Reviews

10 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Very Uncertain Second Talkie for Mr. Dix
9 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I must admit that I feel rather guilty writing this: Richard Dix is one of my favorite actors, and has been since I was twelve. Nevertheless, I will say that I liked this film less than any other of his that I've seen. Not only am I a fan of Richard Dix, but I am fascinated by the transition from silents to sound that occurred from 1927 to 1929. As such, I am quite accustomed to the little idiosyncrasies of early talking films, and quite appreciate them for what they are, although it is tempting to notice how they are a step backwards of about fifteen years in terms of the naturalistic qualities of a late silent film.

Having said that, as Richard Dix was, in mid-1929, Paramount's greatest male box-office commodity, I cannot understand why he was put into a film like this. To be fair, the copy that I viewed ran about fifty-five minutes, which is about the average length of a star vehicle from the late 1910's. Thus, there might have been an extra five minutes that I did not see, although I doubt that it would have added anything to this film. As it is, Richard Dix is one of the few reasons to see this film. His acting is solid, natural, and gives good evidence that he was a natural for talkies. Unfortunately, he cannot rise above the ridiculous plot, which is thrust upon the viewer about thirty seconds into the film about a young woman (Ralston) wanting to commit suicide because she does not want to marry an older man (Heggie), who is also Dix's commanding officer. The plot takes the princpals to India, and there is a rather shallow lesson about reincarnation that really bears quite little upon the proceedings of the film, save that love is the principal thing in life, and not an allusion. Or, so Esther Ralston's character tells us.

What hampers this film is that the scenes between Dix and Ralston in their love-talk are too strongly declarative. I thought of the muted tenderness that are shown in many late silents, and although the mood for those scenes is aided by music, the addition of an on-again, off-again score interspersed with dialog does not aid this film at well. The words are too much, and although people's love speeches in real life may also be silly to those who hear them, we should expect better in a film. The opposite is also true: do love scenes in real life ever match the beauty of those in a silent film? But, I digress...in any case, Dix, a full two months before John Gilbert's oft-maligned "His Glorious Night" utters "I love you, I love you" to Ralston, and the effect is rather sincere. I don't know how audiences reacted, but it sounds natural enough.

Ralston emotes dreadfully, and I must say that not much of her beauty shines forth in this film either. She is just too high strung, over-acts, and is quite the ball and chain to Dix. Most of the other characters over-act as well, including OP Heggie, and an annoying author character played by Arthur Hoyt.

Director Victor Schertzinger had directed Dix's two previous films, the lovely "Redskin," and the decent talkie "Nothing But the Truth." If one to compare this trilogy, it would definitely descend in quality from "Redskin" onwards. He does try to redeem the film with music to relieve the static deadness (very much like real life) of early talkies, but it does not succeed. The acting competes with the music, and the two do not complement one another. There is an interesting sequence that is filmed outside, which is rather rare for such an early talking film, and is decidedly refreshing. A skirmish scene is nicely muted in its lack of dramatic pyrotechnics. It looks and feels like the clumsy affair that such events actually are.

Lastly, I had a rather unsavory feeling throughout the film about Ralston's character. She married an older man, wants Dix, and this is all rather unknown to Heggie. Heggie is disposed of just a bit too conveniently, and the effect is that the reward for Ralston is gained at an unfair price: Heggie's life. I felt very little sympathy with her character, and rather wondered what Dix would even see in her. The two do not have much chemistry, and it's not Dix's fault.

In sum, I think that Richard Dix deserved better parts than this melodramatic programmer. His corpus of three early Paramount talkies, while probably viable because they were all-talking in the first-place, make me not blame him for abandoning the studio, and going over to Radio Pictures. In retrospect, working for such a smaller studio as the latter surely made his star decline more swiftly, as the facility with which he bridges the divide into talking films is evident. I have read that he was originally slated to star in "The Virginian." One will never know what effect that would have had upon his career; surely early Paramount talkies exceed RKO's greatly in quality. But, with such films as this one, Dix proves that he can act in the new medium, but his studio is evidently expending little to capitalize upon it. Watch this one, and you'll see what I mean.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
What else can Ken Maynard do?
1 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This rather grim Universal film is notable for Ken Maynard's portrayal of two characters: one his usual heroic self, and the other a shy, sneaking, yet ultimately honorable fellow. This film is considerably darker than most of his efforts, and shows the off-beat star's versatility.

I will briefly reference the summary title, and that's it. You wondered what Ken Maynard had in his bag of tricks? Well, of course, he can ride, and even sing in that (I think) forced nasal voice of his. But, in this film, in what sounds like his natural voice, he sings "She Was Only a Bird In a Gilded Cage," while disguised, and...does a dance to the song as well with some chorus girls. Alright, we're not talking tap dance or even soft-shoe, but it does work! So glad Maynard shared all these elements of his talent, if only he would have kept that temper in line!

Well worth your time. The singing, dancing and disguise are priceless, especially if you know what a complex character Maynard was.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Tom Mix's Gift to Us
1 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
If every other film that Tom Mix made were somehow lost, and only this remained, it would suffice to maintain his reputation as the best of the early film cowboys. Mix often gets criticized for the athleticism and tricks of his silent films, but the small body of his sound films entirely refutes that. In his rather grim talking films, Mix means business, and there is realism in both the drama and the comedy that only Buck Jones, in my opinion can compete with in his Columbia films of 1930-33. Unlike Jack Hoxie's six talking films, where the star in question looks like something from the 1910's dragged forward into the talkies and left to sink or swim, Mix is not a relict in his 1932-33 films. His age, demeanour, and carriage, as well as those jingling spurs, make us think of a man who has consistently been a star for twenty years, earned it, and deserves our attention. Tom Mix is the Old West personified and his experience and weariness only adds to his stature.

That being said, I think the other reviewers more than adequately covered the plot. Let me say, at seventy-eight minutes, this is NOT a B-western. Its subtlety and small cast might not make it seem to make the A-grade, but the story, acting, subplots, and attention to detail to say the least do not merit a grade B entry. This is just as much an A film as other early talkies like Hell's Heroes, The Virginian, and Law and Order.

That being said, I will focus on the realism. There is nothing flashy about this film. To be sure, Tom Mix's introduction to us is something heroic, but doesn't Tom Mix deserve that after twenty years on the screen? The plot is subdued, even standard, but it is arrayed with multiple layers of characterization and interaction that are portrayed far better than in a B film. Even the humor is subdued: it is awkward, as in the embarrassing "secret" that a previous reviewer noted. To the non-PC minded person, we can appreciate Tom's bashfulness about bathing a girl. The fact that this is not a knee-slapper in the film itself is proof of how realistically it is handled.. Would we really all start laughing about it, or just go along in embarrassed silence, not making Tom feel bad. That's what the film does: it portrays normal actions. I might also mention the difficulty that Kohler's character causes to the villain by being overly chummy with him when meeting Lois Wilson. Surely, the ill-concealed contempt is what we would feel as well.

Lastly, the desert scenes are harrowing and awful in their stark beauty. I have never felt so haunted by a desert film and its effects on the characters as this one. The setting reduces all: Mix, Wilson, and Kohler to mere putty in its hands. Amidst it all, we have a heart-wrenching scene involving Tom and Tony. Any person who knows the connection between the star and the horse, or even any animal lover will bleed in the heart at what is referenced. I can think of no other western where such multiple layering occurs in a scene between man and horse. I think I've written too much already, but I will close by referring obliquely to the ending. Again the starkness dominates, but lets in a ray of hope. Mix's films are not sentimental, and neither is the final scene. But, it doesn't have to be, and Mix and Wilson portray perfect restraint, and yet quite a bit of vulnerability given what they have been through. As the film ends, and you see "A Good Cast Is Worth Repeating," I can only hope that you will agree with me that rarely has that Universal end credit line been more relevant than for this film.

Savor this film for what it is: one of the best westerns ever made; and worthy of full restoration so that Tom Mix can be given his due for this true gem that he gave to us seventy-five years ago.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Evidently not lost
1 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The opening scene, coinciding with a music-less credit sequence, is somehow moody and dark in its simplicity. The film that follows is as well. Hampered by poor sound recording, we see a film in which their is no "star" per se. Rather, we have good vs. bad played out before us by a competent, if undistinguished cast. Maybe that's what made this film appeal to me. Robert Frazer may have been a star at one time, but he appears to have fallen on hard times here. Lane Chandler is almost indistinguishable, and Louise Lorraine looks as if she's not wearing make-up. William Walling, the doctor in The Jazz Singer, has a brief grand-standing appearance, and the villain, one Edward Lynch, chews the scenery perfectly with a strange line to boot. You never know what you'll find in an early talking B-western! They all have their quirks.

In summary, there's nothing glamorous about this film. It is gritty, in its way, but it's not great by any means. It would be an enjoyable fifty-five minutes for you to watch this, and marvel at why Hollywood would not return to the earthiness of the West that is portrayed here, for another twenty years.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
All-Talking Western Chapter-Play
1 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
When I was younger, I associated the title and subject matter of this film with grainy footage of a tornado, and of chapter after chapter of impending attack by a band of Indians. It's funny how are notions are incorrect.

As noted by the previous reviewer, the acting is nothing spectacular, but it is honest in its efforts to adapt to the new medium. Tim McCoy is appropriately daring, heroic, and tender by turns. I'm not sure if he needed the orchestra backing him up in the one romantic scene, but is was an interesting early example of music in what are usually very "silent" early talking westerns.

I wanted to wring Wilbur McGaugh's (the villain) neck, so he did a fine job in his last acting role. Allene Ray, sadly, was almost a non-entity, and Edmund Cobb did fine yeoman's duty as McCoy's pal. It's interesting that Cobb's two-reelers for Universal came to an end in 1930. If this was an attempt to build him up for future starring work, it must not have worked, because Cobb rarely headlined a film again, which is unfortunate because he has a very sincere presence. Don't even ask about the "pals in buckskin";I wanted to take aim at the interlocutor every time he mentioned it when he was summarizing the plot at the commencement of each chapter.

So, this one is worth your time; it is involving, and a good effort from a major studio (Universal) that had lots of experience in westerns. Why they jettisoned them, let Gibson and Maynard go that year, and then picked back up with Tom Mix in 1932 is a mystery. Their production values are superb.

One last thing: the credit sequence for each chapter super-imposed over a shot of advancing Indians is really quite stunning. Let their war-whoops guide you through each succeeding chapter.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Interesting low-budget effort
25 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Watching Buffalo Bill, Jr. (Jay Wilsey) in this film made me realize that, during some shots, he looks like a more tired version of young Robert Montgomery. Wilsey displays a rather pleasing, low voice, and looks less awkward than some of the other actors in this effort. Lovely Allene Ray is relegated to a role that does not demand much, although her donning of sunglasses as a "disguise" made me realize how much could be gotten away with in an early B minus western in regard to odd plot devices.

The opening scenes at the nightclub and the "sending away" of Wilsey's character were a bit different for such a cheap film. The hijacking of his car in the desert (which never re-appears), and the purloining of his and Ben Corbett's clothes lead to what is one of the most bizarre scenes in a western that I have ever seen, viz., two grown men walking around in their boxers, just their boxers! Just think about that, it certainly is unique!

Wilsey and Corbett (with clothing) manage to infiltrate the gang that is rustling Ray's stock, easily of course, all while pursued by Ray's ranch-boss Buddy Roosevelt. Watching Roosevelt's performance made me realize also what a blessing, in a way, it was that he did not land the role of the Cisco Kid in "In Old Arizona." I simply cannot imagine him having the talent for it. He belongs, sorry to say, in B minus land. When the chance comes for them to declare their innocence, they keep up their pose of going along with the gang, which is unexpected and yet more realistic. Eventually, they are found out, and effect the easiest escape ever--I never saw so many evil gang members just standing around while Wilsey and Corbett got out. Their is some brief riding, a resolution, and that's about it.

I've only seen a few of Wilsey's sixteen starring sound films, but they are, if awkward, sincere efforts given the decidedly low budgets. Perhaps this opinion will change as I see more, but this one is alright. I can only hope that some of the other starring films that he made earlier in 1930 will show up some day.

I might add that the opening credit music has the sweet sound of a popular song of the time--very soft and melodious.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Excellent western/comedy with a powerful message
25 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I find it hard to believe that I am the first person to comment upon this extraordinary film. I do hope that someone more able will add more, as my "review" will savour of that which most impressed me.

I should have known from the lovely introductory credit music that this was a special film. Music continued as the first shot was of a lovely valley. I got chills when I saw that majestic steed, Silver standing by a hitching rail with other horses as the lush music continued. Then, as if perhaps to gently mock that which had come before, the silence was literally shattered, and the fun began. It consisted of a tremendous row concerning a rather silly joke that will continue throughout the rest of the film. It concerns snails, France and "buttercup." By Jones' remark that he was in France, I was confused. Was he referring to AEF service? I never heard another cowboy in a B-western mention France, so this was rather puzzling, and equally silly.

This film sets up Jones' character as a happy-go-lucky fellow that rouses himself up fearfully when crossed. A sequence in a saloon with six or seven beautiful dancing girls, all his friends, only adds to the whimsy of the opening fifteen minutes. To see him him walking arm in arm with five of them would be to open up any man's secret desires. Lucky fellow! I wish that more of the girls' names were on the cast list. Perhaps some searching will help solve this problem.

The main plot is rather ahead of its time, and certainly very rare for a B-western: a sympathetic look at a wife (Mary Doran) in a loveless marriage with the town sheriff (Russell Simpson). Doran is made to feel her subordination constantly, and yet expected to be grateful for all that her wonderful husband does for her. I absolutely loathed Simpson's character, which is proof that the actor did a tremendous job!

Jones learns of Doran's plight while hiding in her house, on the lam from Simpson's posse that is tracking him down for violating a firearm ordinance. Doran's delivery is excellent, a nod to her role in A pictures of only a few years before. Jones is better with the comedy, his dramatic acting sounds a bit forced and clipped. Then again, real people in such situations are not idealized actors, so this is not necessarily a drawback. I was expecting another devious-type performance from Walter Miller, but he was strangely heroic-sounding in his delivery. Perhaps he had not yet fully shed the skin of hero before becoming a villain.

There is a beautifully tender scene on a terrace in which Jones and Doran, masked and somewhat in shadow discuss the agony of not being able to move forward with their feelings. The photography in this scene and subject matter are far above what is usually found in a B-western--I cannot emphasize that enough.

Following the killing of Miller, suspicion falls on Jones, and the usual peril threatens him. The question of the saving of his life occupies the rest of the film. I will only say that the denouement does not disappoint, and that the joke about France continues to the end. There are few scenes of Jones riding Silver, but the mature plot more than makes up for this, if you crave lots of riding.

Enjoy this 1931 film. I can honestly rank it right up with Rider of Death Valley(1932) as my favorite B-western.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
West Point (II) (1927)
7/10
Worthwhile film, but flawed
28 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I found West Point to be an agreeable film, although I doubt that I would watch it again. The performances were convincing, with William Haines as yet another obnoxiously amusing young man that has his come-uppance by film's end. It's hard to believe that stardom beckoned Joan Crawford less than a year after this film was made, as she looks rather awkward at times.

I would apply the comment made by another concerning Ramon Novarro's "Huddle" (1932) to this film as well. There is a great film waiting to be made here, but there is something lacking. The backdrop and integration of the Corps was well utilized, but I was less involved than I thought that I would be. Perhaps Haines' character went too far, or got away with too much. His "repentance" did not seem genuine enough; and what kind of message did it send for him to run every play in the last minutes of the Army-Navy game? Where's "the Corps" in that? Might as well have taken out the other ten men and let him do it all himself. Also, I doubt very much that William Bakewell's weak, puny character would ever have a real-life counterpart at West Point.

All this aside, the film is sometimes very moving and inspiring. It is a fine look into the daily practices of an honorable institution. Thank goodness that tradition still means something at West Point too, unlike the vapid "traditions" of Ivy League schools, only half-heartedly engaged in these days.

As to the score: it was appropriately martial. But, there was a distinct over-use of snare drums. Using them for knocks on the door, scene transitions, et ALU as well as in well over half the scenes got to be rather tedious. It rather lessened the viewing experience. I was ready to say "I GET THE POINT ALREADY."

With that, enjoy the film, but don't expect too much emotional involvement.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Huddle (1932)
8/10
Better than I had thought
28 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
After hearing mostly negative comments about this film, I was impressed. It offered an interesting view into the elitist collegiate atmosphere of the time, was frank about relationships, and had another fine performance by Ramon Novarro.

Novarro looked more convincing as a student than some of the other players, and yet was thirty-three at the time. He certainly looked more age-appropriate than William Haines in West Point, and Haines was five years Novarro's junior when that film was made. I liked that fact that Novarro's character was made more life-like by conflicting traits as well. He was studious, promiscuous, proud, humble, a "dirty" fighter, and yet devoted to "weak" friends as well. Madge Evans' presence was not appreciably felt in this film, although her close-up during the commencement scene was a true eye-opener for me. Never had I seen her look so beautiful! Also, after seeing Martha Sleeper's "vamp," I'd love to view more films of hers.

What interested me greatly was the depiction of college life in the film. How these snobbish upper-crust sorts had, at the same time, a code of honor, and would fill noble places in society is an interesting question. There were times when their treatment of Novarro was revolting, but yet they seemed good fellows at the end--how true in life. I doubt that the same sense of honor and tradition is present at these blue-blood universities today.

I agree with the other viewer about the sound recording. It was abominable in some scenes, particularly when one had the already daunting task of penetrating thick Italian accents.

A viewer should be pleased by this film. However, the fact that its reach exceeded its grasp should be no surprise when one considers that MGM through second-rate films destroyed the careers of its leading silent actors Gilbert, Haines, Keaton, and yes, Ramon Novarro. If they had really cared (say as much as they cared about Robert Montgomery's films), this film would be more focused.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Silly Billies (1936)
7/10
Not as bad as I'd been led to believe
16 February 2007
I've been watching Wheeler and Woolsey movies for about fifteen years, but was only able to see this one just last month. First, many thanks to TCM for allowing this film to be shown--finally!

That being said, I must say that I was prepared to be entirely disappointed with this film. I had seen nothing but negative reviews or comments about it. In contradistinction to this, I was surprised that I did actually enjoy the film. I might even go so far to say that it is one of the best of W & W's "last five" films.

The film's first half had a certain quirkiness that did not exactly produce bellyfuls, but that had an agreeable sardonic aspect. The second half was less satisfying, but I could not help thinking that it seemed odd for the duo to be involved in a rather realistic plot, as opposed to the feathery things that usually provide the excuse for their antics.

Thus, it seemed that the boys were participating in the real world for once, in this film anyway. I might only add the musical number was most agreeable, and leave any future viewer with the impression that this film is the post-code equivalent of "Caught Plastered" (1931), some silly lines, and a tired plot, but with good effort. I'm sure that some W & W fans might object to this analogy, but it's the best that I can make with their earlier work.
7 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed