The Big Trail (1930)

Directed by Raoul Walsh
Starring John Wayne, Marguerite Churchill and El Brendel
Produced by Fox Film Corporation

Breck Coleman is one of the best trackers in the West.  He has befriended tribes of Indian tribes and learned to hunt and track as well as any man.  And he is absolutely deadly with his knife.  He's just the kind of man a group of settlers blazing a path from Missouri to Oregon would want along for the trip.

Unfortunately for the travelers, Coleman has only one thing on his mind: revenge.  He's just returned from Santa Fe where his trapper friend was murdered for his bounty of wolf skins.  Coleman is tracking the killers so leading a group of pilgrims across the plains and through the mountains is out of the question. Unless...

Coleman begins to suspect Red Flack and his henchman are the murderers.  And it just so happens they have been hired to lead the caravan of prairie schooners across the country.  Coleman changes his mind so he can investigate the men.

Helping his decision to leave with the group is Ruth Cameron, an attractive settler moving west with her family.  He makes several attempts to woo her, but they all end in rejection.  And complicating things is another suitor, Thorpe, who also happens to be running from debtors and is friends with Flack.

Will the settlers reach their new homes in the West?  Will Coleman get his men or will he be shot down by the jealous Thorpe? And who will win the hand of Ruth?

Let's get this out of the way up front: The Big Trail is about as cliched and predictable a movie as you could ever see.  They set up various plot threads in the first ten minutes and you know exactly how the next hour and a half is going to play out.

The hero is going to get the girl.  He's going to get his frontier justice.  The settlers are going to get to Oregon and, while there may be a couple casualties, it won't be anyone we care about.

There are two big reasons to watch this however.  The first is all of the stuff that happens in between the plot machinations.  It's more thrilling than any of the interpersonal stories.  There's a harrowing attempt to ford a river that ends with some of the wagons and animals being swept downstream.  There's the attempt to descend a cliff face by lowering wagons by rope; again, not all of the wagons survive.  And the film makes you appreciate that each travelers survival depends entirely upon these horse-drawn, rickety bits of wood and canvas.

The most fun scene though may be an Indian attack late in the film.  The travelers literally circle their wagons and fight off the onslaught, but they pay a price for it.  As they bury their dead and women weep over lost husbands and children, the settlers move on, except for one dog who lies down next to his master's grave.  It's a great sequence in the film.

The second reason is of course John Wayne.  When he first saunters onto the screen, he could be any young actor in the world.  He doesn't have that saunter or those distinctive lines across his face that only age can provide.

Then, he starts talking about justice and seeking his friend's killer.  That familiar drawl comes out, the eyes narrow and the Duke is standing before you.  It's an inexperienced version, without that bit of gravel in the voice, but it's unmistakably him.  And you smile knowing everything that lies before him and his audience.

I wish the story itself was any good.  There's some decent character work here Tyrone Power, Ian Keith and Charles Stevens make up our triumvirate of baddies and they are all very good, particularly the Powers as the grizzly-bear-like Flack.  Coleman gets a couple of supporting partners who provide a lot of fun, especially Tully Marshall as Zeke. And El Brendel provides some much needed comic relief as a settler who is constantly at odds with his mother-in-law.

I wish Marguerite Churchill was given a bit more to do as Ruth.  Her job is essentially to constantly rebuff Coleman for no reason whatsoever, until the writer decides it's time for her to profess her love.  We know it's coming so her scenes tend to be more frustrating than anything.

All in all, The Big Trail is a good if not great early Western.  The set pieces are great and you get to see a star born before your eyes.  Just wish I couldn't predict every beat of the tale.

***1/2 out of *****

Liliom (1930)

Directed by Frank Borzage
Starring Charles Farrell, Rose Hobart and Estelle Taylor
Produced by Fox Film Corporation

Julie and her friend Marie are serving girls in a mansion. They do their work and are taken care of. There is a carpenter who comes once a week to complete odd jobs and ask Julie out on a date.

The girls' periodic trips to the local carnival help break up the routine and provide a welcome diversion. Julie particularly enjoys staring at the Liliom, a carousel barker. He seems to have eyes for her too, but its hard to tell. His job after all is to convince women to take a ride on the merry-go-round.

When Julie hops on the carousel this particular night, she receives all Liliom's attention. The owner of the ride also has a romantic interest in the carnie and threatens Julie to stay away from Liliom. He overhears and sides with Julie, beginning a night which leads to both love and the loss of both of their jobs.

Fast forward three months. Julie is living with her aunt and Liliom is sleeping on the couch. An old friend of Liliom's has a robbery planned and wants him in on the crime.

Will a pregnancy push Liliom to break the law? How far will Liliom go to take care of Julie and his unborn child?



As with many of the films from this era, Liliom has a lot going for it on the screen. The direction. The supporting performances. An interesting initial hook.

Unfortunately, this film has some fatal flaws as well.

Let's start with what shines. Liliom as filmed by Frank Borzage is absolutely beautiful to watch. The camera constantly plays with light and shadow. If it weren't for the subject matter, you'd swear you were watching a film noir.

Borzage's camera also heaps s lot of love upon Julie. There's a shot early on of her face in close up that is all you need to explain why any guy would fall for her.

Rose Hobart plays Julie not as a naive girl who is looking for adventure in her men, but as young woman who has had a hard life, but does not want to settle and be trapped in her choice of husband. It's a reserved, quiet performance that allows the emotion to come through.You understand why she might fall for the idea of Liliom given everything else going on in her life.

There are a few great supporting turns here as well. Estelle Taylor is sultry and tenacious as Liliom's employer at the carousel. Lee Tracy is slimy and shifty, but supremely confident playing Liliom's less-than-criminal-mastermind buddy. And H.B. Warner shows up in the final stanza bringing a healthy dose of authority to a critical role.

But now we come to the film's biggest liability: Liliom himself.

He's just a horrible human being. He defends Julie but then spends the next 15 minutes denigrating her or explaining how important he is. He then morphs into the worst kind of stereotype, unemployed, sleeping on his girlfriend's couch, contributing nothing to the household. Later, he gets angry and hits Julie.

The plot does him no favors as it sets him up with a false choice of sorts. Either he goes back to being a carousel barker or he robs a guy. That's it. Those are the only options. He for some reason wants to take Julie to America despite the fact that he does not seem to like her much.

Not helping at all is Charles Farrell in the title role. Liliom could have been played as macho with a code of honor. Instead, he comes across as whiny and entitled and sleazy. Every line reading seems calculated to make us hate him more.

There is a fun, out-of-the-blue twist at the end that I won't spoil here. Suffice to say it produces some of the film's best imagery and moments. However, the "why" of it feels completely unearned. And when you think for a moment on the film's final stance on domestic abuse, you can't help but feel icky.

Liliom has enough to recommend it, but just barely. Some great atmosphere and performances are swamped by a despicable lead character we are asked to empathize with.

*** out of *****

The Silver Horde (1930)

Directed by George Archainbaud
Starring Evelyn Brent, Louis Wolheim and Joel McCrea
Produced by RKO Radio Pictures

Boyd Emerson has spent weeks traversing the Alaskan wilderness in search of gold. He's traveled alone with his sled and his team of dogs. A few days ago, he came across Fraser. Now, finally, the two men arrive at a village to seek shelter.

Only none of the townspeople want anything to do with the two men.

It turns out they have wandered into a fishing village that is at war with a fish canning corporation. The village's leader, the beautiful and mysterious Cherry Malotte, wants to build a cannery of her own, but her enemies have stopped her at every turn.

Boyd, having failed in his search for riches, sees a business opportunity and heads to Seattle to arrange financing. Of course, Boyd isn't in this for the money; he needs to impress his girlfriend Mildred, a socialite whose father disapproves of her seeing the financially-strapped man. He'd much rather marry her off to Fred Marsh, who (you guessed it!) runs the fishing operation that's plaguing Cherry.

Things come to a head. Repeatedly. There are fist fights and sea battles. And perhaps Boyd is starting to fall for Cherry. Will the two lovebirds get together in spite if Cherry's sordid past? And will the town succeed in getting its canning operation off the ground?



The Silver Horde is a tough one. It's a melodrama that demands your brain be placed in the off position. If you can do that, there is a lot to like here.

Sadly, my brain maintained a constant vigil over the action.

There is almost nothing in this plot that makes a lick of sense. Boyd shows up at this town and within a couple of days is entrusted with the massively important mission by people who do not know him. The bank gives Boyd a sizable loan despite us knowing he's poor. Boyd blurts out his entire plan to Marsh so the villain can oppose him.

SPOILERS. The worst is the deus ex machina finale. Cherry (who we learn was a prostitute in a previous life) periodically confides in Queenie, a friend from her infamous past. Well, when Mildred and Marsh become engaged, Cherry wants to get Boyd and Mildred back together. So she arrives with Queenie who announces (and I swear I am not making thus up) that she and Marsh are already married! It's an out-of-left-field reveal and it makes you wonder why Cherry didn't use this to disgrace her opponent sooner.

Beyond the ridiculous plot, the actors here are very good. Evelyn Brent is fantastic as the strong yet smitten woman at the center of the story. Louis Wolheim and Raymond Hatton are great as the film's comic relief. Gavin Gordon is fun as the movie's heavy.

Unfortunately Joel McCrea's Boyd is fairly unremarkable. And Jean Arthur shows up in an early role as Mildred, but does little to distinguish herself.

Most of the direction by Archainbaud is pretty straightforward. Once the action shifts to the sea, things become muddled. I had a lot of trouble following which person was a good guy, let alone where our lead was at any point.

There is one bravura sequence. After the village builds its cannery, we see a series of shots showing how the fish are caught, processed and canned. It's beautifully shot and provides a great time capsule for how a cannery worked in the early 1900s.

I cannot leave The Silver Horde without bringing up the sound. All of the dialogue sounds crisp and clean, but there's almost no music. You can feel the soundtrack missing at certain points, particularly during the prolonged silences that mark the first half of the film.

I like the notion of Hollywood taking audiences to more exotic locations. I just wish there was a better story. There are some good performances here, but The Silver Horde tells a tale that keeps taking me out of the film.

** out of *****

Photo from Virtual History

Shameless Self-Promotion: Stuff Is Happening

First, the big film blogging news for me:  I am now a contributing writer over at Man, I Love Films!

I'll be doing a weekly column on Saturdays there which will allow me scratch that non-classic film blog itch. Here's my inaugural column about the Star Wars news (you'll find I have a Wedge Antilles fetish) and my introductory post featuring an embarrassing photo of not-me!  Feel free to check me out at my new gig and, while you're reading my column, browse the awesome lists and reviews they post daily.  They just finished up an epic month of horror.

Second, I have been busying myself guesting on some podcasts.  I just did my third stint on the LAMBcast and I was also recently on As You Watch.  Check out the links below!

• LAMB 5th Year Anniversary Podcast (LAMBcast)
• Looper Review (LAMBcast)
• Metropolis Review (LAMBcast)
• The Prestige Review (As You Watch)

None of this changes what's happening at 100 Years of Movies.  And by that I mean you can still look forward to the sporadic publication of reviews about classic films and forgotten oldies watched in chronological order.

Animal Crackers (1930)

Directed by Victor Heerman
Starring Groucho Marx, Harpo Marx and Chico Marx
Produced by Paramount Pictures

The famous Captain Spaulding has returned from his latest African adventure and the the hotel run by Mrs. Rittenhouse is pulling out all the stops, including displaying a prestigious painting. But when multiple parties decide the painting may present other business opportunities, does chaos ensue? (Yes. Yes, it does.) And does the plot even matter? (No. No, it does not.)

Animal Crackers is the second feature from the world famous Marx Brothers. Groucho, Zeppo, Harpo and Chico bring their wacky antics and wordplay to a very loosely plotted art forgery/heist plot and lunacy is unleashed.

So, why am I not laughing?


Maybe I am just missing the Marx Brothers' marrow in my funny bone, but after two outings with the troupe, I'm just not feeling it.

I have an objective admiration for the way Groucho constructs a sentence. I can appreciate the way Chico mispronounces and misinterprets words. I understand Harpo as a silent id causing chaos when he appears.

I just don't find any of it funny or even amusing. I feel like any attempt I make to discuss the film makes me sound like Data from Star Trek: "Interesting, captain. Your juxtaposition of those words creates a sort of paradox. Is this what humans refer to as 'humor'?"

All that said, Animal Crackers is better Marx Brothers than The Cocoanuts was. The musical numbers are actually integrated into the plot. The plot actually gets some regular attention throughout. And Groucho does have one scene I loved where he attempts to dictate a letter. Funny stuff.

That said, I'm still not enjoying the Marx Brothers. Animal Crackers is a better effort, but not a good one. I know I've got the classics (Duck Soup and Horse Feathers) yet to come, but I'm approaching these comedies with a healthy dose of trepidation.

** out of *****

Photo from Flickering Myth