Monster from the Ocean Floor (1954, Wyott Ordung)

Monster from the Ocean Floor’s a low-budget creature feature; tourist Anne Kimbell becomes convinced there’s an irradiated sea monster off the coast of her Mexican vacation village. Her pseudo-beau, Stuart Wade, is convinced she’s wrong. He’s a marine biologist.

His boss, played by Dick Pinner in an (eventually) absolutely delightful turn, thinks Wade ought to listen to Kimbell.

Now, Kimbell’s only interested in the sea monster to help the people in the village. Monster opens with some narration about the cooperation of these fine vacation villages (seriously). Wade can’t understand why Kimbell would want to help anyone; she responds maybe the world’s in the bad state it’s in because no one ever wants to do anything to help.

Monster will have numerous delights, such as director Ordung pulling double duty as the local witch’s reluctant hitman, constantly messing up his murder attempts, and then the actually good undersea photography, but Kimbell continually turning down Wade for being a bland flake might be the best. Kimbell doesn’t have any character development other than listening to people, caring about them, and painting.

And not falling for Wade’s bull.

Now, Monster has some terrible ADR. It’s so bad it’s unclear which voices belong to Kimbell and Wade. One of Kimbell’s performances (or performers) is better than the other, ditto Wade, though it doesn’t matter much with Wade. He’s a wet towel either way.

Kimbell’s quest for information will first lead her to Jonathan Haze, a white guy in brownface as a Mexican; the accent is something. Haze will get Kimbell looking for Ordung. Ordung’s the village… layabout? It’s unclear. But everyone knows him, including Inez Palange, who needs him to kill Kimbell as a sacrifice to the Monster.

The Monster only started showing up in the late 1940s, directly tied to the Bikini nuclear tests, so how many people have Palange sacrificed over the eight years? Unclear. Is Ordung doing the killing? Unclear.

Probably not because every time he tries to kill Kimbell it goes wrong, usually because of her competence. Monster is an incredibly slow-moving picture—especially for just over an hour—and much of the film is Kimbell listening to people or waiting for people to respond after listening to her. It’s talky, and it’s slow.

But she’s always ready to go when she’s up. What makes it even more fascinating is how matter-of-factly the film presents her agency; sure, it’s not playing Wade as a doofus, but it’s not pretending anyone finds him any more charming than they should. He seems like a jackass, and Kimbell’s too good for him.

There’s an action-packed finale with miniatures, lots of undersea photography—often involving a really cool personal submarine—and (apparently) Kimbell doing her own underwater stunts.

Monster’s sometimes tedious, but it’s a quirky little picture. Ordung unintentionally gets some rather interesting shots, the budgetary limitations leading to some creative success. And Kimbell’s always a likable lead.

It’s surprisingly solid, given all the constraints.

Night of the Blood Beast (1958, Bernard L. Kowalski)

Not to be overly pedantic, but the title should be Nights of the Blood Beast. While the “Blood Beast” part is a little complicated, the film does take place over a couple nights. Two Nights and Four Days of the Blood Beast. The Beast is a space monster. Maybe. It’s definitely a space creature, but it’s unclear if it’s a monster. It might just be misunderstood while having a very discomforting physical presence around the homo sapiens. The Blood Beast looks a little like a giant scab, like a protruding one–with claws and (presumably) red eyes.
Even with the rather obvious budgetary limitations on the costume, it’s not a nice-looking space creature.

Blood Beast is a space movie, like a NASA space movie. Pilot Michael Emmet rides up in a satellite (off-screen), then rockets back to Earth. Emmet has to crashland, and the team assembles to get to the crash site. Who are the team? There’s Ed Nelson and John Baer (interchangeable, sturdy, not-too-smart sort of military guys), then there’s boss scientist Tyler McVey, and let’s not forget the ladies. Georgianna Carter is the team photographer and technically the hardest-working actor in the picture. Angela Greene is the other doctor, who McVey berates and bosses around; Greene’s also engaged to Emmet.
One might think that engagement would lead to some significant drama in the film, but it does not. Greene doesn’t give one of the film’s better performances, but she also has the worst part. She isn’t xenophobic, so Nelson and Baer don’t want to talk to her, and McVey’s performance can best be characterized as “patriarchal hack.” So she’s not getting much in those scenes.

For the first half or so, Carter makes the most impression, usually because of where she’s standing. Also because she’s constantly fiddling with her cameras while everyone else hangs in space if they’re not talking; maybe it’s because Carter’s never talking.

The first Night is the best. Alexander Laszlo’s weird score is threatening more than foreboding (except when it’s bad, which happens only a couple times but, wow, does it happen). John M. Nickolaus Jr.’s black-and-white cinematography is fantastic. The film knows how to get mileage out of the shadows and the fullness of the black. There aren’t any miracles, however; the day-for-night shooting is still fairly bad. Though brief, like they knew they were ruining the mood.

The mood is McVey and Greene inexplicably being able to nurse Emmet back to health. He came in without a heartbeat and started–seemingly–improving. The tension of this weird medical phenomenon is caused, no doubt, by gamma rays off Alpha Centauri while they’re cut off from communicating. It works. It’s an engaging science thriller.

Lots of the third act hinge on Emmet’s performance. Given he’s playing a medical condition of one sort or the other, he does okay. But he never really transcends the material to take it higher. He does all right. On par, in the end, with Baer and Nelson, who eventually team up and become even less distinct.
Beast runs just over sixty minutes, but director Kowalski knows how to keep things moving and how to slow them down. There are a few lengthy shots of the nature hike they take on the second day of their plight.

It could be a whole lot worse.

Attack of the Giant Leeches (1959, Bernard L. Kowalski)

Attack of the Giant Leeches stops more than ends. Some plot elements seem to go unresolved, but since the film never actually explains those stakes, maybe they don’t. Director Kowalski likes long lingering shots implying giant leech attacks, except there’s little distinction between ominous shots with leeches and those without. Since the characters never pay attention to the ominous spots, just the camera… no one, human or leech, can say.

The film opens with redneck George Cisar shooting at one of the giant leeches. Does Cisar kill it? Never resolved. What are Cisar’s later motivations, which put him in the same vicinity as wayward wife Vickers? Never resolved. Yvette Vickers isn’t Cisar’s wayward wife, but rather Bruno VeSota’s.

Approximately a sixth of the film are fat-shaming comments directed at VeSota. He owns the only general store in the swamps, so the locals hang out there. And lust after Vickers, who finds VeSota an unpleasant and undesirable life partner.

Given the second half of the film usually involves Vickers being bled by the giant leeches, one forgets the character flaws and defaults toward empathy. Though Kowalski makes sure everyone remembers even if Vickers is in mortal peril and bloody, we can still ogle her gams.

See, Vickers is carrying on with Michael Emmet, the best-looking swamp fella. Emmet’s performance proves wanting. He does okay enough with the accent–they’re all going for one redneck exploitation trope or another–but there’s nothing else to the performance. Emmet kind of gets the accent; nothing else matters.

Top-billed Ken Clark is from out of town and isn’t asked to attempt an accent. He’s the federal game warden, and if there are giant leeches, he ought to know about them. He teams up with girlfriend Jan Shepard’s dad, played by Tyler McVey, to investigate mysterious goings on. Most of the film’s hour and change runtime–at least when Clark does show–has Shepard getting mad at Clark disagreeing with McVey, then not being able to react authentically because… what’s she going to do, not make the men sandwiches? Come on, now.

So even though Shepard tags along with Clark during the boat rides, she doesn’t get anything to do. Possibly because she’s not all about the gams.

Now, Leeches could be a “hide the monster and have them hunt,” but the filmmakers apparently thought the audiences wouldn’t stand (or stay seated) if they didn’t show off the monsters. The Giant Leeches are (visibly) trash bags with accruement. And then, obviously, the giant sucking mouth thing. Except the leeches don’t really look like anything–a giant star-shaped trash bag covered in flaccid teeth. Leeches goes all in on the blood to compensate for the fakery. All of the victims are covered in open sores where the giant leeches feed. And the victims spend lots of their time screaming in agony. It’s a bizarre vibe at times.

While Vickers’s abject terror is often the best acting, otherwise, the most reliable is Gene Roth as the sheriff who thinks Clark’s falling for the ramblings of drunken swamp folk. Roth never gets any pay-off (no one does, except maybe Emmet and pay-off’s a stretch); he maintains a consistency the other actors cannot.

Technically, Giant Leeches actually impresses. Sadly, only because they manage to make the Los Angeles County Arboretum and Botanic Garden look like wherever in the coastal South it’s taking place. Overall, John M. Nickolaus Jr.’s photography is no great shakes (there’s so much day-for-night, and none of it’s good). Still, he and Kowalski make the botanic garden in California look unlike a botanic garden in California.

If the ending had landed at all, the garbage bag monsters would’ve been fine.

The Thomas Crown Affair (1968, Norman Jewison)

The first twenty-five minutes of The Thomas Crown Affair is a bank heist. Starting with its planning. After opening titles suggesting the film is about stars Steve McQueen and Faye Dunaway doing fashion advertising, we meet future wheelman Jack Weston. Weston gets hired by a mystery man to do a job. We jump forward in time and meet some other mystery men (including a baby Yaphet Kotto), along with McQueen. They're all getting in place for something; he's being a financial wizard guy.

Once the heist starts, we'll learn McQueen is the mastermind behind it all. Director Jewison breaks it out visually, with multiple frames onscreen at once, collaging the various simultaneous perspectives. It's a lot, but Jewison and the dream team crew pull it off. Affair's got Haskell Wexler shooting it; Hal Ashby, Ralph E. Winters, and Byron 'Buzz' Brandt (one of these things is doing its own thing…) editing it. So even though the film changes gears after the heist, when Dunaway comes in, it's still great-looking. Except after that dynamite, one of a kind opening number, the rest of the creative flexes are all in how to do lengthy montages.

The story is about McQueen, a brilliant, rich guy who planned a heist to see if he could do it. Dunaway is the insurance investigator working for the bank. Once she decides he's the guy, she's going to seduce him to get the money. Now, Dunaway does not come into the movie immediately after the heist. After the heist, we meet square-jawed copper Paul Burke. He will be the de facto lead for about fifteen minutes. Why is the timing so important? Because Affair's only got an hour once Dunaway's established. We're forty minutes into the movie before the movie decides what it's going to be.

And what it's going to be is McQueen doing rich guy stuff and living the good life and being genius and Dunaway falling for him. Sort of. Now, Dunaway's late sixties woman willing to trade a little bump and grind when two hundred thousand's on the line. McQueen's a divorced dad who doesn't miss the kids, much less the wife. He's got model Astrid Heeren at his beck and call (she's the same age as Dunaway but seems younger). Burke's a working-class good guy who can't understand why a smart dame like Dunaway would ever trade sex. It's this late sixties and early sixties clash between the two of them, and it's charming. Burke's a solid lug.

Unfortunately, it's more charming than anything Dunaway and McQueen get going. Yes, there's a very well-executed chess game with a bunch of innuendo, but it's like an ad for the Playboy Channel that airs after nine o'clock. It goes a tad too far, but it's trying to be classy. Because they're hot. Thomas Crown Affair is an attempt to sell McQueen as a male movie star as sexy as Dunaway is a female movie star. Thanks to Wexler in particular–McQueen's eyes are something–they pull it off well enough.

So they get hot and bothered in a sweaty way, Burke gets hot and bothered in a mad way, repeat ad nauseam. The film seemingly alternates between opulent wealth sequences, Dunaway doing her work thing (trying to bust McQueen), and her and McQueen having moody, tragic romance scenes.

It does not help the theme song–Noel Harrison's Windmills of the Mind is all about how nothing is happening except the same thing over and over and over again. And over again. Why are the lyrics to your original theme song about how boring your original theme song is?

Anyway.

Of course, they're going to get to the third act, when Dunaway and McQueen finally match wits for the chess game in real life, and we'll get some kind of intricate, elaborate sequence to top the opening heist.

Or one might think. Because Affair does nothing with the third act except manage to drag out a rapid-fire montage sequence. As for the star-crossed romance? Either way, it leaves Dunaway with nothing. It ought to be a post-modern noir, with Dunaway the combination investigator femme fatale. Instead… it's 1968.

Filmmaking-wise–outside the song–Thomas Crown's fantastic. Alan Trustman's script is impressive in what it does and does not accomplish (or attempt). But Burke's too square for the rest of the movie, even if he's good.

McQueen's fine. It's a nothing part. He's intelligent, athletic, charming when he needs to be, broody when he needs to be. He rides horses, flies planes, and just wants the next thrill. Alexander wept and all that jazz. Sometimes, the movie is just about McQueen being bored. And rich.

Bored and rich.

And Dunaway just wants to be bored and rich, too. She's good, but when her character goes to pot in the script, it goes to pot–bad 1968.

There's nothing quite like Thomas Crown Affair–with the filmmaking techniques and fashion angle–but the big swings can't cover everything. Maybe the song. But not everything else and the song.

This post is part of the Norman Jewison Blogathon hosted by Rebecca of Taking Up Room.

Judgment at Nuremberg (1961, Stanley Kramer)

Insofar as it has a protagonist,Judgment at Nuremberg is the story of recently electorally defeated Maine judge Spencer Tracy. Tracy is the chief justice on a military tribunal hearing cases in the Nuremberg trials, the Allied attempt to hold the Germans accountable for their actions during World War II. Tracy's coming in towards the end of trials; the American public has lost interest, more enthusiastic about hating the Communist Russians than their enemies… the defeated Nazis.

I mean, yikes.

The film's trial centers around four German judges, who all wore the literal Swastika while dispensing law during the Nazi period. Now they're being held accountable for their actions, which gives all the lawyers some pause. Judges aren't expected–Nuremberg's exposition from the legal minds contends–to administer justice; they're supposed to interpret and administer the laws on the books. So, since Nazi persecution was legal, the judges are exempt from accountability. Tracy's not sure about that take, but he's a Republican who voted for FDR, which fellow judge Ray Teal thinks is weak sauce. Third justice Kenneth MacKenna is going to sway with the wind, but Teal's sure these fellows were just doing their jobs.

After all, as the Germans' lawyer (Maximilian Schell) points out… The United States loved sterilizing people. Our greatest legal minds were all for it.

Schell's the breakout performance in Nuremberg. He's a little weasel who didn't learn anything from the war. However, none of the Germans learned much, other than Burt Lancaster. He's the Weimar leader who became a Nazi rubber-stamper. Much to Schell's chagrin, he refuses to participate in the trial proceedings. Schell figures if a guy like Lancaster could be a Nazi, it wasn't so bad for Schell to be one either.

Werner Klemperer, Torben Meyer, and Martin Brandt play the other judges. Klemperer is the goose-stepper, and the others are just regular Germans. They don't have much to do, but they're perfect at it.

Nuremberg is all about the performances.

The film has three phases, each punctuated by a performance from the witness stand. The first phase belongs to Montgomery Clift, who appears as a laborer who the Germans sterilized. The second is Judy Garland's. She plays a woman who, as an orphaned teenage girl, was friends with a sixty-ish Jewish man who knew her family. They executed the man and defamed her for denying a sexual relationship. Garland actually gets two scenes on the stand. Both are fantastic, but director Kramer takes the opportunity between them to change the narrative distance a bit. We're shifting for the finale, which will have the film's various philosophical showdowns.

See, it's not just the American people who'd rather forgive and forget the Germans and start hating the Russians; it's the U.S. Army, too. They've got a new war, and can't prosecutor Richard Widmark get with it? He's a soft touch, they all think, because he liberated Dachau and still has the sads about it. It's 1947, incidentally. Alan Baxter plays the General who calls Widmark a weak sister for still carrying about it.

It's a lot, especially because Nuremberg always talks about it. There are things they don't bring up, such as none of the Americans hanging out with the local Germans being Jewish or, seemingly, caring enough about their Jewish compatriots to be uncomfortable. They're all good white Christians, after all. But Tracy's really trying to figure out if they're monsters or not.

And Tracy's not just confining his fact-finding to the courtroom. He starts seeing Marlene Dietrich. She's a blue blood who's lost it all thanks to the war. She just wants everyone to forget about it and let the Germans back into society. It's not like she knew about the concentration camps–she was a regular Army general's wife, not the S.S.

Nuremberg has its more and less straightforward resolutions, but the one for Tracy and Dietrich is fecund with subtext.

The best performance in Nuremberg, no spoilers, is Lancaster. One reason being he's under scrutiny long before he does anything. The film examines him and the character's building underneath that silent observation. He's outstanding.

After Lancaster, Garland.

Nuremberg's got a position–in the last fourteen years, it's become clear the Allies didn't go hard enough on the Germans. Teal has a whole bit about the only way to judge anything is through historical lenses; at different times during the film, Tracy and Widmark will look almost dead into the camera and denounce that idea. Schell's whole defense of the judges revolves around reestablishing those good Nazi Germany legal principles. At least in terms of assailing the marginalized. Schell flexes the fascism, getting Teal hot while letting Tracy both sides enough to hang out with Dietrich.

So, seeing how the Germans victimized and abused their own becomes essential. And Garland is the face of it. It's a beautiful performance. Kramer and cinematographer Ernest Laszlo bust ass on about a dozen close-ups in Nuremberg, but they give the best to Garland. The film's too big–and constructed as a courtroom procedural–to allow for thorough establishing shots, much less arcs. Kramer utterly relies on his cast to deliver–Tracy, Widmark, Schell, Lancaster, Garland, Clift, Dietrich.

And no one's better from that angle than Garland. Lancaster embodies a righteous rage; it fuels his energy. Especially since he's so restrained; it's like this electric buildup. But not Garland. Garland's survived Nazi Germany and just gotten some semblance of stability for the first time since she was a tween, and then Widmark shows up and says risk it all.

And Schell uses her fears to amp up the cruelty, leading to a great courtroom scene.

Clift's scene is entirely different. It's a showcase, but it's self-contained. It's beautiful work, too. It's all beautiful work. Nuremberg doesn't miss.

Besides the gorgeous photography, Frederic Knudtson's editing is standout. Abby Mann's script (based on his script for TV) is excellent. The film never dawdles; Mann's good at the exposition, good at the courtroom back-and-forth. It's a smartly assembled narrative. Kramer and the cast do wonders with it.

Nuremberg is an exceptional, complex, terrifying, and tragic motion picture.

This post is part of the Third Judy Garland Blogathon hosted by Crystal of In the Good Old Days of Classic Hollywood and Kristen of Hoofers and Honeys.

The Fabulous Baker Boys (1989, Steve Kloves)

The Fabulous Baker Boys opens with pseudo-protagonist Jeff Bridges saying goodbye to his latest cocktail waitress one-night stand (always his decision, never hers–Baker Boys is all about taking advantage of patriarchal privilege). Under the opening titles, he walks to work. Baker Boys takes place in Seattle and regularly features its skyline, but director Kloves is careful never to show the Space Needle. Much like its characters, the film exists on the edge of reality.

Bridges plays one half of the Fabulous. Beau Bridges play the other. Beau’s the responsible one who has a wife and kids in the suburbs. Jeff is the love-them-and-leave-them, hard-drinking jazz pianist with a heart of gold (he gives Ellie Raab, the tween who lives upstairs, a safe spot when her mom’s got a fellow over). They’ve been playing piano together for thirty-one years, starting as kids, turning it into a profession. They’ve played all over town for years, and they’re getting played out. No one’s going to clubs with pianomen.

After one particularly disheartening experience, Beau decides they’re going to need to have someone along to sing a song. Cue an amusing (albeit unkind) audition sequence, which starts with Jennifer Tilly’s off-key attempt. Baker Boys appreciates having Tilly (she even gets a special end credit), and she’s a lot of fun. She brings the first lightness to the film. While it’s never too dark, it does… wallow in melancholy at times. Tilly shakes up the momentum nicely.

The audition sequence ends with Michelle Pfeiffer, who can sing, and thus becomes the singer, even though she’s a little too brash for Beau’s tastes. She doesn’t even rate a blip on Jeff’s radar initially, but once they all get performing and realize they’ve found a good thing… he takes notice.

There are some fantastic scenes during this portion of the film. There’s a mix of dismay and exuberance–Pfeiffer’s new to the live entertainment business, excited at various potentials. Beau and Jeff have years of experience and are appropriately downtrodden about the whole thing. They think they’ve hit their peak, not realizing Pfeiffer’s contributions will change their lane. Jeff plays most of his scenes silent and sullen. He’s a tortured artisté (no one says he’s the best jazz pianist in the town, but it’s definitely the vibe, and he’s given that up for Beau, who’s just good). But when Pfeiffer and Beau clash, Jeff gets these twinkles in his eyes, and they add up to character development and chemistry.

Lots of Baker Boys is about chemistry. Jeff and Pfeiffer spend a solid portion of the second act circling each other, trying to find an angle where going for it isn’t a mistake. Beau sees what’s going on and tries to stop it. The sequence where he can’t is spectacular, where Kloves shows off he, cinematographer Michael Ballhaus (it’s such a gorgeous photography job, it’s never not stunning), and editor William Steinkamp’s abilities in an entirely new context. They’ve got light drama, light comedy, and sexy but not tawdry lounge singing down, but they can do so much more.

Baker Boys is a character study. It’s a strange one because despite spending the movie with Jeff, it’s not clear until he and Pfeiffer start alternating clashing and crashing; it’s all about him. The character’s distant from everyone; why would the audience be any different.

But Kloves doesn’t let the sub-genre dictate the format. Even as a straight drama–despite the hot and heavy, it’s not a romance or a romantic drama–there’s time for screwball, there’s time for laughs, for smiles. The first act sets up the Baker Boys, but there’s a lot more to say about them, it turns out, right into the third act. After an unevenly paced present action–the film takes place over any number of months, with New Year’s being around the center–the third act is a few days at most.

Because there’s not a lot to wrap up other than everyone acknowledging the state of their situations. One of the problems is the lack of communication (no one ever points out Jeff being smirking, smoking, or sullen is a significant contributor, unfortunately), and the way Kloves layers in those reveals is exquisite. The characters often argue about something the audience doesn’t know about or know how to contextualize, and Kloves has to get the reveals in just right. Even though the audience can’t know (with some exceptions) how things will hit, the film’s got to be ready to situation them on demand. The thing about the arguments and the character turmoils is they’re fast-paced. When Jeff lashes out to hurt people, he does it rapidly, and Kloves makes sure the audience is never behind.

The acting’s outstanding. Jeff really gets to come into it towards the end of the second act, while Beau plays sturdy support. Pfeiffer deserves those effusive “revelation” statements. There’s not really a cast besides them; hence Tilly is making such an impression.

Outstanding technicals, fantastic Dave Grusin score, The Fabulous Baker Boys is, obviously, fabulous, but it’s also a superb achievement from cast and crew. There’s a lot of exceptional work on display here.

This post is part of the It’s In the Name of the Title Blogathon hosted by Gill of Realweegiemidget Reviews and Rebecca of Taking Up Room.

Tormented (1960, Bert I. Gordon)

Tormented is the story of how the world’s greatest jazz pianist (Richard Carlson) lost it all because he wasn’t a forty-eight-year-old virgin. I mean, also because he let his former lover, played by Juli Reding, fall to her death without trying to help her. Good thing they’re on an island where any peculiar death results in a ghost haunting. Hence, Reding can take her vengeance while also revealing Carlson’s skinny moral fiber.

Carlson’s on the island preparing for his big Carnegie Hall debut. At some point, he met and fell in love with local girl Lugene Sanders. She’s from a wealthy family and is “young,” according to Reding. Sanders is actually older than Reding, but… Sanders is virginal, and Reding is in showbiz. They’re a week away from the wedding, so many scenes involve Sanders being interested in the preparation and Carlson not being very interested.

Sanders’s little sister (daughter of director Gordon, Susan Gordon) thinks Carlson’s just the best and wishes he’d marry her but he can’t because she’s only ten. Too bad they don’t live in one of those places where you can get married at twelve. Yow and double yow.

Most of Carlson’s scenes are by himself, looking around for Reding’s ghost, who starts haunting him the day after her death. It takes him a few close encounters to believe it’s real, but then he spends a long stretch trying to ignore the haunting. If it weren’t for meddling water taxi captain Joe Turkel, he’d have gotten away with it, too.

Turkel shows up around halfway through the movie and, poking around, realizes either Carlson has Reding in some pleasure hideaway… or she might just not be anywhere anymore. That kind of information should be worth some money, shouldn’t it? Especially since Sanders’s parents are rich (the actor playing her father, Harry Fleer, is younger than Carlson, but mom Vera Marshe is actually older than Carlson, who’d have thunk).

At a certain point, the blackmail plot takes over from the haunting plot. Island horticulturist Lillian Adams seems to know what’s going on—even threatening Reding’s (unseen) presence—but then immediately disappears from the movie so Turkel can come in. Adams doesn’t even come back for the big wedding scene. The character is a blind person, and Adams does a lot of work for it, but there’s a scene where it’s apparent none of that work includes using the cane. See, Reding fell off a lighthouse, so everyone in the cast has to go to the lighthouse at one point or another.

The special effects are, frankly, too cheesy to be taken seriously, but they’re not poorly done. Some of them are okay. And Tormented’s got great cinematography from Ernest Laszlo. Most of the movie is profile two-shots, but they fine.

The same cannot be said for the music, composed by Albert Glasser. It’s a jazz score, but not a jazz piano score, and it seems like it’s for a beach party spoof version of the film.

Carlson’s not good, but rather convincing as a very bad dude as the film progresses. Gordon gets a bunch, and she’s terrible–though with all of the ten-year-old’s dialogue being upset about not being a sexual object yet, did she have a chance? Yow, yikes, and yuck.

Turkel is awesome. Sometimes, he’s good, and sometimes, he’s as good as the material lets him get, but he’s always awesome.

Tormented’s too long at seventy-five minutes, but the various curiosity factors keep it going until Turkel shows up and takes over.

The Dark Past (1948, Rudolph Maté)

The Dark Past opens with a lengthy, confidently showy, and capable POV sequence. Lee J. Cobb is arriving at work, just like anyone–and the movie does a lengthy “peoples is peoples” bit–except he’s a police psychiatrist. It’s his job to save kids from becoming hardened criminals, thereby not being on the taxpayer dime. It’s progressive but not too progressive. Cobb’s not some wuss.

Cobb is outstanding in the film. It’s a sometimes silly role with the framing sequence, but when he gets to acting, it’s acting. Past is a remake of a stage adaptation, and Maté spotlights the actors. Well, Cobb and Holden. Cobb’s the protagonist and narrator, and Holden’s the star. The rest of the cast stays busy, but everyone gets left in the dust. It’s worst for Nina Foch. Second-billed, and she just disappears.

Oh, yeah, the setup. So, when Cobb has to convince a cop a petty criminal is a human being, he tells the story of his adventure with Holden. Holden’s so infamous everyone recognizes his name. But apparently don’t know anything about his very consequential involvement with Cobb. No spoilers, but the more interesting story is the direct sequel.

So, back to the setup. Holden and his gang crash Cobb’s dinner party. They need a place to wait for their getaway boat. While the guests give Holden’s gang minor trouble, Cobb gets around to psychoanalyzing Holden in a commercial for the Freud method. Holden’s a vicious killer who delights in toying with his prey, but Cobb sees some glimmer of humanity and tries to cure him. Foch kind of wants picket fences and helps Cobb.

The second act is Cobb slowly unraveling the very simple knot Holden’s tied out of his subconscious. Holden can’t unravel it himself because he has repressed memories, which only come out in his single, ever-recurring nightmare. There’s an inverted color dream sequence. It’s not as successful as it should be.

Despite his top billing, the film keeps Holden in reverse for a good while. Once the bad guys take everyone hostage, it takes time even to get Holden and Cobb talking. Partly because of Holden’s reticence, and partly because there are so many subplots cooking. Every single one of them gets left unfinished. The film often feels like the framing device is a distraction from the real story–which is sort of true because there doesn’t end up being a comparison between Holden and the kid criminal in the present. It’s not about criminals possibly being human; it’s about psychiatry curing them of their anti-social tendencies. Cobb’s not even concerned how the patient feels about things.

It’s craven, and it makes for some great scenes. Holden can’t figure out Cobb’s angle, and–with the frame defining the character already–neither can the audience. Cobb’s intentionally inscrutable; the only thing the frame helps with.

Lois Maxwell plays Cobb’s wife, who does get to fail Bechdel with Foch, but otherwise just sits around with son Robert Hyatt. He’ll end up with a bit to do before the movie drops him for the next subplot. Past is so noncommittal to its subplots, for a while near the end I thought they might even skip closing the bookend. At that point, with everything else unfinished, why do it anyway?

Maxwell’s solid. She doesn’t get much at all. Foch is good with a little more. Between Holden and Cobb, Holden probably has the edge. It’s a showier role, but he’s also got an arc. Cobb’s just proving one point or another.

While Past has its problems, the stars are phenomenal, Maté’s direction is good, and Joseph Walker’s black and white cinematography is beautiful.

This post is part of the 6th Golden Boy Blogathon hosted by Emily of The Flapper Dame and Virginie of The Wonderful World of Cinema.

Zero Hour! (1957, Hall Bartlett)

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: fighter pilot suffering PTSD boards an airplane in a last-ditch effort to salvage a bad relationship only for the plane to serve rotten fish, requiring this unstable pilot to fly the jet to safety. And there’s an exclamation point at the end of the title.

No, it’s not Airplane!, it’s that film’s (still) unofficial source material–Zero Hour!. The difference being Hour plays it straight, instead of making fun of playing it straight, but it’s all the same material; only, you’re watching it and not supposed to laugh at it.

And it’s a long eighty minutes, especially once Sterling Hayden shows up to start barking absolutely pointless exposition.

The movie begins with narration explaining just before the end of World War II, Canadian squadron leader Dana Andrews made a bad call and got most of his men killed. Or at least a large number of them. Hayden may or may not have been one of those men. The movie’s strangely opaque about it. When we leave 1945 for the future, Andrews is in bad shape. Fast forward ten years, and we find out he’s never made anything of himself, despite marrying Linda Darnell and having a kid (an abjectly annoying Ray Ferrell). Darnell’s fed up, and she’s leaving, so Andrews chases her to the airport and buys another seat to follow her.

There will be numerous moments throughout Hour when it seems like Darnell’s going to have something to do other than debase herself at the altar of machismo. She can’t respect Andrews because he won’t get over getting those guys killed and man up. The movie simultaneously tries to show the horrors of experiencing PTSD while also lambasting him for having it. When Andrews has to fly the jet, Darnell’s in the co-pilot’s chair, and it seems like there’s going to be the couple teaming up to solve their problem.

No, not at all. However, that sequence features Andrews’s best acting in the film, when he successfully intensely stares straight ahead in static panic. However, Andrews isn’t the worst performance. Thanks to Hour’s casting choices, the bloated screenplay, and director Bartlett’s failings… every performance in Hour is eventually bad except maybe Jerry Paris, who plays flight attendant Peggy King’s boyfriend. Sorry, misspoke—stewardess, and not just stewardess, but “Stewardess,” most of the characters refuse to acknowledge she may have a name. Paris is bland, but he’s consistent. For a while, it seems like King might turn in a good turn, but then no. She also can’t stop looking into the camera in the third act, which just makes the whole picture seem more embarrassing.

Geoffrey Toone plays the doctor, who luckily didn’t have the fish. He’s absolutely flat and delivers mouthfuls of exposition. Hour’s script is pretty sure all you have to do to convince people it’s legit is use enough jargon. But Toone’s not forceful enough. Hayden’s arguably worse—heck, he’s arguably the worst performance, and Hour also stars former pro-football star Elroy ‘Crazylegs’ Hirsch, and Hirsch is a very, very bad actor. But Hayden’s a phenomenon, chain-smoking, yelling at thin air, staring into space. It’s a masterclass in how not to do a solo performance.

Though he’s not solo, he’s got a bunch of yes-men around to look worried (and get coffee). Charles Quinlivan plays the main yes-man. And until the third act, Quinlivan seems like he will get through Hour unscathed. He does not, but he gives that impression the longest of anyone in the cast.

The special effects are ambitious—except the lousy stock footage (including when the Canadian jet becomes an American Airlines one). They’re not good, but they’re ambitious. The sets are either too big, or Bartlett doesn’t know how to shoot them.

Skip Zero Hour! and watch the remake.

This post is part of the 2nd Annual “Favorite Stars in B Movies” Blogathon hosted by Brian of Films From Beyond The Time Barrier.

Rebecca (1940, Alfred Hitchcock)

Rebecca opens with protagonist Joan Fontaine narrating, establishing the present action as a flashback—which is kind of important considering how much danger Fontaine will be in throughout. She’s got to make it since there’s the narration. Some of that danger is in Fontaine’s head. Or, at least, she sometimes apprehensive of the wrong person. Sort of.

Rebecca is a passionate romance, a suspenseful thriller, and a reluctant character study. Fontaine’s nameless protagonist isn’t the one being studied, but rather her new husband, played by Laurence Olivier. Olivier’s a little older and a lot richer. He’s a relatively recent widower (Rebecca is the first wife), and he sweeps naive Fontaine off her feet.

The narration establishes the eventual setting—Olivier’s seaside estate—before heading to Fontaine and Olivier’s version of a meet-cute. They’re in Monte Carlo; she’s out sketching and comes across him on a cliff. She’s sure he’s going to jump. So, technically, maybe not a meet cute.

They soon meet again under formal circumstances. Fontaine is a paid companion to obnoxious rich lady Florence Bates. Bates knows Olivier socially, but he can’t stand her. However, once Bates gets a bug, Olivier and Fontaine become vacation buddies. Fontaine’s performance during these sequences is fantastic; the various emotions play out on her face as she observes Olivier, trying to figure out what’s happening.

What’s happening is a whirlwind romance; they leave Monte married. They’ll go on a honeymoon, which we see later on in home movies, but the action cuts from vacation to the estate. In the opening, director Hitchcock does what he can to make it not look too much like a miniature, but… it looks like a miniature. When Fontaine and Olivier arrive home, however, there’s this great composite shot of them driving up. The estate is a miniature, we won’t get any significant, closer exterior shots, but with that composite shot, Hitchcock makes sure the audience knows not to hold that kind of status against the film.

The film quickly introduces the new supporting cast—Judith Anderson as the imposing housekeeper who loved Rebecca, Reginald Denny as the estate manager, Gladys Cooper as Olivier’s sister, and Nigel Bruce as her comic relief husband. Olivier looses Fontaine to figure out how to run the house with Anderson’s help.

At this point, Olivier will orbit further and further away from Fontaine until they have their big second-act blowout. He’s busy being back but also actively neglecting to tell Fontaine anything about the house itself and how Rebecca liked it to be run. Much of the film during the second act is just Fontaine finding out more and more details Olivier really should’ve told her about. Why did he ever bring her there if Rebecca was so amazing? Since Olivier doesn’t confide in anyone, all the characters have a different impression of how Fontaine is supposed to function as the new lady of the estate. And since they all assume Olivier’s told Fontaine, no one gives her any context, with that lack knocking her between bewildered, overwhelmed, and frightened without any rest.

Hitchcock mounts whole set pieces just to showcase Fontaine’s discomfort and possible danger. There’s lots of beautiful work from Hitchcock, photographer George Barnes, and editor W. Donn Hayes. Fontaine acts the heck out of the scenes—and she’s the one who continues the character arc after the scenes forebodingly fade to black—but they’re technical marvels. Rebecca’s a great-looking (and sounding) film.

Just as Fontaine starts feeling like she should exert some agency, she tries to bond with Anderson over a favor—George Sanders, Rebecca’s favorite cousin, visits one day when OIivier’s out of town, and Fontaine promises to keep it a secret. Assuming she and Anderson share any kind of bond will be one of Fontaine’s worst mistakes.

Sanders is an abject delight. Rebecca’s got lots of great performances—while Fontaine gets a great showcase for the first three-quarters, Olivier then gets to play leading man for a bit and overshadows her—but Sanders is always a reliable scene stealer. He appears, takes over, then returns control on exit. It’s a fabulous balance. The three share a particularly great scene together.

The film has two major plot reveals to answer all the questions, tie up all the loose ends—one comes before the third act, one finishes off the film. In between those two reveals, Rebecca metamorphizes.

What follows is a very different film—still a romance and thriller, but with a different pace and narrative distance. Hitchcock changes things up for the finish, turning it into a race against time, then another, then another, all while bounding along the razor’s edge of melodrama. It’s a phenomenal success, delivering on many last-minute promises and giving the cast even further ranges to essay.

Hitchcock relies on a special effects set piece to close things out (did we forget there’s a narration safety net?), which has the added benefit of calling a draw on the performances. Fontaine has the most character development, while Olivier gets to do a great reveal and then excel further. Sanders and Anderson also have their singular qualities. Maybe it’s right no one can overshadow anyone else… they (and we) are all trapped in Rebeccas magnificent grasp.

This post is part of the Second Master Of Suspense Blogathon hosted by Maddy of Classic Film and TV Corner.