Anna Christie (1930)

Directed by Clarence Brown

Starring Greta Garbo, Charles Bickford and George F. Marion

Produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Meyer (MGM)

Chris, an old barge captain brings his female… companion Marthy down to the local bar. We know immediately he’s a regular and does not need much excuse to drink, but tonight he’s in a celebratory mood. His estranged daughter Anna is coming from Minnesota to visit him.

The sailor steps out for a few minutes and in walks Anna to share a drink with Marthy. Chris eventually returns and we learn that Anna spent the last 15 years in a forced servitude with extended family, escaped to St. Paul as a nursing aide, fell ill and was recently released from the hospital. Her dad offers to let Anna stay on his boat and she reluctantly accepts.

Chris dreams of getting a place for his daughter inland and living out his years away from “that old devil sea.” Anna however seems to have rediscovered herself on the water. She loves living on the boat.

One foggy night, the barge encounters three men floating on a listless piece of debris in the open ocean. Anna and her father rescue the men and she begins to fall for Matt, one of the burly ship-wrecked sailors.

Anna ultimately finds herself in a tug of war between her father’s desire to make up for lost time and Matt’s gruff love for her. Will she choose either of the men? And what terrible secret from her past will be revealed before it’s all over?

Anna Christie holds a special place in film history. It’s Greta Garbo’s first speaking role in a movie. The German-born actress was a late-comer to talkies as she had to learn English first. The marketing for the film was a simple yet elegant two-word sentence: “Garbo speaks.”

Important is one thing. Good is something completely different. And this is not a good film.

The film centers around a coal barge, which seems an apt analogy for the entirety of the film. It’s slow and plodding. It literally feels like it’s being dragged along. It’s ugly and messy to watch and listen to. And no one says “barge” and thinks excitement. This is dull, dull, dull.

Garbo is pretty much terrible. Her every line reading seems muffled and garbled. There were moments where Anna’s demeanor reminded me not of a sultry temptress, but of a character Kristen Wiig might play on Saturday Night Live.

George Marion’s Chris manages to make Garbo look like Meryl Streep. His character is annoying. His every mannerism is frustratingly juvenile and his voice is the cinematic equivalent of nails on a chalkboard. I came close to shutting the film off just to escape him.

The only saving grace in the film is the performance of Marie Dressler as Marthy, Chris’ friend and prostitute. Marthy is constantly drunk and can turn from playful to belligerent on a dime. Her screentime is limited which probably adds to her charm. I imagine two hours of her would be as grating as Marion, but here it is just enough.

The film is staid and stagnant as shot by Clarence Brown. Even in storm and fog sequences, there’s no tension, no sense that anything is happening at all. It’s conventional in almost every aspect. The only time Brown seems to have fun at all with his camera is during Anna and Matt’s date at the carnival. Brown mounts a camera on a roller coaster and looks down the tower of a strongman game as Matt swings the hammer to ring the bell.

By the time Anna Christie sputters to its climax, Garbo is forced to reveal a secret to the two men in her life and I could have cared less. I didn’t like any of these people to begin with. They are all pretty vile in their own ways. Am I really supposed to find any pathos, treagedy or redemption in the closing moments?

Ultimately, we get what was advertised here. Garbo does indeed speak. I only wish she had something to say.

*1/2 out of *****

Photo from All Movie

Read More

Murder! (1930)

Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Starring Herbert Marshall, Norah Baring and Phyllis Konstam

At a boarding house for actors across from a theater, a body is found. The only suspect in the crime is Diana Baring, sitting in the same room with the body, claiming to have no memory of the deed.

The case quickly goes to trial and the jurors decide she’s either guilty or schizophrenic and a danger to others. In either case, she should be condemned.

However, one of the jurors has second thoughts. Sir John is a famous actor who begins to believe in the accused’s innocence and sets off to investigate with the help of a stage manager and his wife.

Sir John visits the scene of the crime and Diana's bedroom. He even visits her in prison. Will the trail lead to the killer? And what will the killer do once caught?

It should be no secret around here that 100 Years loves his Hitchcock. Many of the suspense master’s films are the reason I became interested in classic films in the first place.

So it’s with no small amount of disappointment that I report that Murder! is not a very good film.

At its core, we have a lot of the staples of a Hitchcock film. It’s a procedural with an unconventional character doing the detecting. It’s obsessed with identity and appearances. A lot of the fun technical Hitchcock touches are here as well. When his camera zooms or pans, it’s for a purpose. When he focuses in tight on the killer’s face at the end, it’s absolutely essential.

What the film lacks though is suspense and a compelling lead character.

In any whodunit like this, you want to build the tension and narrow the field of suspects. Well, Sir John never really investigates many suspects. He just meanders around town from scene to scene, assembling little clues. Nobody is overly concerned about his investigation or trying to stop him. It’s ponderous.

And Sir John himself turns out to be a bit of bore. His shtick is to use his theater training to suss out the mystery. So, for example, when the boarding house landlady swears the high pitched voice she heard had to be a woman, Sir John contrives to be in a separate room and talks in a female voice, fooling the landlady and demonstrating perhaps she was wrong.

It would be an interesting way of telling this tale if it were not so ham-handed. Sir John literally walks out of the room in full view of the landlady and a second later a voice that sounds like any guy impersonating a woman comes from the other room. It’s not proof that the voices arguing in the apartment; it’s proof that the landlady is a moron and that Sir John would be terrible in Tootsie.

The film is not suspenseful, but that’s not to say it doesn’t have moments of suspense. The climax of the film where the killer is wrestling with his guilt and the aftermath of that moment is nail-biting. We’re watching with bated breath to see not whether he’s the killer (we know he is), but what he’s going to do as the trap closes on him.

Still, after a promising opening, it’s a slog of cliché and exposition to get to the end. Murder! is necessary viewing for the Hitchcock completist, but that’s about as far as I’d go.

** out of *****

Read More

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 *****

Read More

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 *****

Read More

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

Read More

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.

Read More

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

Read More

Buster Keaton at the LAMB!

This month's featured actor at the LAMB is Buster Keaton.  Lots of great stuff over there for you to check out! 

I of course managed to miss this but you can find my Buster Keaton articles here.

Read More

City Girl (1930)

Directed by F.W. Murnau
Starring Charles Farrell, Mary Duncan and David Torrence
Produced by Fox Film Corporation

Lem Tustine works on his family's wheat farm. They are getting by, but just barely. His father sends Lem into Chicago to sell the wheat harvest. His dad has calculated to the penny what the wheat needs to sell for in order to avoid financial ruin.

The bad news for Lem is an oversupply of wheat leads the price to start dropping right after he arrives. If he sells immediately, the price is less than what his dad commanded him to get. But if he waits much longer, the price may be even lower. He chooses to sell.

The good news for Lem is he meets a cute waitress at a diner in the city. Kate hates her job and romanticizes what a life in the country would be like. She and Lem connect immediately and when he stands up for Kate against a rude customer? It's love.

The two marry and return to the farm in Minnesota. Lem's mom and sister love the new arrival, but his father is not pleased. At all. He sees a son who allowed a woman to distract him from his job and a woman only interested in the family's money.

Kate and her new father-in-law have an argument and he slaps her. Lem can't bring himself to confront his father and a devastated Kate withdraws from her hubby. He takes to sleeping in the loft with the farmhands.

One of the farmhands begins flirting with Kate, giving her a potential way out. Will Kate leave Lem and her life on the farm? Will Lem stand up to his father? And can the family and farmhands pull together to harvest the crop before a devastating hailstorm arrives?


City Girl is the tale of a boy and a girl in love and a romance that is threatened by family and duty. It's a tale as old as time, a melodrama that people have seen play out on stage and screen ad nauseum.

The difference here of course is that this tale is told by F.W. Murnau.

Murnau never does anything traditionally. He's not one to set up a stationary camera and call "action." So his camera swoops across a trading floor board to show its scope. When Lem is alone and overwhelmed by the city, the camera pulls away, seemingly swallowing him in the bustle of urban life.

The film quickly moves through Lem and Kate falling in love and it works for the most part. I buy the romance and, while the wedding feels like a rash decision, it's a telling one, building the character of the newlyweds.

The arrival of the married couple at the farm provides the most beautifully cinematic moment of the film. Kate is overwhelmed by the fields of wheat and begins running and skipping through the landscape with Lem racing behind her. The camera moves with them and you truly get a sense the characters have arrived at their own Shangri-La.

City Girl features some strong character work from a group of actors I was previously unfamiliar with. David Torrence (Ernest's brother!) is particularly good as Lem's father. He is clearly the heavy of the piece, but he never becomes cartoonishly evil. His performance keeps the character grounded which adds to the tension of the final act.

As good as many aspects of the film are, City Girl does feel a bit rudderless in its middle act. Farmhands are introduced and characters just wander through the farmhouse, bumping into and away from one another. Characters are angry with one another, but nothing happens. It's not until the film's climax when the stakes are really raised.

The farmhands are interesting characters, but their motivations seem to change according to the whims of the script. Some of their decisions feel contrived, not earned. At one point, their are given a sort of ultimatum by Lem's father and their response makes no sense.

Despite the slow middle stanza, there is a lot to like here. In comparison to Murnau's earlier work, the plot and themes are slight, but that doesn't prevent the director from creating a memorable film.

**** out of *****

Photos from Brandon's Movie Memory

Read More

1930: So, the Great Depression Was... Wait! Someone Invented Chocolate Chip Cookies?!

Time to kick off decade number three on the site. Obviously, the event that will dominate and inform film and beyond was the Great Depression. Movies become even more prominent as a cheap form of entertainment as people struggle to get by.

There's a lot of interesting pop culture news (Constantinople becomes Istanbul), but the invention of the chocolate chip cookie has to dominate, right? I mean, is there a better mainstream dessert? (That's a rhetorical question because the answer is "no.")

In the film world, the big news for me is the first appearance of Warner Brothers' Looney Tunes label. While the initial offering features a character named Bosko, it's nice to know Bugs and the Road Runner are coming soon.

In other film news, Little Caesar is released as the first real gangster film. Greta Garbo appears in her first talkie and unknown Marlene Dietrich stars in The Blue Angel. Film dubbing debuts for foreign markets, presaging an age of Kung fu films. And silent screen great Lon Chaney, Sr. died at the age of 47.

So what are we watching? Murnau had a release (City Girl) so... definitely. My dive into The Marx Brothers continues with Animal Crackers. The Blue Angel, Anna Christie and All Quiet on the Western Front will definitely find their way onto the list.

One last note: long time followers of the site may have noticed I am spending a lot more time in each film year. That of course is driven by regret that I rushed through some early years. So I do plan on going back and catching some older films I missed the first time. The focus will still be on the "current" year's films, but don't be shocked to see some older titles start showing up.

Read More

Final Thoughts on the 1920s

Two decades down.

Eight to go.

It's been a fun two-plus years covering twenty years of Hollywood history. I've learned a lot. So before I leave for the 1930s, let's drop some final thoughts....

Sound: The Best (and Worst) Thing to Happen to Film

It's hard to overstate the way The Jazz Singer altered the cinematic landscape. In just a couple of short years, everyone was hopping on the talkie bandwagon and movies changed forever.

Obviously, we know how the leap to sound turns out just by heading to any multiplex screen. And the change is undoubtedly a good thing. However, I cannot help but be a little sad.

Beyond the loss of a very specific type of film, sound created a couple of unfortunate side effects. First, film regressed. When you look at the films of the last half of the decade, cinema was pushing boundaries. Dramatic camera moves, quick cuts and almost dialogue free productions produced some of my favorite images. Sound forced the cameras to be still again and actors had to stay near the stationary microphones. The cameras had to be enclosed in booths so the mics would not pick up the sound of the film rolling. It was a step back until the technology could catch back up.

More than that, sound really created the foreign film and the baggage that goes with it. When you had to "read" every movie, it did not matter what language the actors were speaking; you just slap the right intertitles on the film. Cinema was a universal language. And some of the best films were foreign. With sound, now the language matters and a lot of filmgoers to this day stop going to see films they have to read.


Germans rule

In light of the above, it's fascinating that most of my favorite directors were foreign. Specifically, German.

F. W. Murnau and Fritz Lang captured my imagination like no other directors in the 1920s. Murnau moved from Gothic horror to an epic tale of a doorman to a romance that blossoms when a husband decides not to kill his wife. Lang gave us the goofy fun of an adventurous playboy, the shadowy world of an omnipotent criminal mastermind and a vision of a future city and its technology. I loved them all. I'm happy to see more of Lang's work, but knowing I'm nearing the end of Murnau's filmography is depressing.

Buster Makes Charlie Eat His Shoe

If you'd asked me coming into the 1920s whether Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin had the better decade, I would have had to go with The Tramp. But Chaplin underwhelmed in his few offerings while Keaton was both prolific and consistently great.

Where Did All the Teens Go?

The 1910s were dominated by D.W. Griffith, Mary Pickford, Lillian Gish, and Douglas Fairbanks amongst others. Where are they a decade later? Fairbanks had a decent decade, but the rest were at best mediocre. Pickford was almost embarrassing, continuing to play children long past her prime. And seeing how far Griffith fell from a decade in which he defined what film should be is downright depressing.

Disney Is Odd and Other Toon Observations

One of the things I was most excited for was to track the early career of Walt Disney. Having watched a fair bit of the Alice comedies, Oswald the Lucky Rabbit and (of course) Mickey Mouse, I have come to one conclusion:

Walt Disney was a weird dude.

I won't go into all the details here, but his toons tended to feature some inventive animal torture and at their worst, racist.

The easy retort is that Disney reflected the style of the time, but you do not see the same type of characterizations in Felix the Cat for example. Disney was seemingly on his own here, or at the very least, in limited company.

Read More

Top Ten Films of the 1920s

Well, we've reached the end if another decade. A little over two years and I'm 20 percent through my hundred years.

Below is a list of the top ten essential films from the decade. If you went through these, you'd be getting a pretty darn good highlight reel of what was happening in the twenties.  These are of course based on the films I saw; there may be others out there waiting for me to discover.

Without further ado:



10. Tol'able David

A beautifully rendered melodrama, Tol'able David tells a story of the death of childhood innocence. It revels in the quiet moments that make you appreciate the idyllic existence of David and his family. Richard Barthelmess is fantastic in the title role and character actor Ernest Torrance provides a memorable villain.

9. The Iron Horse

John Ford. Western. Enough said, right? The strange thing about The Iron Horse's plot is that it's the least interesting aspect of the film. Where the film shines is in Ford's detailed observations about how life on the railroad progressed. He creates an American mythology I find fascinating.

8. The Seven Chances

I tried to avoid including more than one movie by the same director in my top ten, but Buster Keaton is the exception to that rule. The Seven Chances may be the funniest film I saw in the 1920s. Keaton needs to get married or forfeit an inheritance and the crazy turns this story takes never fail to make me laugh.

7. The Unknown

It's not surprising to me that a Lon Chaney film ended up on my top 10. I would have never guessed The Unknown would be the pick. This tale of a fugitive on the run posing as an armless circus performer features Chaney in one of the best performances I have ever seen.

6. Flesh and the Devil

Flesh and the Devil is a film that was not on my radar at all before I caught it as part of this marathon. Now, that I've seen the film, I cannot get its imagery out of my head. The inventive lighting in the opening scenes. The picturesque island surrounded by ice. Most of all, it stands as a melodramatic examination of the love amongst three people.

5. Greed

Erich Von Stroheim's adaptation of the novel McTeague is filled with repulsive and grotesque characters, each with their lust for more. Every character and beat is exaggerated. The downward spiral that these characters ride and Stroheim's visual flair create a beautiful paradox of a film, an epic that remains intimate.

4. The Kid

For the most part, Charlie Chaplin disappointed me this decade. The Kid is an absolute exception to that. The Tramp's touching yet funny tale of a vagabond and his adopted son never plays a false note. And watching "the kid" momentarily ripped from the only parent he has ever known is one of the most heartbreaking scenes ever committed to celluloid.

3. Metropolis

If not the best film of the 1920s, Metropolis may be my favorite. Fritz Lang's epic tale of a future world is on its surface a triumph of artistic design. But below the film's slick veneer, a tragic revenge story plays out and tough (yet prescient) political questions are asked.

2. The General

I have officially come full circle on this. After struggling with my own preconceptions that this was a comedy (it's much more), two additional viewing have completely won me over. Keaton (again) both directs and stars in the Civil War-era tale of a man, a girl and a locomotive. It's endlessly inventive with epic action scenes and yes, a fair bit of humor.

1. The Last Laugh

F.W. Murnau's story of a hotel doorman whose role (and world) are stripped from him is about as perfect as film gets. The blending of Murnau's expressionist imagery and Emil Jannings' performance produce some of the purest and most compelling visual storytelling ever.

Honorable mentions include Dr. Mabuse: The Gambler, The Jazz Singer, The Last Command, Sherlock, Jr., Steamboat Bill, Jr., Nosferatu, Steamboat Willie, Safety Last and Beyond the Rocks.

Read More

Decade Wrap Up: Top Actors and Actresses of the 1920s

Our wrap up of the 1920s continues with a look at the decade's best performers. A couple of basic rules: the performers listed had to be in multiple films I watched and obviously they had to be good (at least in my opinion).

I had originally planned separate actor and actress lists, but in going back through the movies I saw, the female list was a bit sparse. I don't know if this was a function of the films I selected or a lack of solid female roles. I'm curious what others think and would love to hear the case for some people I missed.

On to the list!


10. Brigette Helm
She's good in The Love of Jeanne Ney, but Helm shines in dual roles in Metropolis. Her Maria is a virginal beauty looking to change the world for the better, while her faux-Maria works to tear it down. It's a tricky juggling act, but the actress is perfect in her first big screen role.


9. Charlie Chaplin
Some may think this is too low a placement for The Tramp, but I found his work to be uneven in the 1920s. He has the perfect blend of comedy and tragedy in The Kid, but I did not like The Gold Rush at all and thought Chaplin was at best okay. He was good in the 20s, but others were better.

8. John Barrymore
I watched three of Barrymore's films from this decade. In Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, the actor is absolutely perfect in both roles. As the title character in Beau Brummel, Barrymore is the only thing good in a tale where a revenge scheme pivots on the hero's fashion sense. And in The Beloved Rogue, Barrymore is so over-the-top bad he is great as the swashbuckling hero in a silly action film. Barrymore is always great, even if the material around him is trash.

7. Ernest Torrance
Torrance is a bad, bad man. Or at least, he plays one on the screen. In Tol'able David, he plays the meanest, nastiest member of a trio of fugitive that takes refuge in the title character's pristine hamlet. And you just know its not going to end well. More amazing though, Torrance takes that same gruff film persona and uses it to perfect comic effect as Buster Keaton's dad in Steamboat Bill, Jr. Cinema needs its character actors and Torrance was among the best.

6. Clara Bow
Adorable. Mischievous. Clever. Bow brings all of this and more to her roles. You root for her in It and Wings. The former movie is a showcase for her. The latter underutilizes her, but she's such a presence that you feel her even when she's off screen. I need to see more of her work.

5. Fritz Rasp
As I was putting this list together, I kept coming back to Rasp. So far, he's not an actor with a ton of range (he plays slimy characters, but occasionally dials it up to creepy), but I cannot imagine anyone else filling his shoes. From Metropolis to The Love of Jeanne Ney to the not-very-good Woman in the Moon, Rasp sets a mood that makes you believe something sinister is happening behind the scenes.

4. Lon Chaney
I'm not shocked Chaney finds his way onto this list. I am surprised that it's not The Phantom of the Opera that's on my mind as I write about him. As good as he is there (and he is great), he is perfect in The Unknown, playing an "armless" carnival performer.

3. Gloria Swanson
Swanson may be one of the first real movie stars. She rarely played women who were second fiddle to their men and was often the outright star of her films. She influenced which movies got made and even the fashions of the day. Beyond all of that, she was a terrific actress. She elevated every production she was in during the 1920s.

2. Buster Keaton
It may be fair to knock Keaton as being too high on this list. After all, he plays the same character from film to film, right? Wrong. While it is true his movies always place him in the middle of elaborate stunt sequences, there's always a twist to his character. From his regret at losing the girl in the first act of The General to his determined joy in marrying his love in The Seven Chances, there is always something more going on behind that stone face. And besides, how many actors allow a house to fall on them in pursuit of their art?

1. Emil Jannings
A lot of my choices were hard; this one was simple. Every time Jannings is on the screen, he just commands it. In Faust, he overpowers the movie's hero in a much showier role. In The Last Laugh and The Last Command, he lifts the films onto his broad shoulders and carries them to greatness. His Oscar win for The Last Command is well-deserved.

Read More

Decade Wrap Up: Top 5 Directors of the 1920s

We've reached the end of our second decade of film watching.  Time for the obligatory look back at the last ten years... what we liked, what we didn't and what we've learned.  It will come as a shock to no one reading this blog that I love my directors more than actors or writers so I cannot think of a better place to start than with the men who set the vision for my favorite films of the twenties.

My top five directors are...



5. Carl Theodor Dreyer
The Passion of Joan of Arc.That's all that really needs to be said, right?  I mean has there ever been a marriage of bold direction and fearless lead performance like that film.  Dreyer also made Michael, which I did not care for (but direction was not its primary issue).  Still, The Passion of Joan of Arc gets this director a lifetime pass to the amazing direction club.

4. Fred Niblo
You need at least one crowd pleaser on a list like this and who better than the director who turned Douglas Fairbanks into an action star and who worked with Rudolph Valentino in Blood and Sand (well directed from a terrible script). Add in the fantastic early version of Ben Hur and you have a man who knows how to mix his action with his melodrama.

3. Fritz Lang
Lang may be my favorite director of the 1920s, which is not quite the same as being the best. He has the heart of a genre geek married to a modern filmmaking style. While Woman in the Moon may have been a slight misstep (in that is was merely okay), Metropolis, Dr. Mabuse and Spiders Part 2 all captured my imagination.

2. Buster Keaton
I came into 100 Years of Movies ready, willing and able to fall in love with the 1920s' most well-known comedy star. My mistake was thinking that star would be Charlie Chaplin. Keaton is a great actor, but as a director he is absolutely fearless. The logistics of shooting The General would be enough to break most directors. Keaton one-upped himself with the finale to Steamboat Bill Jr.

1. F. W. Murnau
Nosferatu. The Last Laugh. Faust. Sunrise.  If there's a director who had a better decade, I have not seen him yet. Even when he wasn't great (Faust), he was always visually fascinating. And no one jumped from genre to genre the way he did. Equally at ease in gothic horror and small drama, Murnau is easily my pick as best director of the 1920s. The tragedy is knowing his premature death in the early thirties means I am nearing the end of his oeuvre.

Read More

The Love Parade (1929)

Directed by Ernst Lubitsch
Starring Maurice Chevalier, Jeanette MacDonald and Lupino Lane
Produced by Paramount Pictures

Alfred Renard is the military attache for the small nation of Sylvania stationed in Paris. It's a great gig as he gets to wine and dine and bed French women to his heart's content. Life is great until he sleeps with the wife of the ambassador. For his transgressions, Alfred is sent to his home country to face the queen's justice.

Queen Louise has problems of her own. Her advisors, foreign dignitaries and her own countrymen are pressuring the monarch to marry. Her country needs a foreign loan and a husband may be enough to show the foreign markets that Sylvania's leadership is stable.

When Alfred is brought before her, Louise reads the report of his romantic exploits and is intrigued. She invites him to dinner and a household of spying servants moves into full gossip mode when their monarch leads the young suitor into her bedroom.

Soon, there is a wedding, but Alfred is not the "king." He's the prince consort. His only duty seems to be to save his strength for when the queen is ready for him (if you know what I mean).

Alfred begins yearning for his life back in Paris. Can the queen begin to trust her husband with affairs of state? Or will he escape the royal bedroom and jeopardize Sylvania's finances?


The Love Parade is billed as the first movie musical ever. Previous musicals like The Jazz Singer would include songs, but they were not critical to the plot. Here, Alfred and Louise are singing about their feelings and about their frustrations. It's character exposed by song.

The Love Parade is also supremely silly, moving its characters through a plot that makes no sense. If the foreign ambassador thinks Louise isn't happily married, he'll renege on the loan? A count who embarrassed queen and country is punished with a dinner date? Nonsensical.

Oddly though, it all sort of works in this light romantic romp. Helping things considerably are the two leads whose chemistry and mischievousness leap off the screen. Maurice Chevalier is particularly good as Alfred, milking the humor from every scene with a knowing smirk and a wink to the audience.

The songs are effective, but not terribly memorable. Alfred and Louise's duet "My Love Parade," describing how the queen has all the best parts of the consort's previous conquests, has the best chance of getting stuck in your head. The funniest song hands down is "Nobody's Using It Now," a lament from Alfred that he is not appreciated by his wife. It is slyly bawdy and Chevalier knows just handle the material.

The Love Parade's opening moments left me frustrated, but the charm of the leads won me over. The film was a pleasant surprise that fans of movie musicals should give a shot.

**** out of *****

Read More

Captain Fracasse (1929)

Directed by Alberto Cavalcanti and Henry Wulschleger
Starring Pierre Blanchar, Lien Deyers and Charles Boyer

There are a lot of things that make a movie great. Great characters. Towering performances. A premise that captivates you and themes that leave you itching to talk about it with friends.

Captain Fracasse has none of these things.

A movie can still be good despite the lack of these elements. One great performance by an actor or a couple of great set pieces can keep you coming back for more.

Sadly, Captain Fracasse lacks these elements as well.

A film can be mediocre. If a director can get across a basic story in a comprehensible way and keep the actors in focus and in frame....

I think you know where I'm going.


Captain Fracasse is an astoundingly awful silent. This plot (a poor nobleman joins a troop of traveling actors, falls in love and must fight to save his girl) has potential as a comedy or an action film or even a mystery.

The film makes feeble grabs at each of these. But you cannot be a comedy with characters this dour and humorless. And you can't be an actioner when you only stage a couple of sword fights, and those consist entirely of the same three moves repeated over and over again. And you are certainly not a mystery if at the first opportunity, your disguised hero walks up to the villain and proclaims he can't wait to reveal himself later.

All of the above would be enough to make this an okay, but boring affair. However, when you couple it with inept direction and dialogue, the film moves to new kinds of terrible. It is as though the makers of Captain Fracasse have never actually seen a film before.

Shots are out of focus and subjects are out of frame. Not in artistic ways that may demonstrate uncertainty or man's divided nature. It's sheer ineptitude. And it's frustrating.

The final nail in the coffin of this dead-on-arrival effort is its dialogue. Silents are at their best when the intertitles are sparse and the action conveys most of what we need to know.

Here, the intertitles fill the screen with flowery language that adds little to the story. At one point, in the middle of a sword fight (!?), one of the combatants starts talking. And it goes on for three screens.

Captain Fracasse is a film that wears its ineptitude and plodding plot like boxing gloves and pummels its audience for the full 15 rounds. In the end, one of the bad guys is killed quickly as an act of mercy. If only the film offered its audience the same.

* out of *****

Photo from Dreamland Cafe

Read More

Pandora's Box (1929)

Directed by Georg Wilhelm Pabst
Starring Louise Brooks, Fritz Kortner and Francis Lederer
Produced by Nero-Film AG

Lulu is an aspiring performer, but currently makes due as the mistress of a newspaper editor. The editor, Dr. Schön, catches Lulu with another man and tells her he is marrying another woman. As a consolation prize, Schön will get Lulu booked into a variety show run by his son Alwa.

Opening night comes and Schön brings his fiancée Charlotte to the performance. Lulu can't stand to see him with another woman and refuses to go in stage. When the editor goes backstage to convince her to perform, Lulu seduces him and Charlotte catches Schön in Lulu's embrace. Schön resigns himself to marrying Lulu.

On the night of their wedding reception, Schön finds Lulu talking with a couple of friends from her old life. Enraged, the husband grabs a gun and chases all of the guests out. He hands the gun to Lulu and demands that she kill herself. She refuses, they struggle, the gun goes off and Lulu is left standing.

At the murder trial, Lulu is found guilty, but Alwa helps her escape. On the run, they take refuge in a ship turned gambling den and eventually head to London. Wherever they go, unsavory characters meet them at every turn, blackmailing them over Lulu's past.

Can the couple escape from their increasingly dire circumstances? And what do a lesbian countess and Jack the Ripper have to do with this story?


Pandora's Box features some virtuoso camera work courtesy of acclaimed director G.W. Pabst. It is anchored by a lead performance by Louise Brooks that is brilliant in its subtlety. Unfortunately, it also follows a script and structure that wring most of the emotion and life from the film.

That Pabst knows his way around a camera comes as no surprise. His previous work in The Love of Jeanne Ney showed he could establish character and mood as well as Alfred Hitchcock. In Pandora's Box, the director constantly plays with light and shadow and the film literally becomes darker as it moves toward its climax.

This is my introduction to Louise Brooks, but she is instantly captivating. Her every smile and movement feels so fluid and realistic, her performance would be right at home in a modern film. There is a restraint to her acting that makes her leap off the screen in a way that all of the wild gestures of her contemporaries cannot seem to capture. From the moment we see her, she's a star.

Sadly, the script utterly fails her. The film centers on eight "acts," which are really eight individual moments in Lulu's life. Because we are leaping through her timeline in fits and starts, we never get a moment to ground ourselves in her reality. Why is she marrying Schön? Does Alwa really love her and vice versa? I'm never clear why anyone is doing what they are doing except that it is what the screenplay demanded.

The other impact of the staccato script is that we don't get to see how other characters are evolving. For example, there is a countess friend who helps Lulu at a critical moment. It is implied she has a romantic interest in Lulu. Do we get to see why or what comes of it? Of course not. The film is principally interested in moving from story beat to story beat.

(*SPOILER*) If films are really about their end, this is one that really needs to be talked about. Lulu encounters a man in an alley and goes off with him. The man turns out to be someone very much like Jack the Ripper. He at first resists his urges, but ultimately grabs a knife and kills Lulu as Alwa seemingly walk off to join the Salvation Army.

Now, what are we to take from that? Was her fate deserved by any of her earlier actions? Or is the nature of life a series of random interactions that any moment may bring literal salvation or doom? If I cared a wit about these characters, I'd give these heady questions further consideration. But I don't, so I won't.

Pandora's Box boasts some of the industry's most accomplished artists, but rather than place them on a track and let them go, they are stuck with a treadmill of a script. Lots of energy expended, but it never seems to go anywhere. Its worth watching for Pabst and Brooks, but only for about 15 minutes. You won't get anymore from it by hanging around longer.

** out of *****

Read More

Bowl of Serials: Tarzan the Tiger, Finale!

Bowl of Serials delves into the world of movie serials in cinematic history, one episode at a time.  First up, Tarzan the Tiger, a 15 episode serial that ran in theaters weekly between 1929 and 1930.  The episodes starred Frank Merrill (Tarzan), Natalie Kingston (Jane), Al Ferguson (Werper), and Kithnou (La) and were directed by Henry MacRae.

In the last chapter, Tarzan (with Jane at his side) was confronting his cousin Annersley, who was plotting to take the Greystoke title and estate for himself. As they argued, the evil Werper was sneaking up behind our heroes with a knife...

Tarzan catches Werper before he can strike, but Annersley's gun forces the apeman to submit. The villains tie Tarzan to a tree, leaving him at the mercy of the jungle animals. The bad guys force Jane to lead them to the temple of Opar and its treasure.

Tarzan begins calling for Tantor the elephant. The beast rushes to Tarzan's aid, using his trunk to untie the captive. Tarzan vaults onto Tantor's back and they set off after the bad guys.

Meanwhile, Annersley has taken Jane and given Werper the slip. The would-be Lord Greystoke wants the treasure for himself. Werper finds himself lost in the jungle.

A tiger pursues Annersley and Jane. She climbs a tree to avoid the predator. Annersley is not so lucky. He empties his gun at the tiger, but it tears him apart.

Tarzan finds the bag of jewels on Annersley's body. The treasure will allow them to keep the estate.

Back in their jungle home, Tarzan writes to his estate in England and corrects Annersley's letter claiming the Greystokes were dead and had found no treasure. Jane points out that Tarzan 's knife is now secured to the wall. No more Omen of the Falling Knife! They embrace, reaffirming their love.

The End.


.... And we end with a mixed bag. Annersley is mauled by a tiger in spectacular fashion. Tantor appears once more to make a save. We get a call back to the falling knife that kicked the adventure off. All awesome. All what I want to see in the finale.

So what's wrong?

Werper.

We spend over four hours learning to hate the guy and what is his endpoint?

I have no idea.

He ends up being sidelined by Annersley as the main villain. We get a shot where we are told he is lost in the jungle, followed by a shot of a lion running towards the camera. That's it. Was he killed? Is he lost in the jungle? His final moments on screen are so incoherent, I have no idea what happened to him.

If there was one thing the serial needed to do in its finale, it was resolve Tarzan's conflict with Werper. And we don't get it. Annersley is too much of a tacked on subplot to care about. La and Werper were the baddies we cared about. We get La's resolution in the previous episode. We are apparently never getting Werper's.

It's a shame because I really enjoyed my first complete viewing of a serial. It's a crappy note to leave on.

Read More

Simple Question, Difficult Answer: Best Film of the 1920s

Okay, here it is.  The big enchilada.  Best film of the decade.  It's a choice I'm struggling with myself, so I'm dying to see what you all come up with.

Poll closes Saturday, September 15.  You can vote in the sidebar.

Here's the film list:

• Battleship Potemkin
• Destiny
• Dr. Mabuse: The Gambler
• Flesh and the Devil
• The General
• The Gold Rush
• Greed
• The Iron Horse
• The Jazz Singer
• The Kid
• The Last Laugh
• Metropolis
• Nosferatu
• The Phantom of the Opera
• Safety Last
• The Seven Chances
• Sherlock, Jr.
• Sunrise
• Tol'able David
• The Unknown
• Other- Write your answer in the comments!

Read More

Simple Question, Difficult Answer: Best Actresses of the 1920s

Okay, I'll just say it: I found most of the female performances I saw in the 1920s underwhelming, especially compared to the women's dominance of the previous decade.  So, I'm breaking my previous rule (that I had to see them in more than one film) in order to pull together this list.

Of course, at least one of those single film performances may just be my favorite one of the 1920s... but, I've already said too much.  This is your poll to vote on, not mine.

Vote in the sidebar. Poll closes Monday, September 10.

• Vilma Banky (The Eagle)
• Clara Bow (It, Wings)
• Joan Crawford (The Unknown)
• Janet Gaynor (Sunrise)
• Dorothy Gish (Orphans of the Storm)
• Lillian Gish (Way Down East, The Wind)
• Brigitte Helm (Metropolis, The Love of Jeanne Ney)
• Mary Philbin (The Phantom of the Opera, The Man Who Laughs)
• Mary Pickford (Tess of Storm Country, Little Annie Rooney)
• Gloria Swanson (Beyond the Rocks, Sadie Thompson)
• Other

Read More

Off-Topic: The Best Movie Series of All Time

With the recent spate of sequels, prequels, reboots and remakes, I was curious what people consider the best film series of all time.  Searching the web provided some individual lists and a compilation based on IMDB scores, but I could not get any sense of the completeness of these lists.  Did they look at every film series?  How did they rank them?

As an alternative, I compiled a list of every movies series I could find and ranked them according to their Rotten Tomatoes rating.  Every film in each series is weighted equally, so it doesn't matter how great Jaws scores (100 rating) if Jaws: The Revenge is wretched (0 rating).

One big caveat: Because I used Rotten Tomatoes, this is probably more appropriately titled "The Most Consistently Good Film Series of All Time."  Rotten Tomatoes' scoring simply reflects is it worth seeing, not how great it is.  So, Mad Max and Evil Dead edge The Godfather because of The Godfather III's low score.

Without further ado, the top ten film series based on Rotten Tomatoes scores:

	Film Series	Rotten Tomatoes Average
1	Toy Story	99.67
2	Man w/ No Name	96.33
3	Lord of the Rings	94.00
4	Mad Max	92.00
5	Evil Dead	89.33
6	Godfather	88.67
7	Iron Man	86.67
8	Indiana Jones	86.25
9	Harry Potter	84.88
10	The Thin Man	83.50

The bottom five?

78	Resident Evil	25.25
79	Police Academy	21.40
80	Highlander	20.75
81	Leprechaun	17.00
82	Beethoven	14.50

For the full list, click here.

Some brief notes:

• To be included on the list, a series had to have at least three entries. Also, no loosely connected films (like Baz Luhrmann's Red Curtain trilogy or Krzysztof Kieślowski's Three Colors trilogy) are on here.
• Horror (not surprisingly) receives little love from critics.  Evil Dead, Paranormal Activity and Scream are the only three in the top half of the list.  There are 12 in the bottom half.
• Comedies are terrible as well in the long run.  Unless you count Back to the Future or The Muppets, The Naked Gun series was the highest entry at 31.
• Rocky (one of my personal faves) just makes the top half of the list at 41.  Not surprised that Rocky V was hated.  Shocked that Rocky III and IV (Drago!) were.
• Batman is all the way down at  number 30 (thanks Joel Schumacher!) 
• There are two instances where one film counts for two series.  Iron Man and Hulk both include The Avengers (which really helps their score). Friday the 13th's and Nightmare on Elm Street's tallies include Freddy vs. Jason (helping Jason, but not Freddy)
• Nine movies had zero ratings.  Leprechaun, Beethoven and Police Academy account for 2/3 of those zeroes.
• Nine movies also had perfect 100s.  Toy Story is the only series with two films at that score.
• Jaws is the only film series to boast a 100 and a zero rating.  
• I stayed away from characters who have become omnipresent (Zorro, Sherlock Holmes, Dracula, Frankestein, etc.).  It's harder to figure out what the series there would be.

If you look at the full list and see a series you think I missed, let me know in the comments.

Photo credit: CHUD

Read More

Bowl of Serials: Tarzan the Tiger Episode 14

Bowl of Serials delves into the world of movie serials in cinematic history, one episode at a time.  First up, Tarzan the Tiger, a 15 episode serial that ran in theaters weekly between 1929 and 1930.  The episodes starred Frank Merrill (Tarzan), Natalie Kingston (Jane), Al Ferguson (Werper), and Kithnou (La) and were directed by Henry MacRae.

 As we begin the penultimate chapter, The high priestess La and her Sun Worshippers were preparing to sacrifice Jane when Tarzan rushed in to save her. He was quickly surrounded by spear-wielding followers of La. Meanwhile, Tarzan's former friend turned baddie Werper was escaping the temple to meet up with Annersley, Tarzan's cousin who wants to take the Greystoke title and estate for himself.

Tarzan easily fights his way through the Sun Worshippers to Jane. To avoid further violence, Jane offers to show La where the temple's hidden treasure room is.

Jane makes good on her promise and takes the Sun Worshippers to the secret vault. With their riches secure, the denizens of the temple release Tarzan and Jane and plan to seal the vault forever. La asks Tarzan to return to him someday and he says he may come back.

As the Greystokes return to their home, Jane explains the treachery of Werper to Tarzan, who is still suffering from partial memory loss. Enraged, Tarzan takes to the trees and lets out a mighty cry.

Werper hears Tarzan's yell and hightails it to the Greystoke estate where Annersley is waiting. At first, Werper lies about finding the jewels, but the heir to Greystoke learns the truth and they begin to fight. Annersley gains the upper hand and Werper promises to show him to the treasure when they hear Tarzan's yell. Werper hides while Annersley awaits his cousin's arrival.

Tarzan and Jane enter and are thrilled to see their cousin. Annersley is less cordial, telling them he is the Lord of Greystoke now as Werper sneaks up behind them...

A lot gets done in this episode. Tarzan's issues with La are wrapped up (at least until a future story). True apeman, after suffering from one form of amnesia or another for the previous 11 chapters, is now back up to speed. And we have nicely set up the final confrontation with Werper.

I'm still not understanding the insertion of Annersley into the story. He's arriving so late in the tale, it's hard to take him seriously as a threat and I'm not at all invested in what happens to him.

Some of the chapters have been a slog to get through, but the momentum seems to have picked up these last few episodes. Only one more left!

Read More

Bowl of Serials: Tarzan the Tiger Episode 13

Bowl of Serials delves into the world of movie serials in cinematic history, one episode at a time.  First up, Tarzan the Tiger, a 15 episode serial that ran in theaters weekly between 1929 and 1930.  The episodes starred Frank Merrill (Tarzan), Natalie Kingston (Jane), Al Ferguson (Werper), and Kithnou (La) and were directed by Henry MacRae.

In our last installment, Tarzan (still suffering from amnesia) and Jane have discovered the treasure room in the Temple of Opar, but their duplicitous former friend Werper sneaks in and tries to kill Tarzan. The men battle and fall off of a ledge. Meanwhile, the high priestess La and her men are converging on Jane...

She exits the treasure room but is quickly captured by La. The high priestess thinks that sacrificing Jane will cause Tarzan to fall in love with La, fulfilling a prophecy.

Werper has survived the fall and staggers to his feet. He stands over the unconscious Tarzan, preparing to deliver the killing blow, when he notices the bag of jewels. Distracted, he grabs the booty and heads back to the treasure room.

Tarzan awakes and has regained his memories, except he cannot remember what happened since his memory loss. He enters the treasure room and comes upon Werper struggling to open the treasure chest. Because his mind has been wiped of Werper's treachery, Tarzan offers to help his "friend."

Werper and Tarzan start to leave the temple. Werper tries to steer the apeman away from the chamber where La is about to sacrifice Jane. With spears preparing to impale her, Jane lets out a scream. Tarzan recognizes his wife's voice and rushes to her aid, but he is surrounded by La's men.

As we head toward the conclusion of the story, the pace is picking up and that is all for the better. I finally got Tarzan's amnesia issue resolved (sort of). I'm even okay with the fact that he lost his memory of recent events. It creates an interesting new dynamic between our hero and Werper and I am curious where they go with it.

La's logic remains tortured in her plans to win Tarzan. While killing Jane certainly makes the apeman a bachelor, Tarzan may harbor some resentment because YOU JUST KILLED HIS WIFE!

This was a solid episode. I'd have loved to see some reliance on Tarzan's jungle friends, but I've got to think that's coming in the final two installments.

Read More

The Cocoanuts (1929)

Directed by Robert Florey and Joseph Santley
Starring The Marx Brothers
Produced by Paramount Pictures

At a struggling resort hotel in Florida, a con man and his girl plot to steal some jewels from Mrs. Potter, a wealthy matron staying at the establishment.

Mrs Potter's daughter Polly is in love with Bob, but Mrs. Potter wants her to marry the con man, believing him to be a socialite.

When the jewels go missing, Bob is blamed. How can he prove his innocence and get the girl? And what are the Marx Brothers doing here? And what about these dancers that keep showing up?



The Cocoanuts is the first ever Marx Brothers film, so it has an automatic place in film history. The film is an adaptation of the brothers' stage show...

It's also a mess, a mess that almost works.

As an exercise in meta filmmaking, The Cocoanuts is remarkable. Here, you have a film that is ostensibly about this love triangle and heist, with the Marx Bros. as background characters. However, over the course of the film, the comedians start taking over. Their scenes become longer and, by the end, we forget the "main" characters even existed.

Watching the Marx Brothers invade this more traditional film is a joy. There are problems however. In addition to the comedians, we have a group of dancers constantly elbowing their way into the movie. The film at points literally screeches to a halt to accommodate a musical number.

I do not have any issue with musicals. The dancing here is actually pretty well done (especially compared to something like The Broadway Melody). However, The Cocoanuts makes no effort to connect the dancing to anything happening in the story. None of the dancers are characters and you could cut them entirely with no impact on the plot.

My other big problem here is frankly the Marx Brothers. I just didn't find them to be very funny. I can sit there and objectively assess that turning "stucco" into "stuck-oh" or "viaduct" into why a duck" is clever. I get that Harpo eating a telephone is absurd. It just doesn't tickle my funny bone at all.

So while I love the conceit of a movie that is so utterly hijacked by the Marx Brothers that it only begrudgingly resolves its plot, the fact that the comedians' humor doesn't work for me here means I'm not left with much. Add in the unnecessary musical numbers and I can only say I was disappointed.

** out of *****

NOTE: Apparently, I am not the only one who had an issue with the film. The Marx Brothers reportedly were horrified when they saw the final cut and tried to convince the producers to sell them the film so they could bury it. Their offer was refused and The Cocoanuts went on to be a big hit.

Photo from A Mythical Monkey writes about the Movies

Read More

The Love Trap (1929)

Directed by William Wyler
Starring Laura La Plante and Neil Hamilton
Produced by Universal Pictures

It's rehearsal time for a chorus line. The girls stretch and then move into a rhythmic Rockettes-like kick line.  The director's eyes fix on Evelyn Todd.  He stops the dance and asks her to demonstrate the steps.  She is thrilled with the attention until the director warns the other dancers that if they dance like Evelyn, they'll be fired too.

Rejected and despondent, Evelyn agrees to go to a party with her friend Bunny. Evelyn gets a little tipsy and proves to be a little too unreserved for the likes of Judge Harrington.  Bunny trades dates with her friend, and Evelyn ends up with the party's host Guy Emory.

After "accidentally" spilling a drink on his new date, Emory takes Evelyn up to his room to change. There, he "accidentally" drops her dress out the window.  Evelyn seems to give into Guy's advances, but then punches him in the nose and hightails it out of there.

She races home in a stolen jacket to find she has been evicted from her apartment and all of her belongings thrown in a heap on the sidewalk.  Dejected, she sits on one of the chairs as a rainstorm hits. A passing auto throws mud all over her. 

However, things are not as bad as they seem.  The car slows to a halt and a man jumps out the back.  He cleans her off and offers to drive her somewhere to spend the night.  When Evelyn is hesitant to leave her possessions, he hails three additional cabs and loads her stuff into them.

After sleeping in the cab and waking to find they cannot afford the fare, the couple are unceremoniously dumped in the countryside.  The incident causes the two to fall in love and they marry.

However, Evelyn's new husband Peter is the nephew of Judge Harrington and the well-to-do patriarch is none too pleased about welcoming a chorus girl into the family.  Will Peter and Evelyn's love stay strong?  And can the woman outwit the domineering Judge?


Sometimes you go into a film wanting to be challenged.  Wanting to see the world in a new way. Wanting to learn something you never knew before.

And sometimes you want something breezy and fun like The Love Trap.

The film has all of the heft of a helium balloon, but it's so much fun you don't mind staying with these characters for an hour or so.

Much of the credit here goes to Laura La Plante's Evelyn and Neil Hamilton's Peter.  They only have a few moments to make you believe that they fall in love, but their meet-cute works.  Peter's clearly gallant and head-over-heels, but Evelyn maintains a healthy skepticism right up until her white knight battles the cab drivers for her.  You see why she falls for him and falls hard.

The third act is a nice reversal of Evelyn's early predicament with Emory.  Judge Harrington is just the right amount of befuddled to sell the comedy.  And the way Peter resolves it all is smart and in keeping with every one's character.

One interesting element of the film is the shift two-thirds of the way through from silent to talkie.  It's a subtle shift (there were not a lot of title cards throughout the silent portion), and one I didn't think much about until after it was over. 

Although the switch is not overly shocking, it does affect La Plante's performance.  During the silent portions, you can clearly tell what she is saying by reading her lips.  Once the sound is turned on for the third act, she continues to over-enunciate every word as she did through the earlier, silent scenes.

I generally like compressing scripts into their most basic elements, but here they went perhaps a too minimal.  It would have been nice to see a bit more of Evelyn and Peter's courtship and wedding.  It's honestly not necessary for the story, but I enjoyed them as a couple so much it would have been nice to spend a little more time with them.

The Love Trap is a fun, funny romantic comedy that could have stood to have a bit longer second act.  It won't change the world and isn't essential viewing, but if you're looking for a light, cotton candy confection of a film, it's a great choice.

**** out of *****

NOTE: I said this in my earlier review of America, but it bears repeating: Neil Hamilton would go on to play Commissioner Gordon in the 1960s Batman television series.

Read More

You Did It! Metropolis = MOTM!

Well, it's official.

Metropolis is the next Movie of the Month over at the Large Association of Movie Blogs!

They'll be more to come on this, but for now let me just say:

Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou
thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou
thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou
thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou
thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou
thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou

I am really excited and a bit humbled by the response this got.

More to come...

P.S. Did I say thank you?

Read More