Mar 111942
 
two reels

Corrupt politician Paul Madvig (Brian Donlevy) takes a liking to Janet Henry (Veronica Lake), so drops gangster Nick Varna (Joseph Calleia) and his strongman Jeff (William Bendix) in favor of her father, reformer candidate Ralph Henry (Moroni Olsen). Then Taylor Henry (Richard Denning), the gambling son of Ralph who is seeing Madvig’s eighteen-year-old sister (Bonita Granville), is murdered. The blame falls on Madvig, leaving Ed Beaumont (Alan Ladd), his overly tough enforcer, to clean things up.

Alan Ladd and Veronica Lake were the ā€œitā€ couple for a few years, then dropped off the Earth. Ladd was a limited actor. Lake was nearly as limited, but she looked stunning. Both were short, so fit together in a frame without the need for Ladd to stand on a box, and both had mastered the cold gaze. These were not emotional actors.

Of their four films together, three were Noirs: This Gun for Hire (1942), The Blue Dahlia (1946), and this. The Glass Key is the best of a mediocre lot, which makes it stand out in a sad way. The other two were never going to be anything better than what they were, but The Glass Key had potential. It has a clever, twisting story taken from a Dashiell Hammett novel. It has a complicated setting with a mystery that isn’t clear at the beginning. It has a multi-layered lead character, who can’t really be called a hero, eccentric villains, and a femme fatal with her own secret agenda. It sounds like The Maltese Falcon, and with a better director and a better star, it might have approached that masterpiece. But outside of Bendix as a hulking brute, everything is a little less than it should have been. Lake brings her beauty, but nothing else. Donlevy’s Madvig should have been a careful balance of strength and need, displaying the worst in man but with some shining qualities. Instead he’s a goof. How anyone this dim rose to power is beyond me. The other gangsters and politicians should have been unusual, but are played too drably. And Beaumont could have been a great, moving character, smart enough to solve mysteries, amoral when dealing with the world, and absolutely loyal. Give that to Bogart and we’d be speaking about Ed Beaumont as an icon film character. But Ladd can only manage two modes: ridiculous tough guy and smarmy grinning guy. And then there is the world. Film Noir is the home of evil and sickness. But The Glass Key has neither, instead holding nothing except some corrupt politicians. That takes away any deep, universal meaning. It isn’t saying anything about the human condition, just about a group of criminals.

This is all a bit unfair. Ladd isn’t spectacular, but he does what is required of the role. No one is terrible. The story moves along nicely. And it looks good. For a slight crime drama with a touch of romance, it’s fine. But I can’t watch it without thinking that it could have been more.

 Film Noir, Reviews Tagged with:
Jan 091942
 
two reels

Ex-pirate Henry Morgan (Laird Cregar) has been made governor of Jamaica, much to the distain of its previous governor (George Zucco) and his daughter, Lady Margaret (Maureen O’Hara). Pirate Captain Leech (George Sanders) and his sidekick Wogan (Anthony Quinn) also are not to keen on the new situation, and sail off on The Black Swan to continue their pillaging ways. Captain Jamie (Tyrone Power), who was Morgan’s second in command, and his sidekick Tommy Blue (Thomas Mitchell), are having a harder time figuring where they belong. They stick with Morgan but keep their pirate attitudes. Jamie has fallen for Lady Margaret, who repeatedly rebukes him. Morgan’s runs into trouble quickly as pirate activity continues and he’s blamed for it, which leaves it to Jamie to save the day and win the girl.

It’s easy to forget how brief the golden age of Swashbucklers was and how few great films there were. After Captain Blood (1935), The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938), The Sea Hawk (1940), and the Mark of Zorro (1940), there was not another great Swashbuckler for over a decade until Scaramouche in 1952. Between those there were lackluster adventure films, often fun but without artistry. The Black Swan is the biggest and most colorful of those. It is Saturday afternoon fare, reasonably enjoyable and filled with clichĆ©s. It is rightly renowned for its vibrant cinematography, but little else.

Like Captain Blood, The Sea Hawk, and Scaramouche, it claims to be based on a Rafael Sabatini novel but there’s little from the book. The plot was invented for the screen and functions well enough, but the story is really the romance between Jamie and Lady Margaret and that doesn’t work at all. Tyrone Power was perfect as Zorro, an heroic gentleman with an effete side, but he can’t pull off being a pirate. It takes a special talent not to look silly as a pirate—Errol Flynn had it; Power does not. Maureen O’Hara takes on the first of her unreasonable, mood-swinging, fiery beauty roles. It’s a character she repeated in many of her films and it is too extreme to make sense and not extreme enough for full on comedy. She’s just unlikable.

The Black Swan looks beautiful. The costumes are attractive and the dueling isn’t dull. The secondary actors do a fine job, particularly a red-bearded George Sanders who I wouldn’t have expected to be so successful as a pirate. With low expectations, it is a fine romp if you want a pirate movie but don’t care much which one.

 Reviews, Swashbucklers Tagged with:
Dec 081941
 
five reels

Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney Jr.) is called back to his ancestral home by his father (Claude Rains) after the accidental death of his brother. They’ve had a strained relationship, but now as the heir to the estate he tries to fit in to the conservative setting, but his playboy ways leads him to ask out the village beauty, Gwen (Evelyn Ankers). Their date takes them to a gypsy camp, led by Maleva (Maria Ouspenskaya) and her son, Bela (Bela Lugosi). Their palm readings suggest tragedy, and Larry is soon after attacked and bitten by a wolf. When several locals are killed by animal attacks, Larry believes he has a become a werewolf, an idea that his father will not accept.

Quick Review: My favorite of the Universal creature features of the ’30s and ’40s and THE werewolf film, the story suffers only from being too brief.Ā  Lon Chaney Jr. plays an everyman, clever but not too clever, impetuous, emotional, and a little noble, who finds himself out of place back on his father’s estate.Ā  Sir John Talbot, played by Claude Rains, perhaps the most underrated actor of all time, is a good man, like his son, but is too proud and set in his ways.Ā  This is a setup for tragedy in the best of circumstances.Ā  Add in a too rapid romance and a werewolf, and The Wolf Man becomes an emotional ride.Ā  Scriptwriter Curt Siodmak used the werewolf as a metaphor for Nazi Germany, which he experienced first hand—otherwise good people became monsters and the world no longer made sense.

There are few deaths, but unlike in most modern horror films, each is important and felt.Ā  The rest of the supporting cast is excellent (Bela Lugosi, Claude Rains, Ralph Bellamy, Warren William, Patric Knowles, Maria Ouspenskaya, Evelyn Ankers), and the atmospheric music was used again and again in later films.Ā  Made as a B-film, a tight meaningful script, superb performances, and precise directing put it well into “A” territory.
Lon Chaney (he dumped the “.Jr” in later years) returned three times as Larry Talbot: Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man (1943), and House of Frankenstein (1944), and House of Dracula (1945).

Back to WerewolvesBack to Classic Horror

Oct 281941
 
two reels

Ann Carrington (Carole Landis) and her sarcastic friend Gail Richards (Joan Blondell) arrive at the Carrington estate for Ann to be reunited with her sick father (H.B. Warner). He is looked after by sinister butler Rama (Trevor Bardette), more sinister housekeeper Lillian (Rafaela Ottiano), and extremely sinister live-in doctor Jeris (George Zucco). Gail is murdered mistakenly in place of Ann. Her ghost finds Cosmo Topper (Roland Young) and forces him, along with his cowardly chauffeur Edward (Eddie ‘Rochester’ Anderson) to go to the manner in search of her dead body, and then, her murderer. Soon the spooky house is visited by confused Mrs. Clara Topper (Billie Burke), her maid (Patsy Kelly), heroic taxi driver Bob (Dennis O’Keefe), and the police, lead by Detective Roberts (Donald MacBride).

Hey, what do you know: It’s an Old Dark House film where the ghost isn’t someone in a costume attempting to scare off those darn kids. There’s an actual ghost. She isn’t scary, but she is a ghost.

The charming screwball comedy Topper ended such that a sequel was both unwanted and detrimental. Naturally they made one: Topper Takes a Trip, which was a mildly amusing copy of the original. For this third entry, they took an Old Dark House mystery and shoehorned in Topper, dialing the horror down and the comedy up. Without Topper, and the ghost, it is a pretty standard Old Dark House film: there are secret passageways, revolving walls, chairs with trap doors, and a robed killer. There’s even the traditional screaming female and he-man male leads. But since most of the time is spent with Topper and the ghost, the normal mystery isn’t given time to develop. And since that mystery is the story, there’s no reason for Topper to be in the film. It’s strange writing (when Bob Hope was stuffed into The Cat and the Canary, they replaced a needed character with his so he’d be a part of the story). I feel sorry for Dennis O’Keefe, who would normally have played the lead and I have to wonder if in some early draft of the script, Topper is missing and Bob is the lead.

Unfortunately the humor rarely comes from the situations, except for the slapstick of Edward repeatedly falling into the sea. It is either amplified bits from the first film (Mrs. Topper is no longer a bit daffy; she’s suffering from dementia) or Joan Blondell making wisecracks. Neither of these are funny, but Blondell’s none-stop quips are a bigger problem as they are also annoying. As her character is also ridiculously stupid, she isn’t fun to have on screen. Blondell deserved better.

Rochester Anderson is my favorite of the Black actors who were stuck playing frightened, bug-eyed servants. He’s playing a racist stereotype, but he makes it a bit less racist than it might have been, and considerably less racist than Willie Best had been in a similar role in a the similar film The Ghost Breakers a year earlier; I guess that’s progress.

Topper Returns isn’t a bad film. No one put enough thought into it to make it bad. It’s a cheap cash grab with little effort put in by the producers and writers, and even Roland Young is looking pretty tired.

Oct 091941
 
two reels

On Christmas eve, Jerry the mouse begins playing with the Christmas presents and goads Tom the cat into chasing him.Ā 9 min.

The third Tom and Jerry cartoon produced, The Night Before Christmas looks like all the other early Tom and Jerry shorts, and has pretty much the same structure as all of the later ones.Ā The two animals run around, occasionally getting in some licks on each other.Ā  Jerry tends to do better in the fights (but if he didn’t, he’d get eaten, so it’s a given he’ll do OK in direct confrontation), but this time around, Tom looks like the eventual winner.Ā However, it’s Christmas, so everything is going to come out well.Ā It is a bit sweeter than the average for the always fighting twosome, but that isn’t a detriment as the best gags aren’t slapstick.

This is viewable as background while wrapping presents, but won’t hold the attention of anyone with two digits in their age.

Sep 221941
 
three reels

Philip Monrell (Robert Montgomery) is the charming son of a wealthy steel family and good friends with the good natured playboy Ward Andrews (George Sanders). Well, that’s how it appears. Actually Philip is a paranoid psychopath who is jealous of Ward and recently escaped from an insane asylum. The pair visits Philip’s sickly mother who has taken on a beautiful young companion, Stella Bergen (Ingrid Bergman). Ward and Stella have an immediate attraction, but after he leaves, Philip and Stella get-together and marry. Philip’s paranoia appears in his mistreatment of Stella and his cruel and stupid handling of his company.

I wouldn’t call this Film Noir, but simply a thriller, but enough people label as Noir that I figure I can review it. It has beautiful, high contrast cinematography, though I’d call it classic Hollywood instead of Noir.

The acting is the strongest factor. Bergman is in fine form, glowing as she often did in the ā€˜40s, and Sanders is believable playing against type. They both are sympathetic and engaging. The surprise is Montgomery, who I generally dislike. Montgomery didn’t want to be in the film and wanted out of his contract, so gave what he considered to be an odd stilted performance, which was exactly what the part needed. I doubt Montgomery could have pulled it off if he’d tried; he didn’t have the talent. But purposefully acting peculiar makes Philip ooze insanity.

This is a tense, sometimes unpleasant film. Philip is so petty and cruel, and as Ward and Stella act more like real people than action heroes, they do little about it and just take the abuse. It’s rough as films have trained me to want one of them to just shoot him by the end of the first act, but they suffer through.

The script is midlevel. The dialog is good but there’s a few coincidences that are hard to accept, which ends up making this a good, midlevel kind of film.

 Film Noir, Reviews Tagged with:
Jun 171941
 
three reels

Dan the Electrical Man (Lon Chaney Jr.) is the sole survivor of an electrical accident. He is taken in for study by Dr John Lawrence (Samuel S. Hinds), who has some pretty odd views on electricity. His partner, Dr Paul Rigas (Lionel Atwill), has even stranger views, thinking he can turn people into zombies with shock powers. He experiments on Dan, and succeeds. Dr. Lawrence’s daughter, June (Anne Nagel) sympathizes with Dan and is the only one who believes that Rigas is involved with something sinister.

A Universal horror B-movie—and apparently the cheapest film they financed that year—Man Made Monster is a fairly typical mad doctor movie, though better made then most that don’t include the name ā€œFrankensteinā€ in the title. It is probably best remembered for bringing Lon Chaney Jr. into the Universal monster troop. He’d soon make The Wolf Man with the same director. But Man Made Monster is worth remembering on its own.

Chaney plays a friendly dimwit, and is charismatic in the part. Atwill does the mustache-twirling villain he’d done many times before, but there’s a reason why he’d done it so often: he’s very good at it. Things drag down with a court case, but the beginning is fast moving and the movie has a proper horror climax. At 59 minutes, it doesn’t overstay its slight plot.

The flaw with the picture is that it doesn’t know where to focus. Dan or Dr. Rigas should have been the lead, but June, who has no direct part in the proceedings, becomes the main character. It isn’t a fatal flaw, but I’d have liked to have more time with Dan. Electricity in the film can be seen as a metaphor for drug addiction, and Rigas is a sinister dealer who hooks Dan on the blue demon. His viewpoint is the interesting one. But what’s here is good enough.

Lionel Atwill other horror films are Doctor X (1932), The Vampire Bat (1933), Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933), Murders in the Zoo (1933), Mark of the Vampire (1935), Son of Frankenstein (1939), The Mad Doctor of Market Street (1942), The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942), The Strange Case of Doctor Rx (1942), Night Monster (1942), Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), and House of Frankenstein (1944).

Lon Chaney’s other Universal monster movies are The Wolf Man (1941), The Ghost of FrankensteinĀ (1942), The Mummy’s Tomb (1942), Son of Dracula (1943), Frankenstein Meets The Wolf Man (1943), and House of Frankenstein (1944), The Mummy’s Curse (1944), The Mummy’s Ghost (1944), House of Dracula (1945), and Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein (1948).

Jun 141941
 
one reel

Two upright and exceptionally boring white guys (Dick Purcell, John Archer) and their cowardly black servant (Mantan Moreland), searching for a missing admiral, crash on a Caribbean island and become guests of a spooky doctor (Henry Victor) with a German accent. He offers them his hospitality while they wait the two weeks until the next boat arrives, hospitality in his weird house. It is filled with strange goings on: The doctor’s wife is in a trance, Voodoo zombies wander the grounds, a witch woman makes potions in the kitchen, and evil spirits come out at night. Naturally the boring white guys don’t notice any of it, but the black servant does, so he can do his ā€œfunnyā€ scared black servant routine.

It was the 1940s, so I can’t blame Hollywood for messing up their films for propaganda purposes. That doesn’t make the film better, just understandable. With the war going full tilt in Europe, it’s clear from the beginning that this horror comedy isn’t going to have any true supernatural elements. It’s going to be Nazis.

I’m less sympathetic to the racism, visible in far too many of the period’s comedies but more egregious here than normal as it is front and center. Generally the racism inherent in the subservient and cowardly black man at least takes a few minutes off for the plot to progress, but this time it’s non-stop. As far the story goes, one of the boring white guys is the main character, but in terms of lines and screen time, the lead is Jeff, the servant. That means a lot of time with his ā€œOh golly, that there is a z-z-zombieā€ bit that is uncomfortable at best and certainly not funny. I suppose one can take consolation in the fact that every character is some kind of stereotype, be it the mysterious Nazi that was obviously supposed to be played by Bela Lugosi, the damsel in distress, or the generic white he-man.

Since it’s clear from the beginning what’s going on, there’s no mystery to figure out and nothing for our heroes and coward to do but not notice things and talk about how scary it all is. It doesn’t make much sense either. Why are the black island natives working for the Nazi? Why don’t bullets kill you when you are hypnotized? Why doesn’t the Nazi just shoot the Americans? Why is everyone so clueless?

Some reviewers have tried to retcon this into some kind of anti-racist, black movie. Don’t buy it. Giving the black character more lines does not make it OK that all the lines given to him are embarrassing. That outlook might work if Jeff solved any problems or achieved anything. But he doesn’t. He just does the scared routine and it gets old fast.

Jun 081941
 
two reels

In a flashback that never ends, but does include multiple other flashbacks we learn that Susan Webster (Ellen Drew) left her small town for the big city, only to fall in with gangsters (Robert Paige, Joseph Calleia, Gerald Mohr, Marc Lawrence, and Paul Lukas) who trick her into becoming a prostitute. <Nope, hold on. The Production Code Administration stepped in at this point and nixed the white slavery, requiring a rewrite.> So Susan is tricked into becoming a bar maid. Susan’s straight-laced brother Scot (Phillip Terry) – and yes, only one ā€œtā€ – comes to town to find his sis, which works out badly as the gangsters set him up to take the fall for a murder, and railroad him into the electric chair. Then, out of nowhere comes Dr. Perry (George Zucco), who can’t help Death-Row-Scot, but can offer him the chance to help all of mankind by having his brain transplanted into a gorilla. How this will help all of mankind is not specified. I kinda think it’s the sort of thing that should be spelled out, but Scot’s game with no more information. Once a gorilla, however, he’s got his own plans, and breaks free to seek revenge.

With a movie this oddly structured, something had to have gone seriously wrong behind the scenes. The obvious culprit is the censors, since it’s known they had their hands all of the script, but that seems only a partial explanation. Perhaps it’s simply that it was Paramount, a studio that shouldn’t get anywhere near a horror film in the ā€˜40s, much less a mad doctor flick. They simply didn’t know what to do. Still, this feels like the kind of mess Warner Bros would make, not Paramount. The problem is that this is two movies that shouldn’t be anywhere near each other. The first half is a typical WB gangster film, except they’d have done it better. It’s too melodramatic to be taken seriously, and too real-world to be any fun. OK, the opening is funny, where Susan walks out of the clouds to say that she was a ā€œbad little pennyā€ who ā€œbought a million dollars worth of trouble for everybody.ā€ Now that’s dialog, or at least, something related to dialog. OK, not too closely related. As she doesn’t die in the film, I am very curious where she is supposed to be telling the story from.

For the next 28 minutes, of a 64 minute movie, we get a drab trial with a nearly comatose defendant and a bunch of flashbacks. And then… MAD DOCTOR TIME! No foreshadowing of this. No indication that the movie was science fiction of horror. But now the always welcome George Zucco shows up and it’s a new movie. I’d expect the mad doctor to become the main character, but he’s mostly out 10 minutes later, and half that time was spent with Susan. So we’re 37 minutes before Gorilla-Scot breaks free. We don’t see that, mind you. Instead we see the faces of the gangsters and hear breaking glass. Did they forget to film the escape?

With only 27 minutes left, the movie becomes fun, with tension and deaths. Now it’s a monster movie, and oddly, it’s shot better. Significantly better. The credits only list one director and one cinematographer, but I don’t buy it. Somebody changed behind the camera. In his video review, Robin Bailes pairs the scene of the Gorilla stalking a gangster from the building top with a similar scene, sans gorilla, from The Godfather Part II, and yeah, once you see that, it sticks with you. Was Francis Ford Coppola cribbing from a second rate ā€˜40s monster movie?

This is a hard movie to sum up because it doesn’t feel like one movie. I can’t image anyone enjoying the first half, and I certainly have no desire to see it twice (even though I already have), but the ending is a good time. In these modern times, I suppose you can watch while scrolling on your phone until it gets good.

Mar 111941
 
one reel

A Joker pulls the emergency cord to stop the train in order to retrieve his hat that had flown out a window. This causes the train to arrive at the station late, and with no other trains coming until morning, stranding a group of passengers. Besides the Joker, the group include a newly Married Couple, a Cute Girl traveling with an Earnest Man, a teetotaling, Prissy Lady with a parrot, and a Doctor. They are warned by the Station Master that the station is haunted and that a ghost train comes by at night, and if they want to survive, they need to leave. They refuse, and the Station Master abandons them in fear of the ghosts. What follows is a string of spooky events, including a death and then the disappearance of the corpse, strange sounds and lights, the arrival of a crazed woman, and the passage of the ghost train itself.

ghosttrainplay

The Ghost Train was a very popular British play. Written by Arnold Ridley in 1923, it had a successful run and has seen numerous revivals. It was adapted for the screen in 1927 in a British-German coproduction, and like so many other Dark House movies, it was remade once sound was in place just a few years later, in 1931, this time just by the British. Next, in 1933, came two from the European continent, the Romanian Trenul fantomă and Hungarian KisĆ©rtetek Vonata. The French Un Train Dans La Nuit was released in 1934, but that one will get no more discussion here as no prints are known to survive. In 1939 the Dutch joined in with De Spooktrein. And finally the Brits took it back in 1941. There have been four more official versions since then, and a number more that ā€œborrowedā€ from it, but I’ll stick with the years from ’31 to ā€˜41.

It’s surprising how much alike the five surviving films are. The basic plot is exactly the same, with all the same major events occurring in the same order, and with few changes to even the minor ones. While the character names change (I’ll use descriptive names for each), their personalities shift only a bit. Footage is even shared between three of them, and the 1941 version had the same director as the 1931, so perhaps it isn’t that surprising.

The Ghost Train is an Old Dark House story transplanted to a railway station. The characters are properly quirky, there’s a dead body and strange lights and talk of ghosts, plenty of comic relief, and an eerie atmosphere. The story line is entertaining enough, and certainly has been popular. The characters are not complex or deeply developed, but rather were intended to represent a cross section of British society in the 1920s, thus supplying a bit of commentary while also being easy to identify. Everything is here for a thoroughly entertaining film. However, a few flaws are inherent to the structure that have been magnified in different productions. The story is good, but it’s brief, at least as executed in all five films (I’ve never seen the play and am curious how it fills nearly two hours). There’s approximately an hour’s worth of material. When an adaptation gets much over that, it drags. As the story was written for the stage, there’s a tendency to replicate that a bit too closely. I’m not a fan of opening up a film for no purpose when made into a movie, but most of these renditions could be converted back into a stage play without making any changes. A few more locations or some clever manipulation of the camera to better tell the tale would be nice. But inventive cinematography is not in abundance. Also, the Joker is supposed to be annoying to the other passengers, but he can easily become annoying to the audience. And if the film features him as the lead instead of part of the ensemble, as several do, he can become downright unpleasant.

How do the individual adaptations fare?

1941’s The Ghost Train is the technically most sophisticated. It has some beautiful shots, with a lovely use of shadows. The camera work sells the tone. It’s also back in England with a director familiar with the property. Everything is set for this to be the best version. And wow, does it not deliver. The old problems persist, with it being too long at an hour and a half, but the failure is from a new source: radio comedy. In 1941, for reasons that elude me, Richard ā€œStinkerā€ Murdoch and Arthur Askey were successful comedians. Both used a fast talking and obnoxious style, but Askey took it to another level, or I should say, took it too an older level. He’d been a music hall comedian, and he stuck with his old act. He always played the same character, with the same kind of jokes. There’s a lot of pratfalls, a lot of strange walks, and a lot of insults. He’s always very loud, always interrupting, and always talking. His routine wasn’t based on what he said, but on him always saying something. I suspect most people who would find is gags humorous have been dead for seventy years.

But it was 1941 and the studio thought there was money to be made on Askey and ā€œStinkerā€ so The Ghost Train was made into a vehicle for them, though mostly Askey. The Joker role was greatly enlarged, taking over the film, and then split between the two, though Askey got the lion’s share. When the Joker was trying to hit on the Cute Girl, we now get both ā€œStinkerā€ and Askey hitting on her, followed by Askey making several faces and then falling down. It’s nonstop and I don’t find a single thing Askey does amusing. I hate his character, which means now I hate the Cute Girl for being amused by him, and sympathize with the Earnest Man. Even if you like Askey (which I find inconceivable), he throws off the entire story. Nothing is frightening with him around. Nothing matters. And the other characters, including the Cute Girl, hardly exist. The Couple have been changed into a droopy pair so that they can be noticed at all. Plus, there’s a plot reason for why the Joker is acting as he does. This sticks around for ā€œStinkerā€ but there’s no explanation for why Askey’s character is the way he is. He’s just an ass. And as he is more extreme, it make’s ā€œStinkerā€ā€™s part make less sense.

This ceases to be The Ghost Train. How much you like it will have nothing to do with the story. It all depends on how much tolerance you have to Askey.

Mar 061941
 
one reel

Another telling of Robert Louis Stevenson’s tale of a scientist (Spencer Tracy) who makes a potion to split apart the good and evil sides of man, and ends up with the murderous Mr. Hyde.

What is more fun than hearing, over and over, debates between a googly-eyed doctor who claims that we are all made up of good and evil, and stuffy elitists who say that nice folks don’t talk about that sort of thing?Ā  You better enjoy that, because that’s the first 30 minutes of the 1941 Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

After that, we get Mr. Hyde, who looks like Spenser Tracy with a smirk (got it, good=googly eyes, evil=smirk) sans any of the sexual implications from the 1931 film.Ā  This is Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde-lite: no monster, no brutality, no sex.

We do get a well shot film with some mixed acting.Ā  Lana Turner is uninspired in a generic, good-girl role.Ā  Tracy puts in one of his worst performances, shooting his eyeballs around like pinballs.Ā  Ingrid Bergman is lovely, although her character has been changed from a prostitute to a near-virginal barmaid, with her blouse buttoned to her neck.Ā  I’d like to have seen what she could have done if the production code hadn’t been in effect.Ā  It might have compensated for her wandering accent and made the film worth my time.

Back to Mad ScientistsBack to Classic Horror