Change Your Image
1930s_Time_Machine
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Dark Journey (1937)
Tales from Topographic Oceans
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!
Car of Dreams (1935)
So that's where they got the ending of GREASE from
This isn't anything particularly special but if you fancy a fairly funny, good-natured and well made typical English mid-thirties rom-com, this is for you. It won't make you laugh but it will make you smile.
Don't worry that the story is completely crazy - nobody else involved does. The absurd silly humour feels typically English and yet this is actually based on an earlier Hungarian film. Perhaps that Englishness is because it was adapted for G-B by Stafford Dickens (no relation) who did a few Will Hay and Jessie Matthews comedies.
You're likely to forget this a couple of hours after watching it but - assuming you like daft old English comedies particularly silly farces and Will Hay as opposed to the slightly more sophisticated (and often un-funny) Ealing comedies - you'll enjoy it while you're watching it.
For what it is, it's absolutely fine and delivers a happy and cheerful mood straight into your head and into your heart. You also get to hear why you don't see John Mills singing in anything else! And one thing which does make this unique it it gives you a rare chance to see the former toast of Berlin's theatre scene (until the Nazis took over), Grete Mosheim in her only English speaking picture.
Angels with Dirty Faces (1938)
Sentimental Rubbish
There are many reasons this overrated film is so unbearably horrible such as: corny story with corny characters (who are the most hackneyed clichéd stereotypes imaginable), the pathetic Dead End Kids who are relentlessly irritating, Pat O'Brien's saintly smugness, Bogart's absurdly unrealistic pantomime villain.....and a real waste of talent.
Admittedly the first ten minutes when we're introduced to Rocky and Jerry as kids is actually pretty good - ok, it's very good: gorgeous atmosphere, beautifully shot - you can almost taste the dust blowing up from those filthy stinking streets. The actors playing the younger versions of Rocky and Jerry are both brilliant - it's a shame they didn't stick around for the rest of the film because when the 'grown-ups' take over it just evolves into the most sickly sweet cliché infused mechanically written drivel you could imagine interspersed with segments from old gangster flicks.
Warner Brothers seemed to be trying to revive their own earlier penchant for gritty gangster films with this and their next offering the following year, THE ROARING TWENTIES but the originality, the sparkle and importantly the nearness in time to the actual events happening there and then had been lost (ROARING TWENTIES was however a fairly good attempt - unlike this!) In the early thirties their pictures had teeth, their message-infused in-your-face melodrama could chew out your heart and spit it into the gutter. Back then they had Daryl Zanuck driving the ship - by 1939 he'd moved on but could still punch us in the stomach with the likes of THE GRAPES OF WRATH. With this however Warners had lost their moral compass and were just trying to make a quick buck.
Besides Pat O'Brien doing one of those awful parodies of a clergyman taken up to level 11 on the sanctimonious scale, the truly worst aspect of this picture is the so-called Dead End Kids. They're simply terrible and seem to take up about 50% of the screen time. If you managed to endure the worst film of 1937 (DEAD END) which 'discovered' them then possibly you might disagree but if you are a normal human being, this bunch of jumped up pretentious yobs will annoy the hell out of you. I know that in reality they really were a rough and tough bunch but they were also stage actors (and not very good ones) so come across as exactly what they are: a bunch of drama school boys pretending to be Brooklyn street kids. Their affected shenanigans feel extremely patronising.
And another thing...did Michael Curtiz know Ann Sheridan was in this picture? Her presence is completely irrelevant. Her relationship with Rocky could have been an interesting one. There's hints that Father Jerry had 'reformed' her and that her growing toxic infatuation with Rocky threatens to reverse all the good the priest had done but that story goes nowhere. There's no spark or connection between her and Cagney whatsoever. Focusing on that could have made this a really interesting drama but Rocky doesn't seem interested in her at all, he seems more interested in hanging out with a bunch of teenage boys. There is however absolutely nothing sordid about that, he is simply a big kid himself so is comfortable to be in the company of similarly immature people.
And finally to Mr Cagney.... In this he's playing Jimmy Cagney the gangster movie star - he's not a real person so you can't care anything for him. This particular character has got no distinctive characteristics at all - he is just doing a turn for his fans doing what they wanted to see. The relationship he has with Father Jerry, his childhood friend is also unbelievable. You'd expect better from Michael Curtiz but compare its execution with the brilliantly realistic relationship we see between Tony and his brother Frank Jr., the priest in SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER and this feels so amateurish and contrived.
Even the famous ending makes you feel nauseous as Father Jerry looks up to heaven and smiles as the sound of angelic choirs are heard. How audiences back in '39 lapped up this sickly vile treacle completely astonished me (and that's by someone who cries at the end of GOODBYE MR CHIPS!!!)
Love Is News (1937)
One of the best
Not knowing this, I approached it with trepidation thinking : Oh no, not another loud un-funny so-called Screwball Comedy. But wow - this is actually brilliant. Guaranteed to make you smile for 80 minutes!
If only all Screwball Comedies were this good I wouldn't have avoided them all my life. I love BRINGING UP BABY and IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT but loathed the plethora of all those formulaic copy cat movies. They're all essentially drivel .... or so I thought until finding this - the third best 1930s Screwball Comedy!
Admittedly I confess that I only watched this for of the pleasure of seeing lovely Loretta Young for an hour and a bit - undoubtedly the most beautiful young woman who's ever lived. I'm so glad I did and not just for opportunity to seeing my bird. It's surprisingly genuinely funny from start to finish. Perfectly directed at a perfect pace (again by the hugely underrated Tay Garnet), it's witty, well acted and professional.
It's hardly an original story, a cynic might call it a complete rip off of IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT but what makes this special is the likeability of its cast. Apparently these comedies legally required a prescribed cast of a ditzy heiress, a mischievous rakish reporter, a newspaper editor on the verge of a nervous breakdown and a gruff but wise old parent. OK, it is a rip-off but Power, Young and Ameche seem to be having such genuine fun together and are just so nice, you can't help but love them all and love this wonderfully sweet, sparkling and silly film.
They Drive by Night (1938)
A stunning psychological film noir
Anyone who likes film noir, murder mysteries, Hitchcock type adventures about a wrongly accused man on the run from the law or just superbly made 1930s films should watch this.
This isn't set in the care-free, art-deco festooned sunny London seen in most 1930s pictures. This is reality, a dirty smelly reality with real people - at times it almost looks like a documentary but it's not one of those miserable dark and dingy films when nothing happens - a lot happens in this: murders, rapes, kidnapping - plus a bit of comedy to make it palatable. In this it just feels like it's happening to real people making it seem real to you.
For starters, the cinematography is amazing. As film noirs go, this has to be one of the most visually impressive. Expressionism is expressing the feelings of the protagonist through what we see on the screen. Every scene with Emlyn Williams' Shorty is in murky disturbing shadows and as his situation gets worse, that darkness increases and contrasts with the bright lights of Molly's optimism. It's a clever and beautifully made film.
It's a magnificently evocative picture. It immerses you into late 1930s working class life and into London, a proper working class city. A city not of top hats and walking canes but of pubs, petty criminals and prostitutes. We learn there were two groups of prostitutes: dance hall girls (taking their work home) and lorry girls who entertain lonely lorry drivers - those who drive by night.
It's not all darkness however, Ernest Thesiger whose character is the opposite of a nice chap is both horrendously creepy but also hilariously funny. His very dark humour makes this film even better.
Only Angels Have Wings (1939)
It's not about planes - it's about people.
Like all of Howard Hawks' best pictures, the story isn't its the most important aspect - it's about the characters. Like all of Howard Hawks' best pictures, this is about how a disparate bunch of people, trapped together cope with adversity.
Hawks' magic was to take a story, usually a macho action story like this (ideally about his first love, aeroplanes) and make it into a brilliantly sensitive study of how we interact with each other. There's no arty-farty pretentious in his films, but they delve as deeply into the nature of humanity as anything featuring a moody Frenchman staring at his cigarette burning for an hour and a half.
Not just because of the aeroplane connection, this has a very similar feel as another classic about friendship, loyalty and duty: TWELVE O'CLOCK HIGH.
This is Howard Hawk's world - you can imagine him strutting through the airfield, cigar in mouth probably kicking chickens out of his path. Its no-nonsense script doesn't telegraph its message, what isn't spoken often says as much as what is said. This is best exemplified by the character Richard Bathelmess, one of Hawks' lading men from the early days who makes such an impression with only a handful of terse lines.
What makes this so intriguing is its peculiar miscasting. Besides bringing back Barthelmess, Cary Grant plays the typical ultra macho Clarke Gable type role - indeed, he's virtually playing Clark Gable's character from RED DUST. Surprisingly his charm works making his character completely genuine. It's often easy to forget that Cary Grant wasn't just Mr Suave - he was a superb actor.
Jean Arthur is the least likely person to play a Jean Harlow type role but she's virtually Vantine from RED DUST. Jean Arthur does not look like or sound like a sleazy showgirl yet you absolutely believe she is. OK, she might not be everyone's favourite actress but she's excellent here.
Back in the 30s and 40s there were things loosely called 'women's films' (usually with Kay Francis looking glum). They were sentimental emotionally charged melodramas providing an emotional outlet for women's feeling. Films for men were tough action stories since of course men didn't have feelings back then! What Hawks did was to surreptitiously show that men too, even the most hard-boiled macho alpha males also had feelings. In this, he doesn't just create perfectly that other reality, a reality which was one he himself felt at home in but immerses you into it.
I Like Your Nerve (1931)
An A.I. program would write garbage like this these days.
A year earlier, 19 year old Fairbanks and 17 year old Young stared together in LOOSE ANKLES. Considering that one was made at the advent of sound, it was still ten times better than this poorly written drivel.
So what's wrong with this? It's about an arrogant over-entitled rich American laughing at foreigners who are of course all ignorant, corrupt with silly accents and rules.....oh and because he knows best, he decides whom their chief minister's daughter should marry - him of course!
Doug Fairbanks (sans moustache but with some unnerving lipstick instead) has to unenviable role of trying to make this obnoxious brat the hero of the picture. So how does he go about this? Mainly by smiling at the camera which unsurprisingly doesn't quite cut the mustard.
Unlike most studios, WB-First National's output in 1931 was actually for the most part, consistently high in terms of production quality. Loretta Young and Doug Fairbanks were both great actors on their books. This is no exception.... except that the story is absolutely pathetic, the script unconvincing and the characters one dimensional. OK it is an exception, it's nowhere near Warner's usual standard for that year. There is however a spark of naïve charm intrinsic in these Warner pre-codes which gives you a sort oh high and that's still evident even in this nonsense.
You'll keep wanting to switch this trash off but just as your finger approaches the off button, onto your screen comes the unbelievably beautiful Loretta Young. It is physically impossible not to gaze, open mouthed in utter amazement at the impossibly pretty Miss Young so you keep watching. Curse you Loretta! This however is hardly a picture Loretta Young fans would cite as an example of her work but nevertheless..... boy, she sure is pretty!
Love from a Stranger (1937)
Could have been better
Since it's from the mind of Agatha Christie, it's not quite as straightforward as you first think. In the hands of Alfred Hitchcock however this could have been something really special but as it is, it's just ok.
As soon as Basil Rathbone shows up you know he's a bad'un. This role is perfect for him and he gives a spectacular performance. Ann Harding however is as bland as she usually is but that mousy naive character is necessary for the story to work. It does however make it difficult to sympathise too much with her so it's not as gripping as it should be. I think it would have been better to have given the lead to Binnie Hale who had a lot more oomph but in this she doesn't really have much to do. Surprisingly she's also uncharacteristically quite frumpy which is a shame.
To set the scene, the start is very slow and although the tension really builds up half way through, by then you're losing interest. As I said, this is the type of story which Hitchcock would have got the pacing just right unlike Rowland Lee who's direction feels too inconsistent.
The production is first rate - it's a big budget affair from Max Schach (made at Korda's state of the art studio), the script and performances are believable but the actual story isn't really that engrossing. Maybe it wasn't so clichéd back in 37 but this isn't classic Christie.
Sing and Like It (1934)
The Emperor's New Clothes?
Is the joke on us for watching this? I suspect the big wigs at RKO thought it might be amusing for them if they deliberately made an appallingly bad film but told their audience it was meant to be ironic.
The plot of this film surely must be the true story of how this dreadful picture was made. The plot concerns a gangster whom upon hearing a dreadful song sung awfully by Zasu Pitts forces a producer to make her the star of a musical comedy written excruciatingly badly by the gangster and his pals. He then forces the critics to say how great she is and how funny the jokes are. There is no other explanation I can think of as to why this exists.
Max Steiner's background music (yes, Max Steiner) reminds me of a Laurel and Hardy film. It creates that similar mood but without any humour whatsoever. In these types of films, cartoon characters can sometimes work but in this case without any sense of irony it's simply terrible. THE MIDSHIPMAID (1932) used the same idea - that was also pretty awful but at least that had the divine Jessie Matthews in it.
The problem with this film is that it is not funny at all. Nat Pendleton and Zasu Pitts are usually tolerable in small doses as comedy relief but they're not really actors. There's no attempt to make these cardboard characters seem even slightly real and since THEY ARE NOT FUNNY you're just looking at a couple of people reading their lines for an hour and a half. EE Horton and Ned Sparks do their best but with such a weak script, they're fighting an uphill battle and you just feel sorry for them having to do such rubbish. RKO was known for it's sparkling comedies in the 1930s but in 1934 there was a lot of turmoil with the management there and the company temporarily lost its direction. If someone who'd never seen a 1930s comedy were to watch this, they'd never watch another one again - it' that bad!
Johnny O'Clock (1947)
Siberian Khatru
I've listened to SIBERIAN KHATRU, the utterly fantastic YES song for about forty years yet it still makes no sense. Likewise, this picture is so deliberately confusing that you've no idea what's going on either - but it's still absolutely great.
Like all good film noirs, this features those characters who only exist in that surreal dream world of shadows. The weary cop, the flash criminal tempted either to the dark side by the scheming femme fetale or to the light by the nightclub singer who's trying to be a good girl. We've got murders galore which everyone just accepts as perfectly normal, something that you forget about five minutes later, occurrences no more unusual than the constant rain. We've got a slimy gangster, a double-crossing rat in fact everything and more you could ever want in that unbelievable yet weirdly familiar colourful black and white world.
If you're used to seeing the 1930s Dick Powell, this 1940s Dick Powell takes a while to acclimatise to but he's so good at playing this role you can see why he became so successful in this second career. He's smart, sleek and convincingly dangerous - hard to believe he's the same person. His love interest is pretty Evelyn Keyes and she is also perfect in this role, it seems like she was born into this nether-world.
The story tries and succeeds to be even more confusing and convoluted than THE BIG SLEEP. Its script sounds almost like a loving parody of Raymond Chandler and every trope and cliché of the genre is there. It's a perfect example of a film noir - even though it makes as much sense as: 'Gold stainless nail, torn through the distance of man...'
Don't Bet on Blondes (1935)
If you know who Warren William was, you might just about enjoy this.
Clive Hirschhorn describes this as 'pathetic' in the Warner Brothers Story. That's maybe a little unfair. For it to be pathetic implies it evokes feelings of pathos in the viewer whereas this evokes about as much feeling as looking at beige wallpaper. But it's Warren William doing what he always does so I watched it anyway - it was OK.
This picture highlights the problem with the old studio system. Today when a film-maker decides to make a movie he or she employs a writer and gathers a cast together, in the 1930s, movies weren't conceived like that, they were just product a film factory made. Warners and the other majors had a salaried standing army of writers, film-makers and actors all contracted to work 9 to 5 on whatever tasks their bosses gave them. Like the other majors, Warners owned a lot of cinemas and they all had an insatiable appetite for reels of celluloid to keep them alive. The quality of that food-stock didn't matter too much provided it encouraged their customers to sit in the comfortable heated picture houses rather than in their depression riddled garrets.
This is exactly the output of a studio just colouring in the rolls of celluloid with something the punters will look at. It feels like whichever actors weren't doing anything on one particular Tuesday got sent over to stage 7 with the instruction just to be in that picture until Friday then you're on stage 5 making the viking picture. Director Robert Florey was clearly not looking busy enough either as he was made to direct this - he made some reasonable movies but he was no superstar - especially when just making something so bland and unimaginative as this. The actors corralled in here were the fabulous, although somewhat predictable Warren William and some other people. Guy Kibbee is reasonably personable but the big problem is that the leading female is Claire Dodd who is just not cut out for lead and seems unable to generate any chemistry with Warren William or indeed with any of her suitors (including that young Australian bloke). The whole thing is just flat and lifeless.......but if you like this sort of rubbish like I do, it's tolerable.
If for no reason you can logically explain, you like watching pre-code or even mid 1930s movies - particularly those from Warner Brothers so they're not too polished, not too long, definitely not too sentimental or mushy, not too up themselves like some of those snooty Paramount films, then you will probably enjoy this although you'll be aware watching it that it's pretty terrible. As a comedy it is not funny and as a romance, it doesn't even try to do that. It's just a moderately fun hour of 1930s Americana.
Oh, Daddy! (1935)
A proper 1930s comedy musical!
Just when you thought you'd seen all the good 1930s musicals you discover this fabulous fun film. Whilst it's not quite FOOTLIGHT DAMES OF 1933 level, it's got that similar feel and a million times better than the lame WB musicals of the late 30s.
Like DAMES, the plot concerns a group of killjoys called The Purity League who are taught the error of their ways when they encounter a sassy sexy showgirl. Over in America the real Catholic Legion of Decency had just imposed the puritanical censorship of the Hays Code on all of Hollywood's output so it was left to England to keep the flag of saucy fun flying. Yes, we could still make silly and irreverent films with very scantily clad chorus girls as this demonstrates.
This is an absolute joy. The story is engaging and still genuinely funny all these years later. The script is witty and the acting is natural with likeable characters you feel you can get to know. The cast are perfect: Robertson Hare is hilarious, music hall star Leslie Henson is fantastic - what a shame he made so few pictures and Frances Day is stunningly sexy with a refreshingly real personality. Coupled with dynamic direction and exceptionally high production values, this is an absolute must for fans of those original Warner musicals.
Why the production is such high quality is because of 'sibling rivalry.' In 1935, Michael Balcon ran both Gaumont-British and Gainsborough. At Gaumont, Victor Saville (who actually founded Gainsborough with Balcon and Graham Cutts a decade earlier) made the classy, big budget musicals such as those with the world's most beautiful actress (Jessie Matthews) whereas Graham Cutts at Gainsborough made the B movies. Cutts wanted to show Balcon that he too could make pictures just as classy as those his former colleague made down the road at Gaumont and really succeeded with this....even without the divinity that was Miss Matthews!
Britannia of Billingsgate (1933)
Possibly the most boring film of 1933
This is terrible. It's moderately interesting to see the workings of a major 1930s studio but it's no MAKE ME A STAR or WHAT PRICE HOLLYWOOD. The characters are just so one dimensional.
Even Gordon Harker, who's usually quite engaging is void of any personality. You're unable to relate to any of these cardboard characters and because you can't get to know them, you can't care about them. You have to force yourself to sit through this!
It was envisaged as a vehicle to re-launch the career of Violet Lorraine. She had been incredibly famous a couple of decades earlier. In 1916 she duetted with George Robey to record one of the most popular songs of World War I: 'If you were the only girl in the world.' Having been retired for over ten years, Michael Balcon thought that she was just what the audiences of 1933 would like. For those who remembered her, this was probably wonderfully nostalgic for them (maybe like the 2007 Led Zeppelin reunion?) Unless you're a fan of Edwardian music hall however you're not going to be enamoured by Miss Loraine. Don't expect a 1930s style musical!
Gaumont-British made some great musicals in the 1930s but this isn't one of them.
Windbag the Sailor (1936)
One of the top five Will Hay films
Of all the 1930s English comedies, Will Hay's films are the ones which appeal most in a modern audience. Silly, gentle, nostalgic and always uplifting. Although most of his films are virtually identical, this is one of the best.
This was made immediately after WHERE THERE'S A WILL with the same team but with one notable addition: Moore Marriott and Graham Moffatt as Harbottle and Albert who would repeat their roles in Hay's next five pictures. These three are simply magical together.
Although his gentle humour; laughing at loveable incompetence is akin to that of Laurel and Hardy, I find the mood of Hay's films, that sense of teetering close to the close to the cliff edge between blissful ignorance and anarchy closer to that of early Marx Brothers. Maybe it's also because they inevitably have a Margaret Dumont equivalent, a wealthy trusting and naïve patron who can see only the good in Will Hay/Groucho - in this picture, like the previous ones that's Norma Varden who looks and acts suitably matronly despite only being 36! A film like this ostensibly looks childish but what it's doing is appealing to our base emotions and there's nothing wrong with that - after all, you couldn't call SPONGEBOB sophisticated but it's still funny.
It takes real genius (Hay was famously quite the intellectual) to make something which appears so childish so engaging to grown-ups.
Rainbow Over Broadway (1933)
I've seen worse
You just have to keep watching to find out what the hell this is about..... Well, it's an hour later and I'm still none the wiser but loved the trip. It's a pretty poor picture: lousy acting, lousy production but illogically I think I enjoyed it.
Get the feeling most of the cast were established comedians with whatever their characters were, shoehorned into the story. There was a trend in the 70s where seemingly every tv sitcom was transformed into a cinema film. This feels like an early prototype of a tv movie and Don Hope a 1930s equivalent to an actor-comedian-game show host might get a part in a big movie.
The two leads were big hopefuls of Chesterfield Pictures. Don Hope (tries too hard) and Joan Marsh (cut price Jean Harlow...but prettier in my opinion) made reasonable careers for themselves but the real winner from Chesterfield was director Richard Thorpe who must have impressed Mr Thalberg with this because he subsequently got the MGM gig where he stayed for decades.
This picture is more entertaining than in reality it should be. Like BIP's quota quickies, there's often a peal, albeit a misshapen, cloudy plastic one amongst all the rubbish with these 'poverty row' pictures as well and this might just be one of them?
Inspector Hornleigh (1939)
Routine but entertaining
Firstly, Miki Hood - what a beautiful young lady! I wonder why she never made it big because she's absolutely lovely. She looks like a Disney princess who could be another sister of Loretta Young.
This film is based on a long running popular radio show, with professional cockney Gordon Harker as the personable sleuth. With a long track record of good scriptwriting, the story used for this is intelligent and intriguing. Eugene Forde - never heard of him - directs this adequately and ensures the tension ramps up at a good pace.
Like another other forgotten detective series: Philo Vance, it's the plot rather than the characters which the Horleigh stories rely on. Harker does however give his grumpy old copper a bit of personality which makes this a hundred times better and engaging than the tiresome Vance movies. It's hardly Hitchcock or Holmes, Poirot or even THIN MAN but although it's not super-original, it is professionally made, well acted and well written.
Central Airport (1933)
I preferred PARACHUTE JUMPER
This was made for an audience in 1933 for whom airplanes were incredible amazing things to behold. Unless you're a massive fan of 1930s engineering or aeronautics then this picture is not for you. Being made by Wild Bill Wellman, who like his friend Howard Hawks was an ex-aviator, he considered a film about his beloved aeroplanes was far too reverential and exciting to inject any humour into it making this about as much fun as watching a plane crash...or in this case, two plane crashes.
The much maligned PARACHUTE JUMPER was at least fun....and wasn't just a half hour story padded out with an hour of aeroplanes flying around. For the time the aeronautics are admittedly impressive but it's hardly TOP GUN! At times it feels like you're watching a filmed air show rather than a motion picture which in 1933 must have been fascinating enough to draw the crowds into the cinemas. The big wigs at Warners clearly saw that the dare devil flying stunts would be all that was needed for this to bring in a healthy profit but that meant that everything else which makes a picture a picture was sacrificed.
Richard Barthelmess was exceptional in HEROES FOR SALE - he really could act so as to why he's so atrocious and affected in this beggars belief. Was it bad direction? This was directed by William Wellman, one of THE greats. William Wellman made HEROES FOR SALE with Richard Barthelmess! The only explanation I can think of is that the story was considered so secondary to all that tiresome flying around stuff, that nobody was too bothered about directing, acting or indeed being entertaining.
OK, there was one interesting thing in this film - they called planes 'ships' back then - how odd that sounds!
Bringing Up Baby (1938)
The thirties comedy that still makes you laugh
You might be curious as to why some people watch those creaky, boring, old black and white movies which you've purposely avoided all your life. If that's you, watch this and you'll understand.
If in the first ten seconds you're not already hooked then turn this off. You'll not do that though because straight away you are now in a happier mood. You're now best friends with Cary Grant's befuddled palaeontologist. You're instantly there in that absurd world of 1938. You're enjoying yourself.
If every 1930s film were a Led Zeppelin song, this would be STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN. This is the 1930s comedy which isn't just for fans of 1930s movies - it's as funny now as it was when it was written. Although it's clearly in a late 1930s setting with 30s stereotypes and 30s attitudes, it's also timeless inasmuch that you can so easily relate to the characters and their predicaments. As crazy as the situations get, everyone is also weirdly believable and real.
Everything is just right in this: Cary Grant has never been funnier Miss Hepburn's over-entitled Susan, someone constantly bemused by the concept of life having consequences is adorable. She's the perfect strong, eccentric 'Hawksian' woman so under Howard Hawks' direction she gives possibly the best performance of her career. Hawks, master of the gangster film and king of the Western emphatically proves he can do anything at all by also making the funniest film of the decade.
Hail, Caesar! (2016)
1950s Time Machine
Forget planning that touristy Hollywood studio tour - watch this instead. This gives you a real immersive experience - you're there in the fifties, you're not just in Hollywood, you're there making movies!
The plot itself is a bit thin and the humour isn't as strong as you might expect but that's not too important. What Mr and Mr Cohen give you is an insight into the dream fact filled with wonderfully eccentric but utterly believable and likeable characters. Characters you want to get to know and indeed that's exactly what you get. It's a warm and very satisfying way to spend a couple of hours.
Fortunately the Eddie Mannix in this picture is not really based on the real-life Eddie Mannix. If he were, this would not be a fun film because in real life, he was a nasty piece of work. MGM's real fixer began his career by beating up his girlfriend, gorgeous silent movie star Mary Nolan so much so her permanently disfigured which ended her acting career and ultimately her life. He ended his career by being involved with the murder of the 1950s Superman. No, fortunately this is a nice Eddie.
One down side of this is that after watching it you'll never be able to watch any of those awful cheesy 1950 'epics' (usually with Victor Mature) like THE ROBE and take them seriously - no great loss.
The Kennel Murder Case (1933)
Some bland people get murdered - who cares?
Thanks to Michael Curtiz' dynamic and stylish direction you don't notice how dull and lifeless this story is. The characters, even William Powell's detective Vance, are all so one dimensional you just can't warm to any of them. You wouldn't care if they all got murdered.
The problem with this is that it's entirely plot driven rather than character driven. For such a story, the plot needs to fascinate you, to make you desperate to know what's going on but on that respect it fails totally. It seems pointlessly complicated and annoyingly sends you down blind alleys with instantly forgettable bland characters you don't care about.
The Philo Vance stories were inexplicably popular back then - no idea why because unlike every other fictional detective I can think of, he doesn't seem to have any personality. Now if Poirot had been the detective here or even if we had got to know who all these countless people actually were it might have been half decent!
Despite the shallowness of the writing, the uninteresting story and the usual boring presence of Mary Astor, it does actually look good. So ten out of ten for Michael Curtiz but nul points for the rest of them.
Dirty Work (1934)
What larks!
Yes it's silly, it's not meant to be taken seriously so to enjoy this you need to switch your mind off: tune in, turn on and drop out. You'll then love this wonderfully entertaining hour of happiness, fun and frivolity
This is one of the original Aldwych Farces which was performed virtually by this same cast in the West End two years earlier. It has therefore been road tested so proven and certified as something to make you laugh. One additional plus this picture has is the stunningly gorgeous Lilian Bond in a rare leading role.
Lovely Lilian is not a particularly convincing actress but she doesn't need to be in something like this. Neither is she funny which probably isn't her fault - it's just how her character is written. Her role is mainly decorative which I'm not complaining about too much because she certainly is very decorative! Like a lot of comedy writers in the 20s and 30s, Ben Travers didn't really write roles for women. Maybe that's why people don't associate classic comedy with women?
The stars in this are Aldwych stalwarts Ralph Lynn and Robertson Hare playing their usual ridiculously over exaggerated stereotypes but this film benefits from also having not just top class comedians but a real actor as well. Playing his usual professional cockney is Gordon Harker - an actor who seems to have been in every other English film ever made in the 1930s. Harker gets the part played on stage by the troupe's leader Tom Walls so Walls is not in this.
Tom Walls just directs this time. Back in 34, the Aldwych purists reacted to 'outsider' Harker being in 'their' picture in the same way that Carry On fans objected to Phil Silvers appearing in FOLLOW THAT CAMEL but I think Harker is far more personable than Walls, certainly fa 21st century audience and he actually enhances this.
If you've never heard of the Aldwych Farces but do like old Will Hay pictures then you might want to try this.
Fighting Stock (1935)
Not as good the first ones
Having discovered the wonderfully silly Aldwych farces, full of hope I sat down to watch this - one of the last in the series. What a disappointment - like so many comedy series, they should have quit when they were ahead.
It's not a bad film, in fact it's amusing enough to keep you watching (which you can't often say about 1930s comedies!) It's just so much worse than this team's earlier pictures: CUCKOO IN THE NEST and TURKEY TIME which were no classics but in their own very, very silly way, were genuinely funny. Like a lot of comedy programmes, as the series went on and on and on, the ideas, the originality and the fun gave way to just making a product to bring in a profit.
Those earlier pictures were filmed versions of their tried and trusted stage plays whereas this one was written specifically for the screen. Missing those years responding directly to audience reactions to hone the laughter levels, makes this feel a little it's simply going through the motions.
Crackerjack (1938)
Mildly amusing, mildly entertaining routine crime caper
Tom Walls was a very famous comedy actor in the thirties usually in very, very silly farces playing very, very silly characters. This is not one of those silly farces he was famous for, it's a routine comedy crime caper and it's not his "usual home" and I can see why the comments at the time were like: He should stick to what he's good at.
The problem with this is twofold: it's not that funny and the character he plays, an upper-class gentleman thief without any of the charm of say David Niven or Warren William would have had is not likeable. There were lots of likeable gentleman thieves in 1930s pictures but, without denigrating Mr Walls talents, they were played by proper actors, not comedians. He does his best to warm "Drake" to us - he steals from the rich, gives to the poor, helps sick children, builds hospitals, rights wrongs and is a general all round good guy but Tom Walls, as good a comedy character actor as he was, picked the wrong character to make a whole film out of.
Can you imagine TROUBLE IN PARADISE but with Miriam Hopkins and Kay Francis fighting over W C Fields instead of Herbert Marshall? I think the answer's probably no but I suspect that Tom Wall would probably have thought - yes - and I can do that as well.
The third problem I had with this - was the fact that sweet and lovely Lilli Palmer is 24 and she is meant to be head over heels in love with Tom Walls - not the most attractive man in the world when he was younger but now he's in his late fifties. He's old enough to be her father and looks like her grandfather - it just feels wrong! This was directed by Albert de Courville who was in his late fifties as well. He also made the (much better and much funnier) THERE GOES THE BRIDE several years earlier. In that, 24 year old Jessie Matthews (the sexiest and most beautiful woman in English cinema at the time) was herself head over heels with a guy also in his late fifties. I wonder did Mr de Courville have some issues he was trying to get out through his work!
Wild Boys of the Road (1933)
A land without hope
I'd stupidly avoided this film for years - why would I want to watch a film without stars, with just a bunch of scruffy teenagers? The answer I now know was: because it's made by William Wellman.
For young people like those in this picture, it really must have felt like this was it. They never knew anything different. Life's never going to get better, this was the new normal. This really gets across the sense of sheer hopelessness and utter desperation. If you're looking for a 'time machine' film that doesn't just give you a taste of the era but immerses you totally like you've been dropped into quicksand, look no further.
I've never really liked Frankie Darro, he never came across as being that genuine and this film didn't change my opinion. He's not a very good actor and neither are his colleagues in this but somehow that slightly amateurish style makes this seem more authentic - it's like we're not watching actors, we're watching real kids trying to tell us about themselves. This approach along with Wellman's professional and dynamic style makes this utterly compelling. And it was of course based on reality: in 1933, a quarter of a million teenagers were roaming America searching for food, for shelter, for a future.
It's almost impossible to imagine that such a situation existed in a developed country not too long ago but this film makes it so real. But don't think that this is just a cold documentary - it's an exceptionally engaging drama.
Neither is it all doom and gloom. Being made by Warner Brothers you know it's going to be gritty and realistic but there's also their obligatory message of hope at the end delivered by an FDR 'avatar.' Even that tacked on ending works brilliantly. FDR had just been elected and virtually the whole country was excited about what he was going to do to fix the country so that message is as much an immersive trip back to 1933 as is the despair you experience earlier.
Out of the Fog (1941)
Take me down to my boat on the river and I won't cry anymore
I can see how this would have been something special on stage but like DEAD END which Warners made a few years earlier, this play doesn't quite work as a film.
Whilst visually this is far from static, its presentation isn't too different from those awful stagey theatrical filmed plays which the studios made at the dawn of the sound era. The characterisations and acting style would have been perfect for the stage conveying the protagonist's powerful emotions and the play's messages. On stage, caricatures work, on film however a more nuanced and subtle approach is needed which makes these performances seem really cartoonish.
It's NOT bad acting, it's just not natural enough to work on film. In fact I'd loved to have seen this team do this live but on screen it wouldn't be possible to make these necessarily preachy stereotypes seem real. None of them are in any way believable. Garfield is impossibly one dimensional, Mitchell and Qualen are too good to be true and Ida Lupino is more of a concept than a person.
She is however stunningly pretty which might sound a trivial thing to say but let's be honest, that's why she was in this picture and having a pretty face to look at does make this more palatable. She also looks so different with dark hair - hardly the same girl as the sweet blonde actress in those 1930s English pictures - just saying, she was great in THE GHOST CAMERA!