he didn’t commit. When his faithful wife (Knox) visits him, they reaffirm their love for each other though the odds are not in favor of them being together again.
The prison scenes involve a group of inmates all facing execution in the near future. The men are known only by the numbers of their prison cells. These scenes indicate the filmmakers are against capital punishment, since some of the dialogue is very obvious in this regard. Especially when we’re told that someone (Castle’s character) has been convicted of a heinous killing with only the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence.
While Castle meets with a priest and awaits death, Knox stops off at a church to pray. She will continue to try proving her husband’s innocence. There are obligatory flashbacks that show how the couple, both dancers, got into this mess months earlier. Castle threw his dancing shoes out the window at a screeching cat one night. Those shoes were used by the real killer and left at the scene of the crime.
Meanwhile, Knox still has to pay the rent and the electric bill so she works as a dance instructor (production code euphemism for taxi dancer) at a joint where lonely men shell out money to take a whirl or two on the dance floor. We can pretty much guess that one of Knox’s regular customers is the real culprit, who sought to frame Castle. With Castle out of the way, the guy can move in on Knox and have her all to himself.
The twist here is that one of the lead detectives (Regis Toomey) in the case is the guilty party. In an unexpected development, he manipulates circumstantial evidence against another innocent man (Robert Lowell) to “help” Knox clear Castle at the last minute. Toomey’s character plays both sides of the fence, and he probably gives the picture’s best performance.
A restored copy of this Monogram gem is currently available for streaming on the Criterion Channel. It’s grouped with a few other titles under a holiday noir theme, since most of the story here takes place around December 24th. At one point, before her husband is finally exonerated, Knox utters: “It’s Christmastime, and I’m lonesome and afraid.” Her heart is in total despair. Such a bleak outlook…not the usual Yuletide cheer…but then Toomey is apprehended, and the newlyweds get their happy ending at the last possible moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Dec 3, 2023 17:17:44 GMT
.png)
I Wouldn't Be in Your Shoes from 1948 with Elyse Knox, Regis Toomey and Don Castle
I Wouldn't Be in Your Shoes is a better-than-average B noir based on a story by prolific noir writer Cornell Woolrich.
While its story isn't unique and the plot flaws tumble out along the way, the picture engages with its short runtime and tight directing that keeps its focus on the narrative and its pretty lead actress, Elyse Knox.
A married, out-of-work dance team, played by Knox and Don Castle, live in a one-room apartment supported, for the moment, by Knox's work as a taxi dancer. Late one night, in a pique, Castle throws his tap shoes out of their apartment window at two loud cats.
That, as is noir's wont, sets off an incredible chain of events. Later, Castle finds a wallet with a large sum of money, but no identifying papers. Knox and he argue - he wants to turn it in, she doesn't - but eventually they keep it and spend some of the money.
Those two events lead to Castle being arrested for the murder of a reclusive neighbor. A detective, played by Regis Toomey, puts a solid but circumstantial case together, which leads to Castle's conviction for murder.
With Castle now on death row, a frantic Knox, who knows her husband is innocent, turns to the always hovering around Toomey for help. Told sort of through a flashback, as the movie opens with Castle on death row recollecting how he got there, the movie is now a race to save Castle.
This is another Hollywood tale of a wrongly convicted man on death row. Here, almost all the death-row inmates - ridiculously referred to by each other by only their number, get it? - seem like good men. The families of their victims probably have a different opinion.
Knox's only ally is Toomey who agrees to help dig up new evidence in return for a kiss. That's just the Motion Picture Production Code getting in the way of the truth, though, as in the real world, we know pretty Knox slept with Toomey in return for his help.
A promising looking suspect is found and arrested, but will it hold up? Will it be enough to help free Castle? If not, who is really behind the framing of Castle? By the time we get to the climax, no spoilers coming, you'll have easily figured it out, but it is still an engaging story.
I Wouldn't Be in Your Shoes punches above its B noir weight, in part because Knox is so earnest in her attempts to save her husband. Yet when needed, she shows some Machiavellian instincts in dealing with Toomey. She's no simple "nice wife."
The movie also works because, despite its many plot flaws, director William Nigh keeps each scene tight, which keeps the story and action moving quickly along. Nigh also knows how to capture small but realistic details that add to the picture's verisimilitude.
For a movie made under the Code, Nigh tucked in a scene about an ethnically Jewish shopkeeper talking about how Castle wished her a happy Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, and how she wants to wish him a Merry Christmas in return.
That comment, and others like it, almost flies by, but it gives the movie a more realistic feel as genuine ethnicity - as opposed to stereotypes like the loud Italian restaurant owner or the Irish cop - was scrubbed out of most movies made under the Code.
Knox's performance here wasn't accidentally overlooked by the Oscars, but she does a respectable job carrying most of the movie. Toomey, a fine actor, plays his complex detective in a low-key way, only slowly spooning out his true self.
Castle is a weak point as he seems to smile his way through everything, even being on death row. It's hard to believe he'd be almost cheery as the priest is called to give him his last rights.
I Wouldn't Be in Your Shoes, with its small budget and short runtime, could easily have been turned into an hour-long TV show. As a B noir and despite its challenges, it works because of Knox's earnest performance, Woolrich's story and Nigh's thoughtful directing. |
|
