Reviews

1,203 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A brilliant thriller stylishly done
2 July 2023
This film has also been released with the English language title THE EAVESDROPPER. Its original French title is LA MÉCANIQUE DE L'OMBRE. It is set in Paris and the central performance by Francois Cluzet is absolutely perfect. As for the direction by Thomas Kruithof, who also co-wrote the original screenplay, it is a master class model of how to make a thriller which never loses its pace for a second. But this is not one of those thrillers with car chases and gun battles. It is primarily a surgical examination of MENACE, and it has a profound psychological element to it. Cluzet plays a man who becomes involved in a mysterious surveillance project. His job is to listen to taped phone conversations and type them out on a typewriter, as computers are not considered safe. He sits alone in a bare flat doing this and becomes increasingly alarmed at what he hears. One day he hears a murder take place. He is a man of few words and few friends. He can tell no one. He goes on with his work. He notices articles in the newspapers about the people whose conversations he overhears. There are hostages being held by terrorists, and someone is delaying their release. Politics is involved, but who is doing it? Some of the conversations recorded are those of security chiefs. The level of security access suggested by this mysterious operation is very high. Cluzet tries to quit, but is prevented from doing so by threats. He becomes compromised in a murder. Things get worse and worse, and then they get still worse. The director is clever at building the tension, and the musical track aids this superbly. The settings and the direction itself are what could be called 'minimalist'. This is highly effective. It is easier to be scared when things are bare and there are no visible clues. What transpires, who is behind it all, and whether Cluzet will survive, are all things which the reviewer's code prevents me from revealing.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Marlowe (2022)
3/10
Not good film, and not Raymond Chandler
1 July 2023
MARLOWE (2022)

Not a good film, and not Raymond Chandler

This is a really bad film which gives the impression of being based on the work of Raymond Chandler because it uses the character Philip Marlowe, detective. But otherwise it has nothing to do with Chandler, and is based on a novel by John Banville, writing under the name of Benjamin Black, entitled THE BLACK-EYED BLONDE. The story is bad, the script is bad, the direction is bad, the cinematography is terrible, and some of the actors are very bad. What is good is the art direction. An excellent job of has been done of creating sets which truly evoke late 1930s Los Angeles. The best performance in the film is by Colm Meaney as a policeman named Bernie. He is entirely authentic for period and type. Liam Neeson is miscast as Philip Marlowe. He seems to have had little direction and even less motivation. He ambles through the film with insufficient dialogue of his own. People talk around him. But he has little opportunity to become anyone, and is just a cipher moved from scene to scene in a terrible script. The cinematography is indescribably awful, as many scenes are so dark it is nearly impossible to see the actors. Someone thought making everything dark might make the film mysterious and atmospheric: big mistake! The painful truth is that the film has no atmosphere whatever, despite the excellent sets and props. Neil Jordan directed this flop, and co-wrote the script. Neil, pull yourself together, man! OK, so I got the line about Marlowe having served in the Irish Rifles during the First World War. You got your Irish plug in. Yes you were born in Sligo. The sound fails sometimes in the film, not helped by Liam's habit of speaking too softly. Diane Kruger and Jessica Lange both seemed uncomfortable in their roles. Danny Huston was effective as an arrogant villain, and he pulled that off. The story concerns a complex array of criminals, with drugs and murder and sadism thrown in according to some imagined formula which simply did not work. So a guy faked his death. So a gal wants him found. So several baddies want what he has, whatever it is. Liam beats up a couple of guys. He gets beat up. Come on. Show some originality. Raymond Chandler could do all this and make it work. But this team could not.
20 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
An astounding masterpiece
21 June 2023
This early BBC feature film written by Stephen Poliakoff has re-emerged this evening after 34 years of being forgotten, and it is a mind-blower. The film is so brilliantly written, the screenplay is like a combination of Sophocles and Aristophanes, since the unspeakable tragedies portrayed are also mixed with sardonic humour, most of it black and weighted with satire. What an overwhelming mixture! And it works. It was directed by Sir Peter Hall with impeccable flair and the performances are all outstanding. Geraldine James's performance as Harriet Ambrose is so fantastic that it is what I call a ten-Oscars performance. We have all seen Geraldine James is countless things, but I think this role was her absolute triumph. Young Jackson Kyle is amazing as her son, Dominic. James Fox is excellent as her husband. And the central star is the amazing Peggy Ashcroft, whose last film it was. The story is overwhelmingly tragic, as Peggy Ashcroft plays Aunt Lillian who has been locked away in an asylum for 60 years but has to be taken out because the asylum is being knocked down by property developers. Her nephew, James Fox, loaded with fellow-feeling and good intentions, takes her into his home, despite the fact that she barely speaks and does strange and unpredictable things. We get flashbacks of what had happened to her when she was young, where she is played passionately by the wonderful Rebecca Pidgeon. What ensues is so complex that it defies any attempt at summary. Whether anyone will be able to see this film again is unknown. I have a DVD box set of Poliakoff's early films, but it is not included. It has never been released and maybe never will be. The showing of the film on BBC-4 was preceded by Poliakoff speaking for ten minutes about the film's genesis and production. The script was violently hated by everyone at the BBC, who did not want it to be filmed. The BBC seems to have done its best to suppress it afterwards. But the film was shown in 1989 at the Venice Film Festival where it won many awards, and frankly it deserves to be smothered in retrospective awards of every conceivable kind. Of all the outstanding films written by Poliakoff, it is ironical that this early and forgotten work, cast into the outer darkness by the BBC for three and a half decades, may be the best work of a lifetime of magnificent achievements. It would be unfair for any future viewers (if there are any) to tell what happens as the story progresses. But it gets more and more involved and unexpected. And the latter part of the film is where we find the most fantastic performance by Geraldine James, which is historic and a real milestone in the history of acting. I despair to think that this film will possibly never be seen again. Aunt Lillian was locked up for 60 years, and the film was locked up for 34 years. That is nothing less than a crime against humanity.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Jet Storm (1959)
8/10
Passengers trapped on a plane
13 June 2023
This is one of those trapped passengers films, but a very good one. The script is most ingenious. It was jointly written by the director Cy Endfield, who was not a hack but in fact a well-educated person of taste. The direction is excellent and many of the performances are superb. Many of the most famous British film actors of the period appear in the film, and do their stuff. The main character is a paranoid fellow played by Richard Attenborough. He eschews dramatic displays and opts instead for menacing silence and seething intensity. They are all flying from London to New York, a 12 hour flight back in those days. The captain of the plane is Stanley Baker, who was by the way Cy Endfield's business partner. The most hysterical character is played with full abandon by Hermione Baddeley, who spits out vicious comments with full conviction. Harry Secombe makes an unusual 'normal' character, who manages to talk and chuckle at the same time, and it works very well. He is sitting beside Sybil Thorndike, and looks like he was enjoying that very much. Supporting performances are deliverd very well by Diane Cilento, Mai Zetterling, and Virginia Maskell. Elizabeth Sellars plays a difficult woman. The story concerns the fact that Richard Attenborough intends to blow up the plane. His little girl had been killed by a hit-and-run driver, played here by George Rose. Attenborough has tracked him down and booked himself on the plane in order to kill him. Now, I must report a strange coincidence. I have myself been trapped with one member of this cast. I was several times trapped sitting either beside or opposite Elizabeth Sellars long ago at dinner parties. She was hard work and had an enormous chip on her shoulder about no longer being young and glamourous. As part of my earnest efforts at making conversation with her, I described how I had come to know Tallulah Bankhead. I asked her if she had ever met her. At this point she exploded and accused me of suggesting that she could possibly be old enough to have known Tallulah Bankhead. (She overlooked the fact that I was decades younger but had no hesitation in mentioning that I had known her.) So that is why I say I was trapped with her, as trying to be polite to Elizabeth Sellars was of no use at all. There are many twists and turns in the story of these people on the plane, and on the events which ensue. The film is well worthwhile.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A forgotten Italian classic
22 May 2023
This sensitive and brilliantly directed film is a 'lost classic' of the Italian cinema. The director, Mario Camerini, filmed the story again ten years later, with the same title, in 1943. Neither version has ever been reviewed on IMDb. The female lead in the original film is played by Elsa De Giorgi, aged 19. In the second version the role was played by Alida Valli, aged 22. The rest of the cast was changed also. I have not seen the second version, so can only speak of the first. The film opens with events inside a maternity hospital. A baby has just been born. We see it being turned upside, washed, its umbilical cord being cut, it is swaddled and then we see many babies undergoing the same procedures, rows of them, with maternity nurses and a large ward full of new-borns. Then the gates are opened and the families flood in. There is only one bed around which no one congregates, a young girl with her babe in arms who waits for the father. But a severe woman in black turns up instead and tells her he is not coming, that he had made a mistake and his family will not permit him to come. She says he is sorrowful. But then we cut to a shot of the young man, Diego, happily playing golf and laughing with his friends. As she lies in bed abandoned by her lover, we see flashbacks of her own past. Her unmarried mother had been murdered in front of her aged about three. She had then been reared in a convent. She has always been alone, and now she is again. And so, Adriana, is told by a nurse to 'have courage' and she takes the baby and leaves the hospital for a very uncertain future. Thus begins the story. We leap forward into the future, when the child is five years old and her mother is working in a hair-dresser's. Adriana, as a disgraced young woman with a bastard baby, abandoned by her lover, has no hope of ever being married, as no one would have her because she is 'fallen'. But she works hard and has made a life for herself and her child. She dares not tell anyone she is a 'fallen woman' with a child, and despite being very attractive, she is silent and keeps herself to herself. The accountant in the large hairdressing establishment falls for her but she brushes him off, as she can never tell anyone her secret, or why she rushes off every evening urgently (to feed her daughter). And then, guess what, one of the regular young women clients is visited by her lover, who actually comes to the hairdressing salon. It is Diego. He sees Adriana and she sees him. But he goes away without saying anything. However, he comes back later and says he is getting married but will she be his mistress. She does not agree. Many events transpire and I cannot relate more of the story without giving things away. This film is so well made, and the performance by Elsa De Giorgi is so poignant and authentic, that the film at no point descends into false sentimentality. It is a thoroughly honest portrait of a woman and her situation. The title, by the way, is ironic. And the director has shown great sensitivity, but also very intense realism. One might say he was a forerunner of Rossellini. The film deserves to be rediscovered and enjoy its proper reception in the canon of the Italian cinema.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Dark Waters (2019)
9/10
The evils of the big chemical companies portrayed
21 May 2023
This film recounts real events whereby the giant American chemical company Dupont knowingly poisoned members of the public for decades in order to make money. Alas, this corporate attitude that people are dispensable and less important than profits is one which has been going on for too long now. Big Tobacco killed millions and did not care a damn. Will this kind of thing ever stop? It took eleven years for a determined lawyer, portrayed by Mark Ruffalo, to prove Dupont's culpability. He didn't give up. Most people do, and that was what Dupont was counting on. I myself have spent years fighting a major chemical company, in my case a German one, which is much larger and richer than Dupont. I won. But I know how this kind of thing works. I gave many a sigh of recognition as I watched this terrible tale unroll before my eyes. The film should be seen by everybody because there is no point anyone being ignorant of what goes on in the real world. Unless we are all going to resign ourselves to being permanent victims, then we have to stand up for ourselves. Those who keep their heads buried in the sand can only eat sand. See the film. Learn.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wonder Boys (2000)
10/10
A wonder film
20 May 2023
This is one of the most sophisticated and perfectly balanced comedies ever to be filmed in America. Curtis Hanson, the director, was able to keep it on the very knife edge of gnomic humour. Michael Douglas gave the best performance I have ever seen from him. Frances McDormand was perfectly cast, but then she is perfectly cast in everything she does, whatever it is that she does. Here she does not snarl or threaten, she smiles ironically and even looks affectionate and loving. And the other perfect performance in the film comes from Tobey Maguire, as the student James Leer. Somehow all of these inspired actors manage to time every line and expression in wonderful synch, as if they were three limbs on the same body. And no matter how outrageous they are being at any given moment, they do it in a subtle manner. And that borders on the impossible. Think how many bad comedies you have seen, where everything goes wrong, is timed wrong, is too funny or too unfunny, or just doesn't work. Then try and imagine the opposite of all that, and this film is it. And it is filmed in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which is equally unexpected. And there are other wonderful performances as well, Rip Torn in an extended cameo, Robert Downey Jr. As a whimsical though despairing literary agent, and Katie Homes as the flirtatious student with a fixation on her professor, Michael Douglas. But it is the magnificent performance of Michael Douglas that holds the whole thing together with super-glue. The satire is laid on thick, and is a joy to behold. The pompous world of university English professors and lecturers, the deranged heads of universities and their spouses, the over-serious self-reverence of the academics who are such big fish in their small pond that they have splashed it dry, - all these are parodied, but once again, with well-judged subtlety. How could one possibly summarise the story? The events are crazily eccentric, and it is all so sublimely droll. What is the film about? Don't worry, just jump in, and take a roller coaster ride.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A very superior British postwar drama
20 May 2023
This is an excellent drama, with a complex story and a good script, well directed by Lawrence Huntington. It stars Derek Farr as a deserter from the Army who is hoping not to be discovered, and works as a publican under the false name of Peter Brown (his real name being Peter Burden). His pub is in a fishing village on the Cornish coast. But by bizarre coincidence, a former corporal from his regiment turns up for a beer, played by Kenneth More. He is hard up and lets Farr know that he won't report him if he gives him some money and pays him monthly after that. Farr cannot afford it, so he flees to London. As he cannot pay the rent on his attic flat in London, he takes the only thing of value which he has with him to sell, namely a .32 Enfield service revolver. Just as he is holding it to show to the shop owner, two masked men burst in and rob the shop, knocking out the proprietor. A policeman chases them and they shoot him dead. Farr is then caught up in the crime, since the proprietor assumes he was a third gunman of the robbery. But this is only the beginning of the complications. The police are on the case, with Edward Chapman, with his authoritative air, playing a Chief Inspector, and the young Lawrence Harvey as his detective sergeant. This was only Harvey's second film, but he already seems assured and does an excellent job. As the tense story progresses, Farr finds himself being chased by a policeman in Soho and dashes into an open door which is just closing. He shuts the door and puts his band over the mouth of a young woman so she won't scream, apologizing all the while for his rudeness. This is Joan Hopkins, an excellent actress who retired from the screen in the fifties after only a handful of films. She is just right for the part and has a strong screen presence. One thing leads to another and another and another and another. The story turns endless corners, and there is always a new threat. Farr and Hopkins find they cannot part yet because of the area being under observation, and her flat has already been searched once. Hopkins is a widow, her husband having been killed as an airman in the War. She comes to realize that Farr is not a baddie, and they slowly come closer and closer together in the typically restrained way of English people at that time (just recall Celia Johnson). But trouble keeps happening. Farr remembers that one of the real robbers had the tops of his two middle fingers missing. That is their only clue as to what really happened. It seems hopeless. Britain is full of wartime deserters, in fact 20,000 of them. Farr himself had a sad story to excuse his desertion. He and Hopkins flee to another distant coastal town, but they have to flee from there. Harried and hunted, and now bonded together, they struggle to evade the police. But the story goes on getting more complicated still. The reviewer's Code of Honour forbids me to tell more about the twists and turns that ensue. And certainly, the ending cannot even be hinted at. (Nor, frankly, can the resolution even be guessed.) The film is really directed superbly by Huntington, who three years earlier had directed NIGHT BOAT TO DUBLIN (1946, see my review). There were so many British movies of this period which are worthwhile, and one must hope that somehow people will continue to watch them.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cielo Negro (1951)
10/10
A Greek tragedy of a film, made in Spain
19 May 2023
This film is certainly a masterpiece, and it is presumably one of the finest achievements in Spanish cinema history. This was only the second film (of 17) directed by Manuel Mur Oti, and already he was a master of his craft; he also jointly wrote the script. The story is from a novel entitled MIOPIA by Antonio Zozaya, the title referring to the extreme myopic condition of the heroine who can barely see without her spectacles, which are crushed in a crowd without her having the money to replace them. The film is overwhelmingly tragic, and the fact that at one point the lead actor quotes Euripides gives the clue that it is meant to be a Greek tragedy set in 1951 Spain. The female lead is played with sheer brilliance by Susana Canales, who within a few weeks of her life passes from girlish innocence and romantic dreaming to desperation, betrayal, loss and hopelessness, and onwards. Her ability to portray intensity at all levels of the emotional scale is astounding; she is like ten actresses in one. Fernando Rey enters the story rather late, but is brilliant as well. Who has not seen Fernando Rey in something? He made 247 films in the course of his long career. The cinematography by Manuel Berenguer is innovative and spectacular in the extreme. He went on to become internationally famous. The film features one of the longest travelling shots in cinema history, and certainly one of the most intense. Although this film deals with desperation and tragedy at the personal level, waves of implications abound. The character Lola is a heartless sadist, perhaps suggestive of the fascist regime. The naivete and extended innocence of the young woman Emilia, played by Canales, is almost beyond belief. But people like that did still exist in 1951, especially young women who had always lived with their mothers and, as Emilia confesses, had never known joy. It would be impossible to discuss the events of this film without giving away too much of the steadily unfolding storyline. You have to watch the whole thing, but you have to be strong, because there is so much to cope with emotionally and emphathetically.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
More magic from Marcel Carne
18 May 2023
This film is compelling to watch, and has the typical Carné magic. It is based on a romantic Simenon novel which contains no crime, high drama, murder, or mystery. It is about people, just people. The male lead is played by Jean Gabin in a masterful and well-measured performance. He could easily have overdone it, but he got the tone just right. (After all, Jean Gabin had the ability to steal as many scenes as he wanted to, if he had wanted to, but he was a team player.) The film could have been uninteresting in the wrong hands, but with Carné directing, Gabin starring, and an excellent cast of highly talented actors, it succeeds marvellously in entrancing the viewer. The character Marie, of the title, is an 18 year-old girl played by Nicole Courcel with great intensity. The Port of the title, often spoken of by the characters simply as 'Port', is a fishing town called in the film Port-en-Dessin. It is not far from Cherbourg. The action of the film takes place in both those towns. It is eye-opening to see the lack of traffic, the bare streets and roads, the few people, the horse-drawn carts, the simple sailors, and the entire lack of tourists. That was the France of then! Not the France of now! So we have here a haunting depiction of a lost world of traditional France. They were of course still slowly recovering after the War, and there was no luxury to be found. Gabin plays a successful owner of a large brasserie in Cherbourg called Brasserie Centrale, and he also owns a cinema adjoining it. He is affluent but restless and somewhat bored. For a considerable time he has lived with, but has never married, a beautiful younger woman called Odile, played very well by Blanchette Brunoy. But their relationship has lost its excitement. She spends much of her time lounging in bed, even eating her lunch there. He works too hard. They have tired of each other, but have not yet dared to say so. And there is a considerable age gap. The film starts however in 'Port', with the funeral of Odile's father. The film of that town is really extraordinary, the shabby houses, the women in their long black garments, the complete absence of cars. It might as well be 1700. Odile returns to Port for the funeral, after which all of her large family leave the town in wagons except for her younger sister Marie, who chooses to stay behind and live alone in the house, and work as a waitress and tend the bar in the quaint Café du Port, which is frequented by all the locals, and there is plenty local 'local colour' there too. Gabin has driven Odile to the funeral but chosen not to attend, and sits waiting in the Cafe du Port. Much later on that day, Marie comes in and he meets her for the first time. He is thunderstruck by her strangely arresting personality, her silences and simmering emotions which can be seen swirling under the surface, but she never lets them out. She is one of those deeply intense girls on the threshold of womanhood who does not know which way to turn. She sees before her a vast forest of Life, but which path shall she follow? She has a lust to live, but equally she contemplates suicide. In other words, she is 18. Highly aware that the age gap between him and this girl is much greater even than between him and her older sister, Gabin treats her gruffly and tries to distance himself from what he sees as a hopeless attraction with no possible future. And there are other complications, such as a hysterical boy who is in love with Marie and who really does attempt suicide. It is all very intense stuff, despite Gabin's constant attempts to prevent things getting out of hand. I cannot reveal any of the events which ensue without infringing upon the reviewer's Code of Honour. And so, bowing politely, I take my leave of the French seacoast of 1950 and leave those who wish to partake of this delightful film to discover for themselves the many surprises in store.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Gracepoint (2014)
10/10
A classic suspense series, hard to beat
10 May 2023
This series starring David Tennant and Anna Gunn is an American remake of the British series BROADCHURCH (2013) starring David Tennant and Olivia Colman. It was a good idea to retain David Tennant, a Scot who has perfected a convincing if mild American accent, since he is perfectly cast for the lead detective who has bizarre 'issues'. In the original series (which I lazily failed to review), Olivia Colman was superb, and in this one, Anna Gunn is superb. But then, the word 'superb' applies to just about everything and everyone associated with both of these series. All ten episodes really are compulsive watching, and the plotting of this fantastically complex suspense and detective drama, in both its incarnations, is as impressive as landing on the Moon. I take my space helmet off to Chris Chibnall for his genius. There is even a French remake of this series entitled MALATERRA (2015) set on the island of Corsica. The series is almost as franchised as Kentucky Fried Chicken! But just as finger-lickin' good, and you can even watch and eat your chicken at the same time. The plotting is as complex as astrophysics, and must have taken ages to plan. There are so many dazzling possibilities for murderers of the 12 year old boy found on the beach. Whodunnit has never been so complicated. This all takes place in an isolated seaside town of small population where everyone knows everyone, sometimes too well. Your head will be spinning after you watch this. And you will wonder how you survived.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Even through the fog one can see Nina Foch
9 May 2023
The actress Nina Foch dominates this late wartime noir with her coolness and steady gaze. The film is based upon a young woman (Foch) having a premonition of a future situation enacted on the Golden Gate Bridge at San Francisco, where the story is based. Fantasy and reality are very much mixed in this film, and there is plenty of fog to assist in that. Then Foch meets the very man she saw in the dream. There are Nazi agents around, wishing to intercept an important packet of secret documents which he, as an American agent, must deliver in Hong Kong to the Chinese underground. Will the incident on the Golden Gate Bridge in the fog really come true? How deep will the attraction between Foch and the man go? The situation becomes increasingly tense and complex. The film could have been superb, and it is not. It only runs for 63 minutes, so was always intended for a B picture. But it is a good B picture. And it is in any case worth seeing because Nina Foch is so fascinating to watch, as she was then only 21 years old and a real spellbinder, with a deeply enigmatic persona.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Devil's Knot (2013)
5/10
An untied knot
9 May 2023
This film fails because the script is no good. Despite all the excellent efforts of Reese Witherspoon as the female lead, and the well known directing skills of Atom Egoyan, the three script writers have created a bowl of porridge. The story concerns three young boys who go missing in a dank wood called Devil's Den, which is found at the dead end of a normal street of a suburban town in America called West Memphis, Arkansas. (Apparently there was a real such case in that town, which inspired this film, if one could call it inspired, that is.) There are the usual twists and turns and suspicions and paranoia which one would expect in such a tale. But the story rambles. Colin Firth appears in the film but does not have much to do but cast wistful looks at Reese Witherspoon in the courtroom, which is all the more pointless in that he does most of this before she even knows who he is. But we also never really know who he is, as he seems to have been stuck onto the story as a kind of extra, in order to get him squeezed into the film somehow. The story could have gone on without him just as well. So, because he is such a good actor, Colin Firth when he does essentially nothing in this film, he does it excellently. I could not help feeling that this mediocre film was, frankly, exploitationist.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
The sixth and last Mr. Wong film
2 May 2023
This is the last of the Mr. Wong films made by Monogram. This time Boris Karloff does not appear, and the role of 'James Lee Wong' is played by the 35 year-old Keye Luke, and he is called 'Jimmy' in the film. Keye Luke was a Chinese who was born in China but grew up in Seattle. He appeared in many Hollywood films, and was 'a natural' on screen. Frankly, he was very good at any role he was chosen to play. Naturally, it is a very different kind of Mr. Wong film with the Chinese detective being an energetic young man. Monogram had just about milked the Hugh Wiley Collier's series as dry as a bone by now, so that they were essentially left with only the name Mr. Wong. Even in the previous film DOOMED TO DIE (1940, see my review), which still had Boris Karloff, Ralph Bettison (spelled Bettinson in the credits) had written an original story for the film, and here he does so again. Both stories were very strong, and the films very good. Another genuine Oriental appears in this film, who almost looks Chinese, though in fact her father was Japanese and her mother was an ethnic Hawaiian. Her real name was Lotus Pearl Shibata, but her professional name was Lotus Long. Because everyone assumed she was Chinese, she used that to avoid American internment as a Japanese during World War II! In fact, Lotus Long appeared in two earlier Mr. Wong films, THE MYSTERY OF MR. WONG (1939), AND MR. WONG IN CHINATOWN (1940), but as her parts were supporting roles she was not a prominent cast member. Lotus Wong had a strange ability to look suspicious without any apparent effort, which is a good trait to have if you are appearing in mystery films when the viewers are not sure who the good guys are and who the bad guys are yet. Alas, the tedious Grant Withers remains as the Detective Inspector to the very end of this series, shouting and being irritating as usual. This film is probably the best and the most interesting of the series. It features newsreel footage of camel trains in Central Asia, and the story concerns an expedition to the far west of China to search for the tomb of a Ming emperor (nonsense, of course, since no Ming emperor was ever buried there, but then this is just a movie), and an ancient scroll buried with him in his coffin which reveals the location of 'The Temple of the Eternal Fire'. That is not as mystical as it sounds, because the vertical and eternally lit flame is said to be composed of 'oil' (for which read natural gas) and to betray the location of 'the largest oil field in the world' which will benefit China in defending itself against invaders. (In none of the Mr. Wong films are the invaders and occupiers of China called the Japanese, and they remain nameless, though of course the entire public knows.) So this story involves international spies and all sorts of villains, murders, and the usual complex mystery plots.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Doomed to Die (1940)
5/10
The fifth Mr. Wong film and the last one with Boris Karloff
2 May 2023
This is Boris Karloff's last stint as Mr. Wong. Once again, we do not see his house and butler, which sets were obviously recycled and no longer in existence by now. Grant Withers once again is the irritating and shouting Detective Inspector. Marjorie Reynolds appears once again as the young woman newspaper reporter who gets in the way but saves people without intending to. An original story was written for this film by Ralph Bettison (who was to write the next one as well.) The film opens dramatically with aerial footage of a large ocean liner on fire in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. (A helpful reviewer points out that this real footage is of a ship called 'Morro Castle' which caught fire at sea in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of New Jersey on September 9, 1934.) It turns out in the film that this fire is sabotage, and the 300 people who died are mostly Chinese heading for America, hence Mr. Wong becomes involved because the San Francisco police need someone who can go and speak privately with the Chinese 'elders' who run Chinatown and get the lowdown on what is really going on. The shipping magnate in San Francisco who owned the doomed ship is murdered. There is obviously something very fishy going on. In fact, the plot thickens and thickens and thickens, as if flour were slowly being added while being stirred. It turns out that on the ship was a huge amount of financial bonds for the Chinese Nationalist (Kuomintang) Government, so international intrigue is clearly at work here. As usual, there are lots of villains, and the film is passable viewing.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The fourth Mr. Wong film
2 May 2023
This is a surprisingly mediocre Mr. Wong film. It has two titles: MR. WONG AT HEADQUARTERS, and THE FATAL HOUR. Marjorie Reynolds reappears as the girl newspaper reporter who makes a cute nuisance of herself but ends up saving people from being killed. Grant Withers as the Detective Inspector continues to be highly annoying because of his shouting and bad acting, though in the early part of the film he does have some quiet moments because his best friend has been killed and he is upset. We do not see anything of Mr. Wong's house and butler in this film. Perhaps that is why one of the film's titles says he is 'at headquarters' (of the police). Had the house interior set been dismantled? Were they trying to save money? This film is a rather boring run of the mill murder mystery. The villains this time are engaged in smuggling priceless Ming Dynasty jade pieces to America from 'recently captured territories' (by the Japanese) in China. And they don't mind killing people along the way.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The third Mr. Wong film
2 May 2023
Once again, Boris Karloff solves a case, as James Lee Wong, the Chinese amateur detective in San Francisco. There are plenty of villains again as usual, and this time the fact that there is a war going on in China is the background to a desperate plan to buy war planes in California for shipping to a general in China. But the plan goes seriously wrong due to corruption and murder in San Francisco. Grant Withers plays the Detective Inspector again, but this time he overacts a bit less, though he continues shouting too much. In fact, he shouts so much that Mr. Wong drolly remarks to him: 'I absolutely assure you I am not deaf.' So clearly Withers had been instructed by the director to behave like this. Marjorie Reynolds plays a young woman reporter for a local newspaper who is after a story, and another story, and another story. She interferes and will not go away, but she ends up by saving Mr. Wong's life when he is trapped in a car about to explode. More than a million dollars has been stolen, and several people have been murdered. Who is behind this? Is it the mysterious Chinese dwarf who cannot speak? Is it one of the two captains whose name begins with 'J'? Is it someone from Chinatown? Is it the banker? There is plenty to figure out.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The second Mr. Wong film
2 May 2023
This second Mr. Wong film was given a bigger budget than the first, actually has some exterior scenes, and is a much more polished production. Boris Karloff is excellent as usual in his suave and quiet manner as the brilliant amateur Chinese detective of San Francisco. In this film, we learn more about him. We discover that he has degrees from both the University of Heidelberg and Oxford University. There is certainly no doubt about his high intelligence and his profound knowledge of Chinese literature and art. He is a connoisseur who is familiar with most types of precious Chinese objects. And hence it is that he is familiar with the background of the object which is at the centre of this story, a precious imperial gem known as The Eye of the Daughter of the Moon. It turns out that in the recent sack of Nanking (today called Nanjing) by the Japanese, numerous priceless gems, jades, and works of art from an Imperial Collection there have been pillaged and made their way into the hands of private collectors. The most priceless of all of these is the gem just mentioned which has been illegally acquired by a rich collector who is very soon murdered. There are two very annoying performances in this film. One is by Grant Withers as the Detective Inspector, shouting and over-acting as usual. The other is Dorothy Tree, who simply can't act at all. However, one ignores these faults in the interest of following the good story. Otherwise it is an excellent film, and lots of villains are to be found.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The last film of the original Saint series
2 May 2023
This is the eighth Saint film and the second and last with Hugh Sinclair as the Saint. It is based on a novel of the same title by Leslie Charteris (which was apparently the first Saint book to be published, according to another reviewer). It was not released this time by RKO but by Republic Pictures, all the previous Saint films having been RKO pictures; apparently this was really made by RKO and then handed to Republic for a much delayed release. In other words, it was apparently made before THE SAINT'S VACATION, but released after it. I still call it the eighth Saint film however, because it was the eighth to be released. It was the last of what is generally referred to as 'the original Saint series'. The lead gal in the film is played by Pat Gillie, who appeared in 22 films during her brief career of only 12 years, and died of pneumonia at the age of 33 in 1949. Gillie is not as cheerful and engaging as Sally Gray (who appears in THE SAINT'S VACATION, see my review, and appeared also in an earlier Saint film), and does not reach Gray's level of girlish charm. That does not mean that Gillie was bad in any way, merely that Gray was very special. This film is set in England and is very English indeed, with Gordon McLeod once again as Inspector Claude Teal. The film has a very gripping beginning: a man phones the Saint from a call box and asks to meet with him urgently. He is nearby and the Saint says yes come round immediately. However, the man is being followed and just as he rings the Saint's doorbell he is stabbed in the back. He manages to gasp a few incoherent words to the Saint and then dies. One of the words he spoke was 'Baycombe', the name of a fictitious Cornish fishing village. That is enough to send the Saint rushing down to Baycombe in search of another of the dying man's words: 'gold'. Much is made of the history of Baycombe as an old smuggler's port, with mysterious smugglers' caves said to be in the vicinity, though no one is sure where. It becomes clear that Baycombe contains numerous villains, but who are they? The Saint is accompanied by a humourous and formal butler named Horace whom he has brought with him from London. Horace is very amusingly played by the character actor Wylie Watson, who is famous for playing Mister Memory in the original 1935 film of THE 39 STEPS. (A greater contrast between the Saint's butler and Mister Memory cannot be imagined, so Watson was amazingly versatile. He last appeared as Herb Johnson in Fred Zinnemann's Australian epic, THE SUNDOWNERS in 1960.) The dying man had also mentioned 'the Tiger', who turns out to be the code name for the leader of a criminal gang. There is no actual tiger in the film. Discovering who 'the Tiger' is makes for good watching. We get some nice filming in a genuine Cornish fishing village. I recognised one of the streets, but cannot remember which of the towns it is in. The film is very amusing, being a semi-comedic mystery film. So it is fun to watch.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Hugh Sinclair miscast as the Saint
2 May 2023
This is the seventh Saint film and this time Hugh Sinclair plays the Saint. It is based on a story by Leslie Charteris, who also jointly wrote the screenplay. As the Saint, the tall and thin Hugh Sinclair with his very reserved English manner and lack of wise-cracking is a complete contrast with the witty George Sanders. Frankly, Hugh Sinclair was too remote or aloof in his manner for the part. He does not ooze any charm at all. That does not mean that he does a bad job of acting, for he is very good. But he is miscast. There is compensation for this, however, for the delightful Sally Gray is the lead gal in the film, and she has enough charm for both of them. Frankly, it is worth seeing the film just for her. She plays a girl reporter who successfully outwits her male reporter competitors through sheer determination. Although she left films in 1952, she lived to be 91 and only died in London in 2006. I wish I had run into her, as she must have been 'super jolly'. The sidekick of the Saint in this film is played by Arthur Macrae. The story of this film concerns a stolen box which cannot be opened, so not only is the box missing, but even when it is found its contents cannot be determined. Cecil Parker plays the villain Rudolph Hauser who is a spy (his name suggests for whom), who is desperate to get the box. The film is very enjoyable.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The last George Sanders Saint film is a good one
2 May 2023
The old gang are back: George Sanders as the Saint, Jonathan Hale as Inspector Henry Fernack, Paul Guilfoyle as Clarence 'Pearly' Gates, Wendy Barrie as the female lead (this time not as a baddie but a goodie) and with Jack Hively directing once again. This is the last time they will all frolic together, however. Later this year, Sanders will leave the Saint films and make his first Falcon film (THE GAY FALCON, 1941, see my review). Neither Jonathan Hale, Wendy Barrie, nor Paul Guilfoyle will ever appear in another Saint film, nor would Jack Hiveley direct one. Wendy Barrie will follow George Sanders and appear in THE GAY FALCON and also A DATE WITH THE FALCON (1942, see my review). This is a particularly good Saint film set in Palm Springs, California. The Saint is trying to protect three rare postage stamps from being stolen, as he transports them to Palm Springs to give them to Wendy Barrie. They are worth $65,000 each and are meant to be an easily portable transfer of some wealth from her father abroad to the penniless Barrie, who is working as a tennis coach in Palm Springs. Inspector Fernack only appears in the beginning of the film, and does not feature in the main story; he sends the Saint off on the errand and is then not seen again. (That would have been only one day's shooting.) As for 'Pearly' Gates, he has now gone straight and is acting as the house detective of the hotel in Palm Springs, so he is involved in the entire story from the time of the Saint's arrival. The story has many twists and turns and we discover that there is more than one villain. 'Pearly' uses his pick-pocketing skills to try to collect evidence of a theft by one of the guests at the hotel. There are numerous bluffs and counter-bluffs, and it is not easy to know who is doing what to whom exactly, which makes it all the more interesting. This film is based on a story (unnamed) by Leslie Charteris.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Another good one
2 May 2023
This is the fifth of the Saint films, and the fourth with George Sanders as the Saint. What a relief that this is a good one again, after the horrible fourth film in the series which is not worth watching. This film is not based upon a story or a novel by Leslie Charteris, but has a screenplay which uses the character of the Saint ('created by Leslie Charteris') in a story written by the screenwriters Lynn Root and Frank Fenton . The plot is rather complex, and there are five and a half villains. (The half-villain is a woman who wants to kill the other five.) Wendy Barrie plays the half-villain. She wants to avenge the death of her brother, who was killed by the five baddies. They have also framed Inspector Henry Fernack, played as usual by Jonathan Hale. By putting his $50,000 in his safe and then arranging for the police to find it, so that he loses his job because of suspicion of corruption. So Sanders comes to the rescue to try and prove that Fernack is innocent. Paul Guilfoyle as Clarence 'Pearly' Gates has a prominent part in the film, exploiting his comic gifts and ability to act 'stupid'. The director is Jack Hiveley, who directed the previous film of the series and would direct the next one, THE SAINT IN PALM SPRINGS (1941), which would be the last Saint film for both himself and for George Sanders.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
The third Saint film, a good 'un
2 May 2023
This is the third Saint movie, based upon a story by Leslie Charteris entitled THE MILLION POUND DAY. George Sanders plays the smoothly charming Saint, has his witty lines and droll manner. The gal in the film this time is Sally Gray, a very lively and smiling English girl (the film is set in London) who later reappeared in another Saint film opposite Hugh Sinclair in 1941 (THE SAINT'S VACATION, see my review). Jonathan Hale could not appear as Inspector Fernack in this film because it was set in England, so his English equivalent is Inspector Claude Teal, played by Gordon McLeod. The chief villain in this film is Bruno Lang, played by Henry Oscar, who later this year appeared in the spectacularly wonderful classic film ON THE NIGHT OF THE FIRE (1939, see my review), where he played the miser. Henry Oscar was English but he had that ineffable 'foreign look' about him when he played sinister villains, as he does in this SAINT film, and one can believe him capable of anything. The story of this film concerns a corrupt attempt to steal £1 million in freshly printed currency by increasing the currency print run of a foreign embassy. But with much danger to life and limb, the calmly fearless Saint manages to foil this dastardly plan. It is a good Saint film, unlike the next one, THE SAINT'S DOUBLE TROUBLE (1940, see my review), which is absolutely terrible.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A really excellent Saint film
2 May 2023
This is the second Saint film, based upon Leslie Charteris's novel ANGELS OF DOOM. Louis Hayward has been replaced here as the Saint by George Sanders, who was to go on to make several Saint films. Sanders does not have the mad look in his eye that Hayward mastered, or the sense of reckless impetuosity, but his effortless charm and extremely witty quips, aided by excellent dialogue generally, combine to make him the famous Saint of whom it may confidently be said: 'Once seen, never forgotten.' Jonathan Hale as Inspector Henry Fernack remains in his role from the previous Saint film and he would go on to appear in several more. In this film the femme fatale is the fascinating Wendy Barrie, who would also appear in later Saint films. George Sanders seems to mean it when he says to her at one point that he longs 'to see, to touch, to imagine' her. Many would. But she is a dangerous creature, who does not hesitate for a moment to kill someone, but at the same time is waiflike in her desire to avenge her dead policeman father who had been framed, and is tireless in trying to track and kill a gang of gangsters including a senior policeman who were responsible not only for that but for a reign of terror in the city (New York). There's something about her eyes and her expression that is so unnerving. In what passes for real life, Barrie was the mistress of a notorious gangster named Bugsy Siegel, partner of Meyer Lansky, who was murdered in 1947 at the age of 41 by a mob hit team as he sat on the sofa in his home in Beverly Hills. Maybe one reason why Wendy Barrie was so good at playing a ruthless violent woman is that she knew so many ruthless violent men. Sometimes reality and fiction can become too close for comfort. But she does add that extra spice of danger to the film in an uncanny way.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Off to a good start with Simon Templar
2 May 2023
This was the first of the Saint movies, based on the novels of Leslie Charteris (1907-1993). The real name of Charteris was Leslie Charles Bowyer Yin. His father was a Singapore Chinese, and Leslie was thus born in Singapore. (He obtained US citizenship in 1946.) As part of the CBS Playhouse television series, this same story would be filmed again in 1987 with Andrew Clarke playing the Saint. (I have not seen that one.) In this film, Simon Templar, 'the Saint', is played by Louis Hayward. It is not the only time Hayward played the character, despite the fact that in several succeeding 'Saint' films, the role was played by George Sanders. Hayward did appear again as Simon Templar in 1953 in THE SAINT'S RETURN (see my review of it). Hayward was excellent as the Saint, having just the right kind of peculiar personal touch for the part, with an air of reckless mischief combined with half-crazed restless brilliance. It is a pity that he did not play this character more than twice. He did get one thing wrong, though: at one point he is meant to telephone COLUMBUS 4-1098, but he dials a random number instead. (If you're going to learn your lines, you should learn your numbers as well.) The film itself is very good, with many witty lines of dialogue. Although the plot is nothing to get excited about, and the action is run of the mill, the film nevertheless holds one's attention. There is good solid support from several of the character actors. Jonathan Hale is excellent as the honest police Inspector. (He was so reliable as a character actor it is not surprising that he appeared in no less than 247 films.) Paul Guilfoyle is marvellous as Hymie, one of the murderous henchmen of a gangster gang, who keeps expressing his admiration and amazement at Templar with boyish asides. One particularly witty line of Templar's is delivered to a thug who has just struck him in the face. He drolly says: 'My friends generally wash their hands before they strike me. But you obviously aren't a friend.' Hayward definitely mastered the mad insouciance of Templar. The film is well worth seeing for those who like 1930s detective movies.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed