After the Thin Man

Actually, Mr. Movie Poster, it's "Mr. and Mrs. Charles are back."  The "thin man" from the first film referred to a missing person, not William Powell's character.  What's that, 1930s moviegoers?  You've decided to make William Powell the "thin man?"  Um.  Okay.  I guess it's too late to do anything about that now.

After the Thin Man takes place, appropriately enough, immediately following The Thin Man.  Does that mean you should be familiar with the first film to enjoy this one?  Not at all; if you haven't seen the first movie, though, you really ought to give it a try --- it's a treat.  Nick (William Powell) and Nora (Myrna Loy) Charles have arrived via train to their home in San Francisco, just in time for New Year's Eve.  Unfortunately for Nick, the pair are expected to join Nora's family for a fancy formal dinner party.  No one in Nora's family seems to like Nick, either because he married into his money or because he's a lush or because he's a bit of a smart-ass. 

Tuxes for a dinner with the family?  That doesn't sound stuffy at all

For better or worse, the evening takes an interesting turn when it appears that the nogoodnick husband, Robert (Alan Marshal), of Nora's cousin, Selma, is missing.  The family has never liked Robert, but if they didn't resolve his disappearance soon, it was worried that Selma would get dramatically crazy and bring shame to the family name.  The disappearance is easy enough for Nick and Nora to solve, but it is almost immediately followed by a murder in which Selma is the prime suspect.  What's a moderately bored and perennially drunk amateur gumshoe to do, but solve the mystery and put a neat bow on it?

After the Thin Man is an interesting bit of early Hollywood.  The first film was a big hit and this was only the first of five (!) sequels.  The original film was based on Dashiell Hammett's final novel, but this was completely original.  Hammett was hired to write the story for After the Thin Man, with the talented team of Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett returning to turn his story into an acceptable screenplay.  I don't know any specifics (because I'm too lazy to do any actual research), but I know that Hammett's post-novelist years were filled with sickness and booze, so it should not be surprising that the story here is not as intricate as in the original film.  Nevertheless, it manages to overcome some Scooby-Doo-esque plot twists and typical 1930s film tropes and it remains an entertaining bit of lighthearted comedy, even by today's standards.

Ha ha ha!  Get it?  She's being arrested for murder!

The key to this film working once again rests on the shoulders of William Powell and Myrna Loy.  Powell's charm and excellent line delivery are essential to this film, but it is the banter between him and Loy that really makes the movie succeed.  Loy's role is a little less entertaining this time around (she has to be nice to her family, after all), but she is still more than a capable foil for Powell's wit.  As much as I enjoyed watching the duo feign drunkenness in the first film, I enjoyed their interactions more in this one.  They were a pleasant blend of mean and tender that is surprisingly believable in a couple.

As a married man, I am all too familiar with that look

The supporting cast is a little more noteworthy in this sequel.  I was surprised to see a young James Stewart in his first substantial film role; this is the first time I have seen him in a non-leading role, so it was interesting to see his typical aw-shucks charm being applied to someone who wasn't the main hero.

Maybe he's the titular thin man?

The rest of the supporting cast is less spectacular, but a number of recognizable people played small roles.  Penny Singleton (the voice for Jane Jetson) plays a scheming nightclub singer.  Noir actor Sam Levene plays the hapless policeman forced to look like a fool next to Nick Charles.  Hard-working character actor Paul Fix also has a small part.  My favorite of the less famous supporting actors was Joseph Calleia, though; the man was such a great movie villain that it doesn't really matter that his character here was relatively tame.

Joseph "Born Evil" Calleia

Like the original film, After the Thin Man was directed by W.S. Van Dyke.  His direction is adequate from a technical standpoint --- don't expect to see any subtext or clever uses of frame or lighting here --- but he once again handled the cast quite well.  With the bulk of this movie relying on the charm and chemistry between its stars, Van Dyke's touch with the actors was critical.  On the other hand, with a considerably less dense script than the first film, Van Dyke's limitations are a bit more obvious.  The supporting actors are portrayed in broad strokes with very little complexity and Van Dyke panders to the audience a little too much when it comes to the dog.

Actual subplot: Asta is depressed, thanks to an unfaithful wife

After the Thin Man fares best when it is not directly compared to its predecessor.  Nick and Nora are still a lot of fun to watch and their dialogue is more than worth the price of admission.  This movie is a bit more cute than actually funny, but it is still a fun watch.  It certainly could have used a more compelling mystery, but the charm of the main characters helps balance that.  Perhaps the film's biggest miss was its inability to actually make anything look seedy. 

This is their idea of a dive bar

It is fun to watch Nick interact with criminals (to Nora's amusement), but I would have liked them to appear out of their element at either (or both) ends of the social spectrum; here is a film with snooty rich folk looking down their nose, as well as nightclub patrons planning on theft and murder --- and the Charles' never miss a beat.  As good as Nick and Nora are, I would have liked to see them unsettled at least once.  While I doubt anyone will argue that After the Thin Man is a masterpiece, it is still a fun, disposable bit of film fluff.  Many great films have had truly unfortunate sequels, but this isn't one of them.

House On Haunted Hill (1959)

Okay, take two!  After my first attempt at watching a haunted house film was unsuccessful (I blame The House of the Devil and its misleading title!  And my lack of research!), I opted for a classic.  House On Haunted Hill is quite unusual, if only because it appears to have aged well, at least for most critics, and most other horror films from the late 1950s have not.  I rather enjoyed The Bad Seed, another late-50s thriller --- would I be so lucky a second time?

First impressions made me think "not so much."  The film opens with a woman's screams, a villain's laughter, and a pitch-black screen.  Then, out of the darkness, Watson Pritchard's (Elisha Cook, Jr.'s) disembodied head zooms to the front of the screen and he begins to talk directly to the audience about the "only truly haunted house in the world." 

This is immediately followed by Frederick Loren's (Vincent Price's) face being superimposed over an image of the titular house as he takes his turn speaking to the audience.  He introduces all the characters and comments on them (his standard comment about his wife is that she is "so amusing").  He also introduces the premise: Frederick Loren is throwing a haunted house party for his fourth wife, Annabelle (Carol Ohmart, who is "so amusing"), and has invited five guests.  The guests are all strangers and have never met the Lorens; Frederick has enticed them to spend the night in this supposedly haunted house by offering a $10,000 prize (roughly a billion kajillion dollars in 2011 money) to anyone who survives the evening.  What's the catch?  The only exit is on a timer, so if you come in, the doors won't open until morning.

As if regular Vincent Price isn't creepy enough, now we have floating ghost-head Price

Strangely, this is where the narration ends.  The five strangers arrive, are greeted by Frederick, and are told the rules --- and each is given a loaded pistol.  The guests were chosen to represent a cross-section of the population (not racially, of course), and all are in desperate need of that ten grand.  The only guest who takes the idea of the house being haunted is Watson (who, incidentally, owns the building), and takes the guests on a little tour, pointing out where different people have been murdered within the building.  Everyone else is treating the evening with a grain of salt, and are waiting for the other proverbial shoe to drop.  That shoe is Annabelle's suicide.

"She's so amusing."

Well, it may look like suicide, but the circumstances of her death indicate that she couldn't have done it unassisted.  Someone in that house either helped Annabelle die or murdered her.  Aren't those just two ways of saying the same thing?  From this point forward, it doesn't feel much like a game at all, and the more creepy things happen, the less the guests trust each other.  But should they be fearing each other, or the unruly spirits of the house?

Someone's getting pimp/ghost-slapped tonight!

The atmosphere in this House On Haunted Hill is decent, although pretty typical.   There are a lot of cobwebs, everything seems to creak, and the doors sometimes open or close without explanation.  The set pieces are fairly standard, except in the basement, where a trapdoor leads to a vat of acid in the ground.  Of course there is a vat of acid in the basement.  Why wouldn't there be?

What is that on the table?  A spider amusement park?

Sure, House On Haunted Hill is a little bit campy --- it has Vincent Price, after all --- and the floating head introductions are a telling nod to the matinee audiences that were the film's intended audience.  I was surprised to see relatively few outright scares in the film.  Yes, there are a few moments that are designed to startle the viewer...

...but they are really just meant to set the stage.  I was expected more shock tactics, honestly.  Instead, this is a relatively moody PG-quality horror picture.

The film's greatest asset is Vincent Price.  His voice is notoriously spooky (and campy), and it is used very well here.  The hateful banter between Price and Carol Ohmart is quite good and stands out in a script that is otherwise lackluster.  The other actors --- Richard Long as a hero type, Alan Marshal as a skeptical psychiatrist, Carolyn Craig as a hysterical everywoman, Julie Mitchum as a smart lady, and Elisha Cook as a drunken believer in ghosts --- play their parts with varying degrees of effectiveness, but this is definitely Price's picture.  My favorite supporting actor was definitely Cook, as this is another example of how well he can play distressed failures.  My least favorite cast member was Craig, who is unfortunately the main character.  She was obviously hired for her ability to scream; the rest of her lines sound like she is reading them off cue cards. 

Carolyn Craig's only believable line

William Castle's direction on House On Haunted Hill is pretty standard.  The black-and-white definitely helps establish the creepy mood, but I think that was just a happy accident.  Castle's camerawork and the way he frames shots are pretty boring for a horror movie.  He doesn't use any tricks to build suspense or use any quick cuts to make you question what you have seen.  If anything, his work leans more toward unintentionally campy and cheap (see: opening scene).  On the bright side, he did put together a cohesive story.  Unfortunately, that story is full of holes, especially whenever one of the few special effects in the film are featured.  I do have one or two burning questions, though.  SPOILER ALERT: Okay, I get that Annabelle and the doctor were working together to try and get stupid Carolyn Craig to shoot Frederick Loren.  It's stupid and convoluted, but in the same way that a Scooby-Doo plot is, and don't they both have the same target audience?  But why is their plan to dump Fred's body in the acid?  Wouldn't they need a body for Annabelle to get the inheritance?  My other point is less of a question than it is an expression of disbelief.  Frederick foils the plot to kill him and instead kills the plotters.  He then states that he is ready to go on trial.  Um.  Really?  Fine.  You're guilty of premeditated self-defense, also known as murder. 

Surprisingly, I didn't mind those problems.  Sure, the acting is mediocre aside from Price.  Yes, the plot is pretty ridiculous when all is said and done.  Even with those problems, House On Haunted Hill still stands up as a somewhat entertaining picture.  Is it going to scare you?  Not if you are old enough to drive, but the older you are, the more you will appreciate the campiness of it.  It's not a horrible movie, and I was surprised at how much I enjoyed Price's line delivery.  This is a great movie to have fun with, because it's not painfully bad, but there are a lot of things to mock.  I might try and squeeze in another viewing later this month and give its Rifftrax a try.