Reviews

I saw this again recently and it reminded me how much I resent that it was ever made.

The reasons are entirely to do with film preservation. When MGM decided to remake the original (and best) version made in 1937 by David Selznick, they not only bought the rights but also the camera negative and all surviving prints, together with the fabulous original score by Alfred Newman and the original orchestral parts.

The studio then destroyed all of the prints and the camera negative, bar one lousy dupe print for reference purposes to allow the scen-for-scene copying of the camera se ups for the remake, and more significantly, to ensure that the 1937 version could not be released anywhere as competition.

As a result, the original film can never be seen again in its gorgeous black and white glory. The surviving dupe (now on DVD) is a pale imitation of the original.

As for the score, it is continually claimed that the 1952 version re-used it.

Well, what actually happened is that Conrad Salinger made his own score as an adaptation of Alfred Newman's original utilising the themes, but the scores are quite different and the orchestration has been souped up to fit the MGM schmaltzy house style of the 1950s. Compare the opening main title music to see what I mean.

Worse still , when MGM destroyed its entire music library in 1970 as a cost cutting exercise (so they could tear down the 4 storey Music Dept building and sell the land) , all of the original score materials for Alfred Newman's ZENDA masterwork were lost.

All of this for a tepid, lacklustre remake that was only made to cash in on the Coronation of Queen Elisabeth II in 1953.

Yes, it is technically competent and the production values are fine, but it cannot hold a candle to the 1937 original.

I am also astonished that nobody has noticed how extensively doubled Granger and Mason are in the final duel. I wonder why this was deemed necessary? Were these actors so out of condition or just poor at fencing? When the camera switches from the doubles in long shot to Mason and Granger in close up, it is preposterous, laughable.

Perhaps it was not as obvious in the cinema?

Anyway, this film (liked by many) is always the cause of much pain for me when I see it on TV and then think what treasures were lost in order to make it.

I took the DVD of this famous film off the shelf the other evening and watched it again after 12 years, to see if it still held up or if I liked it an better. The answer is no. It is a typical well mounted Warner Bros "A" picture, with handsome production values and a good score from Steiner, but it has not worn very well as drama.

Although attempts have been made to open out the original play with exterior scenes in Washington, at the Germam Embassy and also in the grounds of the Farrelly mansion (filmed at the old Busch Gardens) , the whole film is fairly set- bound, betraying its theatrical origins.

Paul Lukas, a good actor if not a great one, repeats his much admired and very earnest Broadway portrayal as a German anti-Fascist and won the Best Actor Oscar, probably because of the times in which this film was shown. He has a few good moments but the performance is competent at best, not grippingly memorable.

Bette Davis is woefully miscast as his wife. She took the role as a favour to Hal Wallis who needed a big name on the posters to ensure box office returns would justify the expense (the rights to the play had cost Jack Warner a whopping $150,000)

She does her best to underplay and suppress her usual performance tricks, not entirely successfully (Interestingly, she does not smoke - along with DECEPTION, this is one of her few contemporary films where she does not),.

But she is far too mannered and theatrical for the part, which was built up for her and expanded from the play. It is a pity that the great Mady Christians (who played the role on Broadway) was not asked to reprise her role.

More pleasure is to be found in the supportng roles - especially Lucile Watson as the matriarch (also reprising her stage performance) and the superb English actor Henry Daniell as an icily cynical German Baron. Beulah Bondi is totally wasted as a French housekeeper.

Much has been made by others reviewing this film on IMDB, of how it compares to Casablanca (released the same year) which is far superior in every respect.

Comparisons are not really that relevant except that, while almost every line of dialogue in Casablanca is remembered and quoted, especially Humphrey Bogart's 'hill of beans' speech, not one line of Ms Hellmann's wordy, pompous screenplay is recalled today.

It is a very wordy script indeed and there are many longeurs in the first half. Moreover, the world in which the Farrrelly's live seems almost like a Hollywood fantasy now, with a grand palladian mansion that would not look out of place in GONE WITH THE WIND, and a large staff of black servants all tugging their forelocks and saying 'Yes'm' at every opportunity. The only ingredient missing in all this is the great Hattie MacDaniel, who was under contact to Warners then and would surely have injected some much needed humour to the proceedings.

At one point, the Nazi-sympathising Rumanian Count de Brancovis (George Coulouris) says to Kurt Muller (Lukas) that he cannot place his accent or from which part of Germany he comes. I am not surprised. Lukas was not German but Hungarian, born in Budapest. He was also Jewish, though no mention of his racial origins occur in the script.

This film seems much longer than its 114 minutes running time, and I doubt it will get any better with the passing of time.

The adverts announced at the time:"CAGNEY MEETS A RAFT OF TROUBLE IN 'EACH DAWN I DIE' " And indeed he does.

If you can forget aboout the plot holes and improbabiliities, this is still a very entertaining gangster flick, made right at the end of the cycle and in the same year as THE ROARING TWENTIES (in which James Cagney sparred with Humphrey Bogart in what is the best prohibition drama ever made).

Though not as good as THE ROARING TWENTIES, EACH DAWN I DIE is still a cracking film. The main pleasure is in watching a superb ensemble cast of Warner contract players all at the top of their form, supporting Cagney and Raft who are clearly enjoying their only chance to act together (they had been friends since vaudeville days).

Warners clearly aimed to out do THE BIG HOUSE (1930) the famous early talkie that was perhaps the first film to show life inside a penitentiary. There's plenty of action here and the pace is fast. Maybe Mike Curtiz would have given it even more zip than Willam Keighley, always a somewhat pedestrian director in my opinion.

Of course the final third of the film becomes a tad cliched and overly sentimental but that was fairly typical of the times (it would not play today).

It's also great fun spotting the different sets on the Warner backlot that were re-used in this film. There's allso a good punchy score by Max Steiner who, for some weird reason, gets no on-screen credit.

Pretty Jane Bryan acquits herself well as Cagney's girlfriend (1939 was a great year for her, with her outstanding performances in THE OLD MAID and WE ARE NOT ALONE).

In the scenes where Cagney is in 'the hole' and later, pleading with the probation board, we even get a hint of his portrayal of Cody Jarrett (White Heat) that is still ten years ahead in the future.

Thoroughly enjoyable and well worth seeing, for all lovers of these stars and Warner Bros crime dramas.

I finally saw this film tonight, thanks to the British cable channel "Talking Pictures" screening a really gorgeous print and at last, I can understand why it was such a major box office flop in 1940.

The reviews here on IMDb are mostly from people living in the USA and a large number of them express being entranced by this heavy-handed fantasy. Perhaps they see things differently there? Or maybe they just adore Shirley Temple, no matter what the film? As a Britisher, I have never understood the appeal of Shirley Temple. Her saccharine cutesy-pie act and tuneless, off-key singing always left me cold, even as a child. In this movie (her first in colour), she is even less appealing than usual and the thought that she was ever considered for the part of Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz just beggars belief.

The main problem with The Blue Bird as far as I'm concerned is that it lacks charm, though it tries very hard indeed. The composer Alfred Newman (a musical genius) scores the film with as much sweet-toned romantic melody as he is capable of, but it just does not match what is happening on screen.

Some wonderful character actors do their best in various roles and the colour photography is often ravishing - but at the end of the day, one never warms to the central character (Temple) and the "message" of the film is so obvious, the final scene is painfully predictable.

The Blue Bird is often compared to Oz and I can see why. But Oz had great songs, humour (Eddie Collins as the dog just leaves me cold) superb special effects (in Blue Bird, the effects are obvious and cheap looking, with gaudy painted backdrops at every turn) and also had a terrific narrative drive thanks to Mr Baum.

It also had the unique talents of Judy Garland, who brought pathos, wit, charm and musical verve to the role of Dorothy that had audiences transfixed then and forever afterwards. Ms Temple on the other hand, grates with every toss of her curls and every pout of her lips.

In spite of many video, DVD and TV revivals, The Blue Bird has failed to find an audience, even with the patina of nostalgia through the passage of time. I doubt it ever will.

It is an expensive, lumpen curio and proof that not everything produced in Hollywood's Golden Age was worthy of the great talents working there.

A friend lent me the DVD of this film recently which gave me the chance to revisit a film that I first saw on TV when I was about 7. I will not bore you by repeating the complex plot (as almost every reviewer on IMDb seems compelled to do) but I will make some observations about this neglected classic.

Firstly, Mr Fairbanks.

Having spent most of his career up until 1941 trying to avoid comparisons with his famous father, here, he deliberately channels Douglas Fairbanks Senior and is utterly charming and compelling in the role.

Better, he adopts some of his father's mannerisms and at one point even rubs or scratches his left palm when a theft is imminent, exactly as his father had done in THE THIEF OF THE BAGDAD some 20 years before. Most people probably didn't even notice this tribute to Doug Senior.

Next, the almost continuous music score by Roy Webb is really excellent. Webb was RKO's house composer and is never mentioned much nowadays. He rarely got such a grandiose opportunity as this and he rises to the challenge beautifully.

Last but not least, there is the performance by the great Walter Slezak. This is possibly his best role, although he also appeared memorably in Vincente Minelli's THE PIRATE around the same time and was equally outstanding.

Slezak was the son of the famous Austrian tenor Leo Slezak and came to America when the Nazis annexed Austria (his father remained in Vienna). He was an accomplished actor in German films and on the stage and his performance in SINBAD THE SAILOR is absolutely delicious. His mesmerizing presence and exquisite delivery of some very classy dialogue are one of the joys of this film.

The film is impressively mounted and unusually lavish for an RKO film, the color photography is ravishing and the large supporting cast well chosen.

Oh, and Maureen O'Hara probably never looked as beautiful, though no attempt is made to explain just how an Arabian Princess acquired such a broad Dublin accent. Perhaps she went to a convent there to finish her education?

In all, a delightful piece of old school Hollywood escapism with a highly literate script and very good special effects.

Were it to be made today, the film would be smothered in CGi and unnecessary, gratuitous sex and violence.

Watch it and mourn what the movies have lost.

Although I am a committed movie buff of many decades experience now, I had somehow never seen this famous old adventure flick until I acquired the excellent Hen's Tooth DVD of it for Christmas.

It proved to be a delightful surprise and far better than I was expecting. As an independent production, it may have lacked the big budget production values of a Warner or MGM film, but it still managed to look impressive, with some clever use of glass shots, hanging miniatures and other film tricks.

It is only 92 minutes long yet packs an astonishing amount of incident for its length, all helped along by a throbbing music score that relies heavily on judicious borrowings from Max Steiner's famous score for KING KONG, which surprisingly fits the action rather well.

An excellent cast of 1930s favourites is led by a young Randolph Scott who makes a terrific Hawkeye and clearly enjoys himself in the role.

1936 was an interesting year for him. Not yet typecast in "oaters", he made, in rapid succession, a big musical (Follow the Fleet with Astaire and Rogers) a sexy comedy (Go West Young Man with Mae West)and this, which was a logical follow-up to the previous year's SHE. He was a much better actor and more versatile than he is usually given credit for and in this role, he may well have found his career best.

The DVD offers what is probably the best surviving print of this old movie and it is rather variable in quality, though it does get better after the 3rd reel. I would love to have seen a restored print but I am guessing this would be impossible now unless an original nitrate can be found.

George B. Seitz directs the whole show with flair and keeps things moving at a considerable pace. The film easily bears comparison to better known films in the genre, such as BEAU GESTE, GUNGA DIN and THE FOUR FEATHERS.

In short, it's a grand old fashioned adventure film, the kind Hollywood turned out with ease and great skill and long before the inflated budgets, running times and CGi of today.

The kids back in 1936 must have been on the edge of their seats....I know I was, in 2017!

Although I am a committed movie buff of many decades experience now, I had somehow never seen this famous old adventure flick until I acquired the excellent Hen's Tooth DVD of it for Christmas.

It proved to be a delightful surprise and far better than I was expecting. As an independent production, it may have lacked the big budget production values of a Warner or MGM film, but it still managed to look impressive, with some clever use of glass shots, hanging miniatures and other film tricks.

It is only 92 minutes long yet packs an astonishing amount of incident for its length, all helped along by a throbbing music score that relies heavily on judicious borrowings from Max Steiner's famous score for KING KONG, which surprisingly fits the action rather well.

An excellent cast of 1930s favourites is led by a young Randolph Scott who makes a terrific Hawkeye and clearly enjoys himself in the role.

1936 was an interesting year for him. Not yet typecast in "oaters", he made, in rapid succession, a big musical (Follow the Fleet with Astaire and Rogers) a sexy comedy (Go West Young Man with Mae West)and this, which was a logical follow-up to the previous year's SHE. He was a much better actor and more versatile than he is usually given credit for and in this role, he may well have found his career best.

The DVD offers what is probably the best surviving print of this old movie and it is rather variable in quality, though it does get better after the 3rd reel. I would love to have seen a restored print but I am guessing this would be impossible now unless an original nitrate can be found.

George B. Seitz directs the whole show with flair and keeps things moving at a considerable pace. The film easily bears comparison to better known films in the genre, such as BEAU GESTE, GUNGA DIN and THE FOUR FEATHERS.

In short, it's a grand old fashioned adventure film, the kind Hollywood turned out with ease and great skill and long before the inflated budgets, running times and CGi of today.

The kids back in 1936 must have been on the edge of their seats....I know I was, in 2017!

I recently saw this ancient British film again after a 30 year hiatus.

Luckily it was the recent DVD from NETWORK with possibly the best surviving print that I saw. I won't repeat the complex plot (every reviewer on IMDb seems compelled to reprise film plots for some reason), apart from saying that the narrative binds together a group of disparate characters over a 24 hour period, each with his/her own story, much like the later films TALES OF MANHATTAN (1942) FLESH AND FANTASY (1943) DEAD OF NIGHT (1945) BOND STREET (1948) etc. This film is probably the first talkie to use such a device and its cast is stuffed with famous stars of the early 1930s. Which makes spotting familiar faces (if you are a film buff) part of the fun of watching this.

Its main attraction for me though, is that it offers a tantalizing glimpse of London as it was almost 90 years ago, a London and a way of life in Britain that has vanished completely. The street and railway station scenes, the atmosphere on a typical London bus of that time with a conductor, and the whole ambiance of the film are priceless.

It also provides Max Miller with perhaps his best screen role, allowing him to demonstrate his astonishing facility for rapid-fire dialogue that would not have been out of place at Warner Brothers in the mid 1930s.

Think Pat O'Brien and James Cagney in such films as BOY MEETS GIRL and CEILING ZERO and then watch Max do his stuff. He's terrific and easily competes with them.

Some scenes creak today as one would expect, but for the most part, this is a vivid, highly entertaining little film that deserves to be far better known than it is.

I bought the Studio Canal DVD as a Christmas present to myself as it was the only one of George Formby's films (from the original Ealing series) that I did not have in my collection.

The disc offers a beautiful print presumably from a pristine vault print and once I started watching the film, I realised that I did not remember it at all from the last time I saw it in the early 1960s on Granada TV, introduced by George himself.

With 3 terrific songs, the usual Formby stock company in supporting roles and Googie Withers a better leading lady than most of George's very posh girl friends, the film is thoroughly entertaining from start to finish.

The pace is frenetic and handled superbly by director Kimmins and I think this, of all Formby's films, shows what a terrific physical comedian he really was. I did not spot any obvious doubling for his many stunts (check the way he slides down stairs, something he must have learned from watching Chaplin) and the Wrestling match is just priceless!

Audiences (especially children) must have loved this frolic back in 1939, just a few months before the outbreak of war would change British cinema forever and render such a harmless farce obsolete forever.

Highly recommended, not only for Formby Fans but for all lovers of great slapstick screen comedy.

There are so many things to recommend this delightful film. The cast is top notch (Alice Faye is outstanding in her numbers and she brings real pathos to her role as the ignored but adoring admirer of Dick Powell), the story silly and witty in that charming mid 1930s screwball comedy style and the score by Irving Berlin is one of his very best. There isn't one dud song here and all were written to order for the film - astonishing facility.

However, I really rate this musical because of the way the numbers are filmed. One actually feels like one has been to the theatre to see a show and the staging is often remarkably elaborate.

For example, "The Girl on the Police Gazette" makes use of an amazing continuous revolving set (the soundstage must have been huge to accommodate this) and appears to have been filmed in almost a continuous take. Think of the rehearsal that must have taken!

The other reason to see it is the Ritz Brothers. I know that these zany comedians are an acquired taste and are often grating and irritating for modern audiences, but this is possibly their best vehicle and the closest we can get to seeing what they were really like in the theatre. Often referred to as a poor second rate alternative to the Marx Brothers, they were quite different in style and were really fabulous comedy dancers. The movies did them no favours at all in grounding their routines, forcing them to fit in with the plots of the films in which they appeared (consider their contributions to The Goldwyn Follies in 1938.....YUK!)

Here, however, they are purely a speciality and their musical contributions are terrific. The parody they do on "Let's Go Slumming" with Harry Ritz in drag, dressed in the identical outfit worn by Alice Faye only moments before, is just priceless.

I wish the print were in better shape but Fox has done the best it could with the surviving elements for the DVD release. Perhaps a Blu ray might improve definition further?

I also miss the trailer which appears to be lost. However I have an acetate of the very entertaining radio promotional trailer (12 minutes long), should the folks at Fox wish to include it on any future release.

Recommended viewing!

Along with "Rome Express" (1932) and "The Lady Vanishes" (1938), this late entry in the famous Rathbone/Bruce Sherlock Holmes series is a remarkable achievement, given its tiny budget and short running time.

A classic example of 'less is more', director Roy William Neill keeps the tension cranked high and the pace taut, with a splendid cast of character actors and an admirable special effects team that creates the illusion of the action really being on a British express train of the mid 1940s.

The use of back projection, especially in the brilliantly staged sequence where Holmes is kicked outside of the speeding train by the killer, is truly admirable. Bravo!

Moreover the adroit borrowing of clips of speeding trains and staff loading goods from "Rome Express" a British thriller from 1932, add to the illusion, especially in the early scenes of the train departing London Euston.

We British love this film particularly, because compartment trains like this were still in use well into the 1990s, on regional routes, long after the Pullmman express trains on intercity routes had been replaced by the soulless, modern Pendolino coaches.

Rathbone is, as ever, superb in this iconic role. I love the moment in the dining car when, shown the menu, he ponders the choices as Nigel Bruce suggests he try the curry; "Steak and Kidney Pudding" he snaps, preferring a typically British dish. Dining cars? Ha! Nowadays, you'd be lucky to get a toasted sandwich!

The film last barely an hour but it never flags or disappoints. I must have seen this little movie about 100 times in my life and I always find something new to admire.

I recommend it unreservedly.

Along with "Rome Express" (1932) and "The Lady Vanishes" (1938), this late entry in the famous Rathbone/Bruce Sherlock Holmes series is a remarkable achievement, given its tiny budget and short running time.

A classic example of 'less is more', director Roy William Neill keeps the tension cranked high and the pace taut, with a splendid cast of character actors and an admirable special effects team that creates the illusion of the action really being on a British express train of the mid 1940s.

The use of back projection, especially in the brilliantly staged sequence where Holmes is kicked outside of the speeding train by the killer, is truly admirable. Bravo!

Moreover the adroit borrowing of clips of speeding trains and staff loading goods from "Rome Express" a British thriller from 1932, add to the illusion, especially in the early scenes of the train departing London Euston.

We British love this film particularly, because compartment trains like this were still in use well into the 1990s, on regional routes, long after the Pullmman express trains on intercity routes had been replaced by the soulless, modern Pendolino coaches.

Rathbone is, as ever, superb in this iconic role. I love the moment in the dining car when, shown the menu, he ponders the choices as Nigel Bruce suggests he try the curry; "Steak and Kidney Pudding" he snaps, preferring a typically British dish. Dining cars? Ha! Nowadays, you'd be lucky to get a toasted sandwich!

The film last barely an hour but it never flags or disappoints. I must have seen this little movie about 100 times in my life and I always find something new to admire.

I recommend it unreservedly.

This film was believed lost for years and in the 1960s, a battered, subtitled and heavily cut print found in the Czech Republic was the only version available.

Then, in the early 1980s, a disused and forgotten film vault at Shepperton Studios, its door locked and blocked by stacked lumber and other rubbish, was opened and cleared and yielded hundreds of cans of old films, among them the original nitrate camera negative of THE GHOUL in perfect condition. It made quite a news story at the time.

The British Film Institute took possession of the film and new prints were made. The MGM DVD has recently been superseded by a Region 2 disc from NETWORK and it is superb. I finally caught up with their splendid DVD of this title recently and what a wonderful surprise it turned out to be.

Firstly the quality of the image and sound is breathtaking, but that would be unimportant if the film itself was of no importance. However, while it betrays many of the faults of early talkies, the strong cast, effective use of the camera, superlative photography and lighting and Alfred Junge's wonderful sets make this a must-see film.

I was also astonished to find that the film had been almost continuously underscored, admittedly with music deriving from the works of Wagner - but always in an appropriate way and with considerable skill. When one considers that KING KONG (Max Steiner) was made the same year, it would seem that film music in British films was not as far behind Hollywood as was previously believed.

Karloff is as magnetic as always and I think this film is far more effective than the similarly themed THE MUMMY of the previous year. The supporting cast is especially strong, with the bizarre Ernest Thesiger stealing every scene he was in, as usual

The film held my interest until the end and, clichés and plot holes aside, I was delighted to have finally seen it and in such a gorgeous original print.

Recommended!