Bates Motel is a little like Hotel California

Psycho (1960)
Starring: Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, John Gavin and Vera Miles
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Rating: Ten of Ten Stars

Marion Crane (Leigh) steals $40,000 from her employer and heads off to start a new life with her lover, Sam Loomis (Gavin). Before she can meet up with him, however, she vanishes without a trace. Sam and her worried sister, Lila (Miles) track her to the isolated Bates Motel, where a soft-spoken young man named Norman (Perkins) struggles under the heavy hand of his shrewish, possessive mother. But Norman is a man who has many dark secrets....


I think everyone reading this knows what Norman is hiding, as well as where Marion and the $40,000 vanished to... but in case someone hasn't seen one of the greatest horror films ever made, I'll keep to my policy of not offering any spoilers.

Suffice it to say that I think this movie must have been absolutely, jaw-dropping in its audacity with the plot-twist that happens about 15-20 minutes in. I doubt anyone could have been prepared for it, and "Psycho" is still remarkable for flawless way it pulls it off... few films can take such a shocking left turn and not spill the audience on the curve. Instead, after the shock wears off--and it IS shocking if you aren't expecting it, even in this day and age when movies go back for reshoots to add violence and nudity--the audience is even more captivating. Where can the movie go from there, they're asking themselves.

"Psycho" is one of Hitchcock's finest movies. The cast is perfect; the script is perfect; the sets are amazing; the camerawork and creative use of lighting is astonishingly creative and effective; and the Bernard Hermann score is absolutely mindblowing (even if I'm not as fond of the "Murder Theme" as so many others are... there are far better bits of music in the film).

If you haven't see it, or if you've seen the pale imitation that was released in 1998 under the guise of a "remake" (and it was an imitation... to call that travesty a "remake" is an insult to genuine remakes, no matter how bad they might be), you need to see "Psycho". It's a film every movie lover should experience.

A killer lurks in the Monte Carlo night

Monte Carlo Nights (1934)
Starring: John Darrow, Mary Brian, George Hayes and Kate Campbell
Director: William Nigh
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

After being convicted for a murder he didn't commit, adventurer Larry Sturgis (Darrow) is on his way to prison when a lucky coincidence gives him a chance to not only escape, but also to cover his trial by appearing to be dead. Following the only lead to the real killer--a system for playing the roulette wheel--he travels to Monte Carlo in hopes of tracking him down. Here, he reunites with his fiancee (Brian) and a police detective (Hayes), both of whom never gave up on proving his innocence. Will they find a killer before he strikes at them from the shadows of the Monte Carlo night?


"Monte Carlo Nights" is among the best-looking films that prolific low-budget mystery director William Nigh ever helmed. With three gorgeous and talented actresses in key roles, a decent leading man, and a bigger budget than average for a Monogram production--as evident in the sets, costumes, and crane shots featured in the film--Nigh delivers a decent little thriller that holds up nicely some 75+ years later.

The film has two weaknesses that causes me to rate it at the lower end of average, one of which is direction, the other a script issue. First, the film starts slowly, forcing the viewer to sit through an entire horse race while an ineffective attempt at establishing the lead characters takes place; it is such an obvious bit of padding that I had low hopes for the rest of the film... but it quickly got better. Second, the script is too sloppy to be truly effective in the "innocent man accused" genre that it belongs to. While it's a subgenre that was still taking shape--and Alfred Hitchcock wouldn't perfect it in movies until a few years after the release of "Monte Carlo Nights"--there's no excuse for the incompetent way the film's red herrings are served out (and then barely adressed as the film moves along).

Still, despite its flaws, this is one of those pleasant surprises that emeges while one digs through the piles of neglected or completely forgotten films that have received new life with the coming of DVD.

Oliver Stone promises to show how Hitler has been vilified and misunderstood

Everyone praise Oliver Stone! He's going to join some brave souls--like Hamas leaders, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and great Neo-Nazi thinkers through the decades--to put Hitler in context by bringing us the Truth about him and his life. 

Stone promises to show us that Hitler can't be judged as "good" or "bad" and that he has been unfairly scapegoated by smallminded bigots (not to mention nerfarious agents of the Zionist Conspiracy)! Click here to read about the forthcoming Showtime series "Secret History." While we wait for Oliver Stone's magnum opus to reveal the True Hitler, here's song that might well embody Stone's thinking on this unjustly tarred Man of Greatness:

 

And here's my attempt at putting Hitler "in context" (although I'm no Oliver Stone) using captioned photos borrowed from www.motivatedphotos.com.

 

'A Face in the Fog' not worth chasing after

A Face in the Fog (1936)
Starring: Lloyd Hughes, June Collyer, Al St. John, Jack Mulhall, and Lawrence Gray
Director: Robert Hill
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

When society reporter-trying-to-become-a-crimebeat-reporter Jean Monroe (Collyer) claims to have seen the face of the mysterious killer who is poisoning theatre people in the city, and that she intends to reveal his identity in a future column, she becomes his next target. Her fiance and fellow reporter Frank Gordon (Hughes) teams with criminologist and playwright Peter Fortune (Gray) to catch the killer before he claims Jean's life.


"A Face in the Fog" is one of those weakly written mysteries where there is only one possible suspect, who, after concocting a really brilliant method of committing his murders, subsequently behaves so stupidly that even Barney Fife could have caught him while in the middle of a three-day moonshine bender. The plot also doesn't make a lot of sense, nor do the reasons for who the killer chooses as his victims.

However, the actors perform with such charm and sincerity, and the film moves at such a break-neck pace that you'll hardly have time to notice its shortcomings--which means my criticisms probably amount to no more than nitpicking. June Collyer as the stubbornly brave, career-minded journalist is especially good, in what proved to be her last movie before she left acting for some 15 years to raise her chiklren.

Although this is an entertaining enough movie, with an excellent cast and sharp direction, the script is just shaky enough that I can't give it a wholehearted recommendation. Admirers of June Collyer or Lloyd Hughes should certainly check it out, and I think it's worth adding to the line-up of any in-home film festival you might want to hold centering on either one, but it's not quite a must-see if you're just looking for something to pass the time with.

It's always the little things that trip up a killer....

The Scar (aka "Hollow Triumph" and "The Man Who Murdered Himself") (1948)
Starring: Paul Henreid and Joan Bennett
Director: Steve Sekeley
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

John Muller (Henreid), a career criminal on the run from vengeful gangsters after a botched casino robbery, finds the ultimate hideout: He remakes himself to take the place of a successful psychoanalyst who bears a strong resemblence to him. However, John fails to take into account that when you take over someone's life, you get the good with the bad.


"The Scar" is a somewhat far-fetched film-noir crime drama, but it's well-filmed, well-acted (with a couple of slips into over-the-top melodrama), and tense from beginning to end.

Henreid gives an interesting performance as a sociopathic schemer who finds an apparent path to safety and a new life; while co-star Bennett gives a nuanced performance as John's love interest--a character who starts out seeming like a fairly typical secretary for this kind of movie, but which ends up as one of the deeper and interesting characters in the film. What's more, the romance between the two characters actually feels genuine--something very rare in movies--and this makes the viewer feel true sympathy with Bennett's character at the end of the movie.

Another thing that makes the film interesting is the recurring theme that no one really cares enough about anyone but themselves to truly notice the world around them. This is what lets John Muller steal a man's life in every sense, and in a suitably ironic twist, this tendency toward total self-centeredness also ends up contributing to John's undoing.

After a near-perfect execution of everything leading up to it, the movie falters a bit at the ending. Given that crime hardly ever pays in movies, John clearly will not manage to live happily ever after in his stolen identity. However, the main reason for his Bad End comes about due to what feels more like Script-Dictated Character Stupidity rather than a natural consequence of events; John had the information and means to solve the biggest probem facing his new identity, yet he doesn't even make an attempt to do so before it's too late. (I could justify this lapse with some character psychology and the overall themes of the film--John was too arrogant and greedy to deal with the issue, or he was too self-centered for the full magnitude of the problem--but it still doesn't make the ending feel quite right.)

This is a near-perfect crime drama with an excellent script and decent performances. It's well-worth seeking out, particularly if you're a fan of the film noir subgenre.

Ginger Rogers is excellent in this obscure thriller

A Shriek in the Night (1933)
Starring: Ginger Rogers, Lyle Talbot, Purnell Pratt, Harvel Clark, Lillian Harmer, Louise Beaver, and Arthur Hoyt
Director: Albert Ray
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

A series of murders take place in an upscale apartment building, and reporters Pat Morgan (Rogers) and Ted Kord (Talbot)--working for rival newspapers but involved in a romantic relationship--are hot on the trail of the killer, or killers. Morgan happened to be working on an investigative piece about one of the victims, so she is in a perfect place to help both her career and the police... so long as she doesn't end up a murder victim herself.


"A Shriek in the Night" is, for the most part, a fairly typical early 1930s low-budget mystery, with dimwitted maids, cranky police detectives (although in this one the detective is not incompetent, just cranky), and wise-cracking reporters running circles around everyone and ultimately providing the clues needed to solve the mystery. The acting is above average here, and the characterizations of the two reporters and the police detective are also a bit more intelligent and three-dimensional than is often the case in these movies. (The comic relief maids are still as annoying as ever; if this is what American-born house-servants were like, it's no wonder we took to importing illegal aliens to turn down our beds and clean our homes!)

What really sets the film apart from others like it is its villain, and a surprisingly chilling sequence where he prepares to burn Pat Morgan alive. This character feels in many ways like an ancestor to the mad killers who came into vogue during the 1970s, and which continue to slash, strangle, and mutilate their way across the movie screen to this very day.

Another thing I found interesting in this film is how different Ginger Rogers' character was from the one she played two years later in "The Thirteenth Guest".

Many actors and actresses that appeared in these B-movies gave pretty much the same performance in movie after movie--for instance, there's very little difference between the smart-ass character Lyle Talbot plays here and the one he played in "The Thirteenth Guest." I haven't seen enough of Rogers' performances to really know why there is this difference--was she lucky enough to have a chance to show different facets of her acting ability, or did she make each part she played different somehow?--but it was an unexpected surprise.

Those of you out there with more than just a passing interest in suspense and horror movies may want to check this film out for its very modern, proto-"maniac killer" character/sequence. Those of you who just enjoy this style of movies--mysteries that get solved by wise-cracking reporters who take nothing seriously--should also check it out. It's a fun way to spend an hour.

Picture Perfect Wednesday:The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The United States Bill of Rights states that "... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And here is Louise Brooks practicing her Constitutionally protected right.


Louise Brooks was an American actress who started out as a chorus dancer but became one of the silent movie eras most popular stars. However, Brooks strong personality also put her at odds with the aspects of American culture in general and the Hollywood elite in particular--she was disatisfied with the restrictive role that women had in American society and insisted on having things her way or not at all.

Although Brooks only appeared in 25 movies, she set a number of fashion trends (foremost of these being her bobbed hairstyle) and became the inspiration for Guido Crepax's comic book heroine "Valentina." She retired from film in 1938, weary of fighting the studio system. She later worked as a dance instructor and writer, publishing numerous books and essays about Hollywood and the film .

Louise Brooks passed away in 1984 after suffering a heart attack at the age of 78.

Forgotten Comics: GoGirl

GoGirl! (Graphic Novel #1, Dark Horse 2001)
Writer: Trina Robbins
Artist: Anne Timmons
Rating: Eight of Ten Tomatoes

When the GoGirl! comic book debuted a few years back, I posted a rave about the title on my website. It was a fun read, with charming, non-teeth-gritting and chestpounding and angstily ranting characters. Unfortunately, already by issue #2, I knew the title was not long for the world... I couldn't get my hands on it, and I was already seeing net-rumours about how the book was on the verge of cancellation. Typical... no comic book I like seems to lasts long.


With the publication of the GoGirl trade paperback, I can read all the fun little tales of Lindsay, the daughter of a Seventies superhero who inherited her mother's ability to fly, in a compact package. I can even get to read the issues I never could find, despite my comic shop's insistence they ordered them repeatedly (#2, #3, and #5).

In addition to some well-done stories, the brief introduction from writer Trina Robbins is an interesting read. Apparently, what short life the comic book series had was breathed into it by anger from internet critics when it seemed the title was going to be discontinued even before it saw the light of day due to low pre-orders. Robbins mentioned that part of the motivation behind the title was to prove that girls read comics. Whether Image (the publisher of the single issues) dropped the ball, of if there was some other problem, or if GoGirl! actually helped prove that girls DON'T read comics, unfortunately, the title seems to have failed commercially. The title continued in two additional graphic novels from Dark Horse, but the last one appeared in 2006--and was released with such stealth that it is only just now that I discovered it was even published. I'll be ordering a copy, and posting a review down the line.

Tone-wise, GoGirl! reminds me of some of my favorite comics from when I was a kid--the Cary Bates-scripted issues of Superman. I wish more titles had the sort of light touches present in GoGirl! these days, but, given how such stories don't seem to work for the majority of comic book readers, I doubt it's going to happen.

'The Lonely Man' seeks company in a weak western

The Lonely Man (1957)
Starring: Jack Palance, Anthony Perkins, Elaine Aikin, and Neville Brand
Director: Henry Levin
Rating: Four of Ten Stars

Jacob Wade (Palance), an aging gunfighter, who, among his many other problems, is going blind, seeks out his estranged son, Riley (Perkins), in a final attempt to forge a normal, peaceful life. But Jacob's past won't be put to rest so easy, and if psychotic gambler King Fisher (Brand) has his way, Jacob will be laid to rest.

"The Lonely Man" is a fairly run-of-the-mill western, with the plot being driven primarily by Jacob's desire to put violence behind him and attempt to up make up for all the years he wasn't part of Riley's life by teaching him all about busting broncos. The performances are about par for this sort of movie (which means they're pretty decent all around), and the film makes decent use of the natural surroundings. Unfortunately, the melodrama is slathered on so thick (particularly in the relationship between Jacob and Riley) that it drags the whole film down a notch. The horrendously stilted dialogue that is exchanged at many points during the film and pacing stumbles both near the beginning and at the middle hurt the film almost as much.

I've seen worst westerns than "The Lonely Man", but there are far better out there as well. The funnest part about the film are the presence of some of the bit-players, such as Lee Van Cleef (who has more hair on his head here than I think he ever appeared with in any other film), Elisha Cook (whose character doesn't whine even once in his repeated scenes) and Claude Akins (who plays a former partner of Jacob, and who makes for a far more sinister character than the lead villain).

'Murder at Glen Athol' is a mystery worth investigating

Murder at Glen Athol (aka "The Criminal Within") (1936)
Starring: John Miljan, Irene Ware, Iris Adrian and James Burtis
Director: Frank Strayer
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Well-known gentleman detective Bill Holt (Miljan) is called upon to solve the murders of the VERY liberated Muriel Randall (Adrian) and her ex-husband before an innocent man is condemned.


"Murder at Glen Athol" is interesting primarily for some of its unusual characters. First, we have a comic relief character (Burtis) who is actually a competent assistant to the hero. Second, we have the character of Muriel Randall, a relatively typical murder victim in the sort of Agatha Christie-style mystery that this film represents... although she's far more aggressive and far more liberated and even sexually charged than anyone who ever sprang from the pages of Christie.

The overall plot is solid enough, and the acting and writing is also pretty decent. There's nothing that'll make you sit up and say "Wow!" (except the presence of the two unusual characters noted above, and you'll only be impressed by them if you've seen a lot of early mystery and horror movies), but everything here is competently done.

With one minor exception. I like mystery movies to play fair, that give the audience a chance to guess who the murderer is while the detective investigates. This film plays more fair than most mysteries of the time; generally speaking, the solution to the mystery is a "cheat"--it's based on something that the audience never had a chance to see, like something the detective discovers off-camera.

In fact, "Murder at Glen Athol" may even play a little too fair, as I guessed who the killer was as soon as the rather heavy-handed hint to when the murder was committed and by whom appeared on screen. I don't mind guessing the killing, and it didn't ruin the movie for me, but it did have me expecting there would be another twist coming.

Perhaps the clues provided aren't as heavy-handed as all that. Perhaps I've just seen waaaay too many mystery movies. For me, the overplaying of the hint of the killer's identity is the one weak spot in this otherwise average movie.