|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 3, 2023 18:00:16 GMT
Good review Fading Fast. I think I am a little more forgiving about Don Castle's acting and actually consider myself a fan. But I agree that there should have been a bit more fear or panic as he waited on death row, then perhaps some solemn resignation when he spoke to the priest believing this was the end of his life.
The stuff with the Jewish shopkeeper was good for the reasons you mentioned, as it reflected diversity...but maybe I was confused about the timeline...because Rosh Hashanah occurs in September, not December. And the bulk of the story takes place around Christmas. So unless the scene in the Jewish shop was a flashback from earlier in the year, it seemed out of place to me.
Reflecting on the film, I think my favorite part was when Toomey's character followed Lowell to the small town where Lowell was set to propose to his girlfriend...and he hauled Lowell back to face possible charges. It was interesting how we had a crooked cop potentially ruining another innocent man's life, before Toomey's own schemes caught up with him. On that level, the film works in a very simple yet deceptive fashion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Dec 3, 2023 18:27:07 GMT
Good review Fading Fast. I think I am a little more forgiving about Don Castle's acting and actually consider myself a fan. But I agree that there should have been a bit more fear or panic as he waited on death row, then perhaps some solemn resignation when he spoke to the priest believing this was the end of his life.
The stuff with the Jewish shopkeeper was good for the reasons you mentioned, as it reflected diversity...but maybe I was confused about the timeline...because Rosh Hashanah occurs in September, not December. And the bulk of the story takes place around Christmas. So unless the scene in the Jewish shop was a flashback from earlier in the year, it seemed out of place to me.
Reflecting on the film, I think my favorite part was when Toomey's character followed Lowell to the small town where Lowell was set to propose to his girlfriend...and he hauled Lowell back to face possible charges. It was interesting how we had a crooked cop potentially ruining another innocent man's life, before Toomey's own schemes caught up with him. On that level, the film works in a very simple yet deceptive fashion.
The scene where he went to the small town was a good one, but also, to your latter point, it felt a little forced to me how easily they nearly railroaded this guy. And in the end, the system worked as the evidence revealed his innocence. I saw that as much as a plot flaw than anything else. But yes, a crooked cop is a scary thing. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 3, 2023 18:39:21 GMT
Good review Fading Fast. I think I am a little more forgiving about Don Castle's acting and actually consider myself a fan. But I agree that there should have been a bit more fear or panic as he waited on death row, then perhaps some solemn resignation when he spoke to the priest believing this was the end of his life.
The stuff with the Jewish shopkeeper was good for the reasons you mentioned, as it reflected diversity...but maybe I was confused about the timeline...because Rosh Hashanah occurs in September, not December. And the bulk of the story takes place around Christmas. So unless the scene in the Jewish shop was a flashback from earlier in the year, it seemed out of place to me.
Reflecting on the film, I think my favorite part was when Toomey's character followed Lowell to the small town where Lowell was set to propose to his girlfriend...and he hauled Lowell back to face possible charges. It was interesting how we had a crooked cop potentially ruining another innocent man's life, before Toomey's own schemes caught up with him. On that level, the film works in a very simple yet deceptive fashion.
The scene where he went to the small town was a good one, but also, to your latter point, it felt a little forced to me how easily they nearly railroaded this guy. And in the end, the system worked as the evidence revealed his innocence. I saw that as much as a plot flaw than anything else. But yes, a crooked cop is a scary thing.
I think what I liked about the scene where Toomey went to the small town to arrest Lowell is that for about five or so minutes, the narrative completely veers away from Castle and Knox. In major studio films, there is this is unrealistic need to keep the main stars on screen the whole time in nearly every scene. But here, the filmmakers are not afraid to set the main plot aside and focus for a bit on the subplot...and it was necessary for us to see how shady Toomey's character was. |
|
|
|
Post by jamesjazzguitar on Dec 3, 2023 19:23:54 GMT
I Wouldn't Be in Your Shoes is Muller's next Noir Alley offering. Were the above posted because of that?
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Dec 3, 2023 19:27:00 GMT
I Wouldn't Be in Your Shoes is Muller's next Noir Alley offering. Were the above posted because of that? |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 3, 2023 19:30:11 GMT
I Wouldn't Be in Your Shoes is Muller's next Noir Alley offering. Were the above posted because of that?
Plus it had been awhile since we'd done any neglected Monogram or Allied Artists titles. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 26, 2023 12:53:34 GMT
This neglected film is from 1952.
Camel western
The U.S. Army Camel Corps was an attempt to use sturdier animals across the desert between Texas and California. Organized by Secretary of War Jefferson Davis, this notable experiment was later depicted in SOUTHWEST PASSAGE (1954) and in several western TV series. The Camel Corps lasted for ten years from 1856 to 1866. It was discontinued after the Civil War, because transport through the region was made easier after the building of the transcontinental railroad.
A written preface on screen tells us that after the camels were no longer needed by the government, they were sold off or had escaped into the southwestern desert. Certainly this is an interesting historical backdrop and with such information, we are able to better appreciate the story that follows.
Wayne Morris, freelancing after his years at Warner Brothers, plays the main character and also serves as a coproducer. His character is a likable prospector who has unearthed a lode of gold and needs to get it to California. The ore may be too heavy to haul by horse. There are some camels loose in the vicinity, as seen by a drunken old pal (Emmett Lynn). Also roaming the land is a pretty gal (Virginia Grey) who seems to be running from something and wants to travel to California, too.
Meanwhile some villainous Arabian men (George Tobias, Anthony Caruso & John Doucette) are on the trail. They were probably trying to recapture the stray camels, but now have a new plan to steal Morris’ gold. We see how ruthless they are when two of them kill Lynn’s character, after Morris and Grey have gone ahead. With the basic set-up established, we have an idea how it will all play out. Morris and Grey will journey to California, with her posing as his wife. The Arabs will pursue them (hence the title).
This is a decent enough B western with a unique premise to keep viewers engaged. Obviously, there isn’t a huge budget provided by the executives at Monogram, which may explain why Morris is also functioning as a producer, to add to what may be lower pay as the film’s star. The dialogue has been written by Scott Darling. Incidentally, this was the last script submitted by Darling whose work in motion pictures originated with silent serials in the 1910s. The prolific screenwriter had committed suicide before DESERT PURSUIT was made.
One thing I like about this film is the fact that there are no interior sets used. All the action is filmed outdoors on location, mostly in Death Valley. Because of this, we are given characters with a goal against the elements, navigating land and weather. Oh, and their own internal desires. Of course, we know Morris and Grey will fall in love and become a proper married couple by the time the story concludes.
Despite the outdoor desert scenes under a blazing sun, the characters don’t seem to perspire at all. Sure, they take obligatory drinks of water from their canteens. But one gets the impression most scenes were shot in the morning before it was too hot. Production notes also tell us that shooting took place in late October and November 1951, which would have been cooler months for the cast and crew to work outdoors in Death Valley.
The standard western passage aspects of the tale are enhanced by a religious sequence near the end. This is when Morris and Grey have reached California, where they receive protection from the bad guys by natives at a Catholic mission. It’s Christmas, and the locals amusingly think the Arab villains are like the three wisemen mentioned in the Bible. Plus, since Grey’s character is named Mary, they probably have their ideas about her…though we’ve been told she was a crooked saloon gal before she teamed up with Morris and started to reform.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Dec 26, 2023 13:02:10 GMT
That's an enjoyable review. I like the part about the confusion over the three wisemen.
Only in the past several years, despite knowing about him for decades, have I come to appreciate Wayne Morris as an actor. It's his role in "Paths of Glory" that showed me he was a real actor, but once he hit my radar, I've noticed his performances in several other movies and am always impressed. He flies below the radar, but the man was talented.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Dec 26, 2023 13:13:48 GMT
That's an enjoyable review. I like the part about the confusion over the three wisemen.
Only in the past several years, despite knowing about him for decades, have I come to appreciate Wayne Morris as an actor. It's his role in "Paths of Glory" that showed me he was a real actor, but once he hit my radar, I've noticed his performances in several other movies and am always impressed. He flies below the radar, but the man was talented.
I don't think they all were interested in being movie stars forever. But while they could, they continued to do these projects, even at the lesser studios, that allowed them to continue a wealthy lifestyle and/or invest for the future. With Morris, you never feel he is just going through the motions. He still manages to connect with his costars even if he doesn't fully believe in the story that plays out on screen.
After watching DESERT PURSUIT, I wondered why this ten year period of the army using camels to haul supplies hadn't been covered in any recent westerns. It's an interesting topic and part of American history, especially in the southwestern U.S. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 5, 2024 14:51:22 GMT
This neglected film is from 1944.
What kind of man did she marry?
The print I watched recently on the Criterion Channel was re-titled BETRAYED, and it switched the billing. Monogram’s original release was called WHEN STRANGERS MARRY, and Dean Jagger was billed first, followed by Kim Hunter then third-billed Robert Mitchum. But in the re-release, Mitchum took top billing, Hunter remained second and Jagger was demoted to third-billed player. It doesn’t really matter, since none of the scenes seem to have been cut.
However, the billing is interesting, because Jagger was intended as the lead and his character turns out not to be the killer everyone thinks he is. Thus, Kim Hunter’s character did not make a mistake rushing into a marriage with him after only knowing him a short time. In an ironic twist, the guy from back home (Mitchum) that she felt she might have wed, he’s the one who turns out to be the bad guy. So, with Mitchum taking top billing in the re-release prints, the lead is now a killer/villain.
I do think the scenarists and director William Castle go out of their way to lay on the red herrings. There are so many people pointing fingers, so many deliberate misdirections that after awhile, you do not fully believe what you are seeing. You know there has to be something else going on. Such a gimmicky approach does have the value of adding suspense to the main storyline, so you do keep watching to find out how things will eventually end up.
However, because the filmmakers are trying to keep the audience guessing whether or not Jagger is the mysterious silk scarf murderer, there are a few items that remain unexplained. For example, why does Jagger suddenly decide to skip out on Hunter at one point early in the marriage. Initially, we are led to believe he’s guilty and is not necessarily running out on her, but running from the cops. But since he’s revealed not to be the culprit at the end, why would he have wanted to leave if he was truly innocent. Wouldn’t the guy rather stick around and defend himself?
Another thing that is not explained is why Mitchum would even have wanted to kill anyone. He is outed as having bumped off a wealthy man in Philadelphia with a silk scarf, but the motive would have been for the money. Yet we are shown repeatedly that Mitchum is a very successful traveling salesman staying in one of the finest hotels in the country.
Would he actually have a reason to off the victim? And if he did have a motive, why do it with a silk scarf? Why not just push the guy out a window or off the roof, like Mitchum tries to do to Hunter later in the movie? If anything, the silk scarf could’ve been a gift Mitchum sent to Hunter, which she was wearing when she met him up at the rooftop garden, he could’ve used to try and strangle her.
Yes, some of what is dramatized doesn’t totally make sense. Since certain things remain unexplained, a viewer begins to think this poverty row classic might have withstood a bit more money in its budget to hire a script continuity person. Nevertheless, it’s still an engaging motion picture with occasionally humorous moments.
Jagger and Hunter turn in two very fine performances. There is some good noir atmosphere occurring during the nighttime scenes that take place outdoors. Plus I did like the part where Jagger and Hunter are on the lam and duck into a jazz club frequented by black patrons. Their whiteness amusingly stands out, but it gives us some mid-1940s integration from a reverse perspective. Plus the music and overall entertainment vibe is quite good in that scene.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fading Fast on Feb 5, 2024 15:50:25 GMT
When Strangers Marry from 1944 with Kim Hunter, Robert Mitchum, Dean Jagger and Neil Hamilton
While billed as a noir and with an interesting cast, When Strangers Marry is a low-budget effort that feels more like a The Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock Present TV episode from a decade or so later than a full-length movie.
Kim Hunter plays a newlywed who comes to New York to meet her traveling salesman husband, but he doesn't show up on time. Instead, Hunter runs into an old beau from her midwest hometown, played by Robert Mitchum, who helps her search for her absent husband.
After reporting her husband as missing to the police, the husband, played by Dean Jagger, shows up, but acts mysteriously: he doesn't want to tell his new wife why he was late, what he was doing, nor does he want them to see other people. It's very much like the start of a The Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode.
Meanwhile, the police lieutenant, played by TV Batman's future Commissioner Gordon, Neil Hamilton, thinks Hunter's husband might be the "silk stocking murderer" who killed a man less than a week ago in Philadelphia for the ten grand the man was carrying.
From here, this short movie is, mainly, about watching a confused and Bambi-looking Hunter trying to believe her very-suspicious-acting new husband. At the same time, seemingly good-guy Mitchum tries to help her even as the police start to close in.
When Strangers Marry has some neat noir elements, but the story is a mess of holes with several awkward scenes and stilted dialogue. There's a twist at the end that explains some of the characters' behavior, but there are still plenty of inconsistencies in the story.
The value today in this one is seeing a young Robert Mitchum only a few years before his breakout to major stardom in much-better noirs. He's big and handsome here and the camera loves him, but he doesn't yet have the full confidence needed to own a scene - that was coming.
Kim Hunter is her usual somnambulant self. She is Deanna Durbin without Deana's wonderful Durbinness. Even Dean Jagger, a talented actor, struggles a bit with some of the script's worst dialogue, but it's fun to see this usually bald actor with a full head of Hollywood-provided hair.
And you can't help but enjoy seeing a middle-aged Neil Hamilton in a similar role here as a police lieutenant to the one that would make him famous two decades later.
When Strangers Marry is a mediocre, low-budget movie with a sloppy story that can only be enjoyed today because of its interesting young cast. It also helps if you are willing to think of it as the antecedent to those late-fifties TV shows that also had low-budgets and, sometimes, weak stories, but often engaging actors. |
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Feb 5, 2024 16:28:04 GMT
While I did think the over-abundance of red herrings was a tad too much, I really did enjoy the filmmakers' efforts to generate suspense. Never once did I ever think of The Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Maybe those shows, which came after, were taking their cues from Monogram's low-budgeted fare?
Upon reflection, I realized my favorite part of the film, which I neglected to mention in my review...was when Hunter agrees to help hide her husband. The part where she takes the rented room and sneaks him inside. At that point, she moves from confused wife to faithful wife. Even if he is guilty, she still loves him enough to help him. Of course, her faith in him is ultimately justified when he's proven to be innocent.
The quick scene where the little girl has brought the police to the room has perfect noir lighting (or is it darkness), and I was glad he didn't do the predictable thing in crime flicks of hopping out a window and trying to run off.
Also, I liked the humorous kind-hearted coda at the end. I'd forgotten all about the earlier scene in which Hunter was the gushing bride talking her head off to an older married couple. So it's fun to see it all come full circle with her and Jagger now a comfortable married couple on the train, and Rhonda Fleming as the new bride, gushing about her recent marriage. That told me the scenarists had skillfully plotted the film and knew how they were getting from the beginning to the ending of the film.
I think if Mitchum had been a bigger star, the studio would have pressured the producers to change the ending and make him the hero, saving Hunter from Jagger's clutches. For once, though, we have a gal who doesn't end up with the hunky guy next door, but instead finds happiness with a more average looking man.
|
|
|
|
Post by topbilled on Apr 25, 2024 15:58:58 GMT
This neglected film is from 1954.
Picking up strangers let me tell you about the dangers
Roger Corman, very early in his film career, wrote the story upon which the screenplay for this Allied Artists crime flick is based. It’s more a road trip movie where assorted strangers connect and encounter plenty of danger. Due to the relatively low budget, there are no elaborately constructed sets; much of it is filmed on location along the titular highway and at various roadside cafes and motor lodges. That gives the story a bit of unexpected authenticity.
Richard Conte fresh on the heels of his work in noirs at 20th Century Fox and Universal is cast as a returning Korean War vet. Settling back into his old life is fraught with problems especially when he runs into a model (Mary Beth Hughes) who is a former flame.
They rekindle their affections then have an argument. After he leaves, he is picked up later by the cops who tell him Hughes is dead and they think he did it. The rest of the movie is Conte running from the law, trying to secure an alibi to prove his innocence. In addition to the crime drama action, there is still the mystery of who the real culprit might be. This is certainly an interesting way to structure a movie plot, and since Conte is a rather likable screen presence we will easily go along for the ride, pun intended.
While on the lam Conte meets up with two women. One of them is a well-to-do photographer (Joan Bennett) and a model she has with her on an assignment, played by Wanda Hendrix. Their vehicle is stalled along a stretch of highway, so Conte helps them then hops in. He goes with them to a valley inn where they will be taking pictures. But while they are there, the gals learn Conte’s a wanted man. What to do?
There is a backstory involving Bennett’s character, whose husband had been having an affair with the deceased model (Hughes). This is all a bit far-fetched, but it does set up the story’s final sequence. After Conte is cornered he takes Bennett and Hendrix hostage and makes another getaway with them. But along the way, he and Hendrix have fallen in love, naturally!
Meanwhile Bennett’s actual role in Hughes’ murder is exposed. A climactic standoff is staged at a partially flooded home near the Salton Sea. It is all very memorable and nicely captured on celluloid. Bennett, playing against type as a villainess, was slumming it at Allied Artists (formerly Monogram) after she was involved with a real-life shooting that sent her husband, producer Walter Wanger to prison for a short time. Her movie career was on the skids, and she would only make two more films in the 1950s plus one in 1960, before turning to television.
|
|
