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.

The Maltese Falcon (1941)

Why does Bogart have a different haircut in this movie than he has on this poster?

Who says remakes are always a bad idea?  The Maltese Falcon is the third film adaptation of Dashiell Hammett's classic novel of the same name, and the third time is definitely the charm.  I haven't seen the other two versions (one has the same title and the other is a comedy, titled Satan Met a Lady), but only this one is widely regarded as a timeless classic, so I think it's safe to assume that this is the best version to date.

I'm going to be completely honest with you right now.  I am a huge fan of Dashiell Hammett's hard-boiled novels and am a fan of any movie that chooses to adapt his work.  I am also a big fan of Humphry Bogart, at least in part because I've only seen him in his classic roles; I'm sure the man made some flops in his time, but history tends to gloss over those mistakes in favor of his more famous work.  I am also a big supporter of director John Huston.  And if none of that convinces you that this is going to be a great viewing experience, it was in the inaugural class of movies chosen for preservation in the Library of Congress' National Film Registry.  If you're still hesitant to check out this movie because it's black-and-white or because it's old or because you only like movies with talking animals in them, my advice is simple.  Man up and get some culture.  It is significantly awesome.

The private detective firm of Spade and Archer consists of three people: the secretary, Effie (Lee Patrick), Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) and Miles Archer (Jerome Cowan).  One day, a new client hires them to track down her sister, who has run away from home with an undesirable man named Thursby.  The client, Ruth Wonderly (Mary Astor), doesn't tell a very convincing tale, but she waves around a lot of money, and that's enough for the detectives to take her case.  Liking the looks of his sexy new client, Miles offers to be her proverbial white knight, boubie, and track down this Thursby himself.

Did Miles Archer influence the character of Ellis from Die Hard?  Surprisingly, they're pretty close.

That night, Miles is shot and killed.  Sam gets the call, heads to the crime scene, and promptly leaves to clear his head.  When he gets home a few hours later, the police are right behind him; Thursby had just been gunned down in the streets, so the cops naturally assume that Sam killed the man who killed his partner.  He didn't, but his alibi is basically "wandering around aimlessly in the streets," so Sam Spade has to solve the case to clear his name.  Besides, it's good business to avenge the death of your partner.  Sam quickly finds himself in complex web of lies and deceit as he tries to discover...well, I suppose he's trying to solve the murder of his partner and simultaneously cover his own ass, but he doesn't seem to concerned about that.  Instead, Sam seems to genuinely enjoy the game of deception as he and three other interested parties converge on the object that ultimately caused all this trouble, the Maltese Falcon. 

Bogart, about three seconds away from giving you a facial burn for laughing at his toy bird.

Admittedly, the story isn't terribly special.  A detective manages to get entangled in a mess of lies?  You could pick my jaw up off the floor.  It's handled very well, though.  The pace is brisk, the plot is murky enough to keep you guessing while Sam Spade puts all the pieces together, and the ending scenes are great, appealing to many demographics (romantic, cynical, heart of stone, tough guy, etc.) and somehow never losing its bad-ass edge.

The acting and directing are nearly flawless.  This is one of the two films that helped Bogart become a star in 1941 (the other was High Sierra) and was his first significant non-gangster role.  What can I say?  The man was born to play tough guy detectives.  His timing with dialogue is perfect here, managing to be funny, witty, and sadistic --- sometimes in all in the same line.  As someone who has read dozens of hard-boiled novels and seen many film noirs, I can state that Bogart's portrayal here is the archetypal noir hero.  That might seem like a "no duh" in retrospect, but consider just how many classic actors from Hollywood's golden age tried similar roles; it's a great performance, but it's even more impressive when you realize how many other actors fail to live up to it.

So that's where they got the hair idea for There's Something About Mary...

The supporting cast was nearly as good as Bogart.  Mary Astor's femme fatale, while a little melodramatic by modern standards, still holds up pretty well today.  She's mean and nasty, but vulnerable and magnetic, the very epitome of a dangerous lady.  The other women in the film play their parts pretty well, but Gladys George (Archer's wife) and Lee Patrick can't hold a candle to Astor's performance.  Peter Lorre does a great job as an effeminate criminal; the interactions between him and Bogart amuse me so much, especially when Bogart is mocking an armed Lorre.

Well...that's phallic.

This was Sydney Greenstreet's film debut (and the first of nine movies with Peter Lorre) and his performance is especially impressive for a rookie; as the main villain in the film, he managed to be sneaky, powerful, and humble in quick succession.  Perhaps my favorite supporting performance in the film (although it is hard to beat Lorre) comes from Elisha Cook, Jr. and his part as the gun-toting arm of Greenstreet.  I've always liked the idea of a character that plays tougher than they truly are, but I think Cook really nailed that idea on the head with his performance.

The writing gave these performers a lot of great lines, but John Huston did a wonderful job directing them all.  The timing in each scene was impeccable, the pace is fast but you never get lost in the details; these are important elements in any crime story, but are essential when the dialogue needs to crackle with wit.  Huston also did a good job with the cinematography; there is a lot of symbolism in this movie and there are a lot of interesting (and, thankfully, meaningful) camera angles used.  Even though this was his first film, it must have been apparent from the start that John Huston was a master director.

When you add all that up, what do you get?  In short, probably my favorite movie of all time (although Raiders of the Lost Ark is another good choice).  It has great direction, a better script and a delightful cast.  Is this an action-packed movie?  No, but the story moves quickly enough to make you think otherwise.  That might be the key to this film's longevity; even though times have changed, everyone loves the guy who outsmarts the competition and mocks his enemies.  It's the American Way in (a slightly cynical) film format.  In other words, in a genre --- this is vintage film noir, in case you hadn't realized it --- of tough men, dangerous women, and hazy morality, there is nothing better than The Maltese Falcon.

The Killing

When most people think of Stanley Kubrick, they usually think of his later works, like 2001, A Clockwork Orange, and The Shining.  That's fair enough, I suppose; by that point in his career, Kubrick was acknowledged as a film genius and was allowed to get genuinely weird.  While not as inventive or visually interesting as those films, The Killing is very important in Kubrick's career.  While it wasn't very successful, this was the first time Kubrick worked with a professional cast and crew.  This film also attracted the attention of Kirk Douglas and MGM, and those partnerships lead to his breakthrough films, Paths of Glory and Spartacus.  Of course, you don't have to care about the film in its historical context.  It's a nice film noir, either way.

After being released from prison, Johnny Clay (Sterling Hayden) was a man with a plan.  As much as he would have liked to live the quiet life with his fiancee (Coleen Gray), he wants to pull one last job --- a high risk, high reward robbery --- before they marry.  He plans to do the impossible and rob a racetrack, despite the armed policemen, employees, high security, and thousands of witnesses.  To pull off the job, he needs a police officer (Ted de Corsia), a racetrack bartender (Joe Sawyer), a racetrack bookkeeper (Jay C. Flippen), and a racetrack cashier (Elisha Cook, Jr.); these are the men that are need-to-know, and they need to know each other and their roles in the overall plan.  Clay also hires two other men, on a strictly no-need-to-know basis; they are a sharpshooter (Timothy Carey) and an enormously burly chess aficionado (Kola Kwariani).  The plan (which I won't detail for you) is flawless.  However, even the best plans can be foiled by small mistakes.

Before I get into the things I liked about The Killing, I have to get a couple of things off my chest first.  The narration in this movie is godawful.  It is on par with Harrison Ford's intentionally bad narration for the theatrical cut of Blade Runner.  It makes the movie feel like an episode of Dragnet, only without any idea who the narrator is or how he came by his information.  According to film lore, the narration was tacked on by  the movie studio, and this was one of the final straws before Kubrick would start demanding complete control over his films.  In the long run, I guess things turned out okay, but it's still really terrible.  The score is pretty bombastic, too.  It would have been better used in a gladiator fight instead of scenes showing anonymous characters placing horse racing bets.  And the bit with the dog, towards the end, is a little too cutesy for this movie, I think.

The first thing you're going to notice about The Killing is that it is not told in chronological order.  It's not as disjointed as Pulp Fiction (which it influenced), but many key scenes are told and retold from the perspective of another character.  The camera work isn't as flashy as it is in other Kubrick movies, but it is one of the film's strong points.  Normally, filmmakers use a quick establishing shot to tell the audience where the scene is taking place, and then it will cut to mid-shots and close-ups of the actors in the scene.  Kubrick holds his establishing shots longer than usual in this film, allowing the audience to feel like more of an actual observer.  The pace is brisk and the tone is brutal.  This is classic film noir, complete with a tough "hero" in Clay, a femme fatale (Marie Windsor), and a tough as nails ending.  The ending is a fantastic cap to a good movie, complete with a great last line of dialogue: "Eh, what's the difference?"  It might not sound like much, but it fits the movie perfectly.

Sterling Hayden was good in the lead role, matching the tone of the film with his tone of voice.  The movie doesn't spend much time developing characters, so most of the supporting cast was just doing their job.  Elisha Cook, Jr. (who I love in Bogart movies) did a great job as the brow-beaten and pathetic cashier.  His final stand is one of the best parts of the film.  His wife, played by Marie Windsor, is one of the foulest femme fatales I have seen so far.  Most of the time, there's some ambiguity with how good or bad they are, but she is rotten to the core.  Oddly enough, the two no-need-to-know guys that stuck out for me.  I thought that Timothy Carey did a very good job with the limited time he was given, although I wish his downfall didn't directly connect to his racist remarks.  I also liked the use of real-life professional wrestler and chess fanatic, Kola Kwariani; he was disgustingly hairy, and his accent was almost too thick to understand, but he is the most believable thug I have seen in a 1950s film.

Do you like crime movies?  Do you like noir?  Do you like tough guys in movies?  If so, check this movie out.  It's not flawless, but the crime is well-executed and the film itself has no remorse for any of the characters.  They might have made a killing with this heist, but that's not where the killing ends.