Reviews

1934 doesn't seem like it was a good year for Joan Blondell. So far I've seen her in "I've got Your Number," "Smarty," and "He Was Her Man," and they were all bad. And, as a tandem, this was the worst movie I've seen James Cagney and Joan Blondell paired in of the five I've now seen them headline.

In "He Was Her Man," a recently released convict named Flicker Hayes (James Cagney) was hired to crack a safe. Instead, he double crossed the guys and called the police on them. One was shot and killed while the other got away. Flicker beat it out of town and headed to California.

While he was holed up in a hotel in San Francisco Flicker met Rose Lawrence (Joan Blondell) who was on her way to Santa Avila, CA to get married to a Portuguese man named Nick Gardella (Victor Jory).

We could draw the conclusion that the two were intimate in that San Francisco hotel. They were in the same room together, a romantic soundtrack was playing and the scene faded to black with Flicker taking off Rose's jacket. Furthermore, the next time we saw the two of them, Rose was behaving very fidgety with Flicker like a guilty woman or like a conflicted woman who wanted to distance herself from the man causing her conflicted feelings.

All suspicions were confirmed later on when they reached Santa Avila. Nick (her fiance) had to go fishing and Rose wanted to go with him. It was a strange request because he was going to be working on a boat with several other men. Why was she so desperate to go with him?

If I'd learned anything from watching these early-thirties movies it is that a woman who begs to go with her man or begs him to stay with her, is a woman who doesn't trust herself alone.

Well, later that night she had sex with Flicker and fell in love with him (or maybe she fell in love then had sex). If it was merely a question mark before, it was a period now, and it only confirmed that women back then couldn't be trusted alone with another man. I can't count the movies in which a woman was left alone with another man and she either fell in love with him or was emotionally confused because of him.

Even though Rose chose the wrong guy, she would get a mulligan. Flicker went on to be killed while Nick went on to marry Rose even after she told him of her infidelity. Nick was one of those guys who was so happy Rose chose him that she could've done anything and he would've still married her. It's a happy ending today, but wait til the honeymoon period is over.

Free on YouTube.

"The Key" attempts to convince us that we should let our spouses scratch their itch because it will be better for our marriages in the long run.

The movie takes place in Ireland circa 1920. British soldiers are everywhere and they are clamping down on Irish rebels aka freedom fighters. A man named Captain Andrew 'Andy' Kerr (Colin Clive) was a British spy. He spent many nights hunting for Britain's most wanted: an Irishman named Peadar Conlan (Donald Crisp). He was committed to his job much to the consternation of his wife Norah (Edna Best), and this would become a serious problem later on.

Also in the King's army was Captain Bill Tennant (William Powell), a rather carefree gentleman who seemed like he should've been enjoying parties, not serving in the military. Tennant was relocated to Ireland to help tamp any kind of Irish uprising. He rented a flat in a building right below Andy and Norah. It turned out that he knew both Andy and Norah, but not as a couple. He had a romantic fling with Norah years ago. Andy wasn't aware of it and the two wanted to keep it that way.

At this point I could see the scandal on the horizon. Norah's old flame was back in the picture plus Andy wasn't a romantic; it was easy math.

As anyone could predict, Tennant and Norah hooked up. They happened to hook up the same night Andy caught Conlan (Britain's most wanted), and they didn't even have the decency to part ways before Andy got home. He left the two together, thinking nothing of it (he still didn't know they knew each other), then came back hours later that night to find Tennant still at his home with his wife. Norah looked guilty, Tennant looked a bit smug, and Andy was crushed.

It was such an awkward scene I thought they planned it that way. I couldn't believe that they were so caught up in passion that time and caution gave them the slip. What I thought was that Norah re-fell in love with Tennant and fell out of love with Andy, and their plan was to tell him.

Norah did tell Andy what happened.

Well, no she didn't because 1934 social mores don't permit such things to be said on film, but all the context clues were there to convey that she and Tennant had sex.

What was she supposed to do at home alone with her old flame? She had begged Andy not to go out to work that night. Andy didn't know that her plea was for her protection, not his. As Norah put it when she tried to explain to Andy what happened:

"It was like a fire that I thought had gone out, but suddenly it flared up again."

She was talking like she had hemorrhoids.

Andy did what most guys would've done in that situation and left the house. He was devastated. Then Norah was devastated, because it was when Andy left that she realized how much she loved him. But! She had to have sex with Tennant to truly realize that she didn't really love Tennant and that she really loved Andy.

"She merely thought she was in love with me once perhaps. But she knows different now... Norah's been in love with a memory. Glamorous memory. For three years she was struggling to kill it. It's the thing that's always stood between you two.

"I came into her life and went out. I became a sort of unfinished chapter," Tennant carefully explained to Andy.

And here is the important part, the essence of Tennant's power.

Tennant continued, "If I hadn't come back that chapter might never have been finished. She might have gone on for years cherishing a romantic dream. But I did come back. It killed all the romance for her; all the glamor. It's you she loves Andy. She knows that now."

I must pause because I want these words to sink in. I want you to understand EXACTLY what Tennant is saying.

Let me translate.

"I was a blessing to your pitiful marriage. She was pining for me and you didn't even know it. You could never live up to the lasting impression I left upon her.

"So, I had to come back and make love to her so that she could get it out of her system and realize that I was just a romantic idea, not a true lasting thing like you are Andy. Sure, I may be handsome, suave, and know how to charm the pants off a woman, but you're husband material and I made her realize that."

Well excuse me. Allow me to show my deepest gratitude oh wise one. And here it is I thought you screwed my wife for your own pleasure. Pardon me good sir.

Tennant. Do me a favor and don't do me any favors. What a line of garbage. And Andy stood there listening to it like it was Gospel. He ate that stuff up. The movie ended with Andy and Norah side-by-side watching Tennant being taken away. Tennant was arrested for a heroic yet illegal stunt, but it was almost like the scene in "The Green Mile" where Michael Clark Duncan had accomplished what he was sent there for and it was time for him to go.

Tennant, with his magical penis, had fixed Andy and Norah's marriage, now he could go somewhere else and fix another struggling marriage.

Sorry, I don't know any marriage that needs to be fixed with cheating. That's some marriage counseling I want no part of.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

When I saw the synopsis:

"Union spy Gail Loveless impersonates a black maid in the early days of the Civil War, but complications arise when she falls in love with a Confederate officer."

I knew I was going to hate the movie, it was just a matter of how much. Either one of the clauses mentioned in the synopsis was enough for me to hate the movie, so to have both: a woman impersonating a Black maid AND her falling in love with a Confederate officer, was enough to make me vomit.

Let's look at both clauses shall we. This will be a lengthy post, so the TL;DR of it is racism and sexism. Hopefully, that will save you time and energy. If you still want to read on, I'm happy to have you.

"Operator 13" takes place during the Civil War. Marion Davies played Gail Loveless, an actress recruited to be a spy for the North. She was given the codename Operator 13. She was partnered with another female spy named Pauline (Katharine Alexander) who went by Operator 27.

When it was time for Gail to choose a disguise, she chose to disguise herself as a Black maid. Now, since this was during the Civil War and not after it, in the South she would've realistically been a slave. That term was never used at any time during this movie which is just one of its many failures.

Its other failure was having Marion Davies in blackface. White people donning blackface is a sore subject. It was done for racist reasons--either to further denigrate Black folks or to keep them from entertainment jobs that were given to whites--and it was done in one of three ways:

1. A white person was playing the role of a Black person ala Amos n' Andy, or Victor Kilian in "The Ox-Bow Incident" (1942), or one of the actors in "White Zombie" (1930). There really is no defending this because they could just as easily had found a qualified African-American for the role.

2. Minstrel shows ala "Glorifying the American Girl" (1929), "Sweetie" (1929), "Happy Days" (1929), "Love Among the Millionaires" (1930), "Footlight parade" (1933), "Kid Millions" (1934), or "Wonder Bar" (1934). Minstrel shows were steeped in racism as the performers usually had black faces and white lips, and they would play out a hyperbolic version of every known stereotype of Black people.

3. A disguise or some other purpose for the character within the movie ala "Tropic Thunder," "Silver Streak," "Soul Man," or "Operator 13." In this case I actually don't have a problem with it TO A POINT. Within the context of the movies it made sense for the actors to make attempts to look Black.

So, what is that point to which I don't have a problem with whites (or otherwise) being made up to be Black (when it fits in the context of the movie)? To the point it looks believable.

In "Tropic Thunder" Robert Downey Jr. Played an Australian actor so given to his method acting he made himself up as a Black man for a role; and it was very convincing. The make up was excellent and his vernacular worked because the movie was a comedy and it wasn't exaggerated nonsense.

In "Soul Man" C. Thomas Howell pretended to be Black to get a scholarship to Harvard after his father refused to pay for his tuition. Although the make up was a bit iffy it was somewhat believable; and he dispensed with any changes in speech because by 1986 people were smart enough to know that a Black man going to Harvard probably didn't talk "Black."

The remaining two movies ("Silver Streak" and "Operator 13") crossed that point of believability. In "Silver Streak" Gene Wilder was nothing more than a caricature. There was no way he would fool anybody though he put brown shoe polish on his face to disguise himself. If "Silver Streak" were to be given a pass, it would only be because it was a comedy.

As for "Operator 13" there was no excuse for what they did. Marion Davies trying to pass for a Black maid with a little bit of dark make-up is about as convincing as Tyler Perry playing a woman. If an alien came from outer space and had never even encountered the human race, it would know that Marion Davies wasn't a Black woman. Yet, with a little bit of dark foundation and a piss poor attempt at Black vernacular, she supposedly convinced everyone she was a Black woman.

What made it worse is that they didn't even try. What poor Southern Black maid (aka slave) wears make-up and earrings!!! She still had drawn on eyebrows and nothing wrapping her hair. Furthermore, white men were fawning over her which was a huge taboo. It was as if to show that white men knew their own kind even if they didn't recognize her, or the only beautiful Black woman is one with white features. It was racist dreck no matter how you look at it.

And it needs to be noted that all of the Black people in this flick were smiling, dancing, and having a good time while all of the white people, Southern or Northern, were patronly and matronly as though they treated Black folks so well.

Another gross misrepresentation that is steeped in white guilt, white fragility, as well as racism. Because of the guilt and fragility they can't bear to show themselves in a negative light when it comes to race relations, and the racism because still they put Black people in a dumb, child-like position whereby they need whites for their guidance and education. It's appalling.

Gail Loveless (Marion Davies) only did the blackface routine for about a third of the movie. Eventually, she went back north where she received another assignment which wouldn't require her to be in disguise. This assignment though, would require her to get in close with a charming handsome man; and you know what that means.

Capt. Jack Gailliard (Gary Cooper) was suspected of spying for the South. Gail was tasked with trying to get near him to find out what she could and to lead Northern operatives to him.

Her first response was a frightful "No!" She had already encountered Jack and it was clear she felt something for him. When giving her CO's a briefing about him she had a wistful look on her face as she mentioned how very attractive he was. To any sensible officers this would've been a red flag. She was opposed to getting involved with him in an espionage sense which was probably due to her A.) female frailty that they loved to highlight in the 1930's or B.) the possibility she had feelings for this man. Either of those scenarios was enough to send someone else besides her for the purpose of spying, yet they sent her anyway.

Even though Gail was falling in love with her mark like women were known to do (see "Dishonored" (1931), "Mata Hari" (1931), or "The Man with One Red Shoe" (1985)), she still followed through with passing on critical information to the North which helped them get the jump on a Southern plot. With Gail's intel, the North was able to attack the South first at a place called Drury's Bluff.

It was a resounding victory for the North, but Gail would have you believe it was a travesty. Her feminine sensibilities were on full display as she openly mourned the loss of Confederate soldiers. She was most aggrieved by the loss of a man named Johnny, the fiance of a Southern belle she befriended. It would seem that she forgot that she was simply a spy and legitimately began to like the people.

Since we're talking sexist tropes, I have to mention how Gail got her intel. That Southern belle she befriended had a big mouth. She gaily told Gail all the pertinent details of the Confederate plan to be enacted at Drury's Bluff that her fiance, a captain, told her. It just goes to show that you can't trust a woman with a secret.

After Dury's Bluff, it was discovered that Gail was a Northern spy. This concerned Jack most of all because he'd professed his love for her. What kind of woman could be so low as to earn a man's love and be spying on him at the same time? How did Jack put it? Oh yeah:

Gail: "You're a spy yourself Jack."

Jack: "Yes I am, but I'm a man, a soldier. I'm not a woman who lets people befriend her because she is a woman, then stabs them in the back. I'm not a woman who gains the confidence of a sweet trusting girl then destroys her life's happiness."

Gail: "I didn't know that he... how could I?" she was speaking in reference to her intel getting Johnny, a Confederate soldier, killed.

Jack: "You led her on deliberately, just like you led me on--pretending you loved me."

And like that Jack laid down the rules of spying. You can't be a woman, and you certainly can't be a woman that makes a person trust you or fall in love with you.

I can't say that I've never heard such ridiculous hogwash in my life, because I've heard a lot, but this is some seriously, upper-level ridiculous hogwash. I couldn't roll my eyes enough. I couldn't curse it enough. The logic of it was so twisted and distorted due to the sexist nature of it. SHE DID EXACTLY WHAT SPIES ARE SUPPOSED TO DO!

How in the hell is she supposed to get sensitive information if she doesn't gain the trust of those with the information? And as far as making people fall in love with her, that was your bad, but I will say that it was the sexist mind of the writer to even put it in the script that she fell in love and made her mark fall in love.

Because this was a romance, they were able to unite at the end. Once the war was over and "there was no more north and no more south, just a United States" they were able to wed and be a happy couple as if both sides immediately dropped their beef the moment the war was over.

Psshhhh. I still know Southerners mad at Yankees for the war. When they say "the South will rise again," they're not talking about a bread.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

"Fog Over Frisco" was the second movie in a row from 1934 I watched that was based in San Francisco. The other was "Wharf Angel."

"Fog Over Frisco" is a murder mystery that was a little more exciting than most of them at that time. A lot of that is thanks to Bette Davis. Firstly, it's Bette Davis in a significant role. She was one of the bigger stars of that era. Secondly, the role Bette Davis played was full of mystery and intrigue.

Ms. Davis played Arlene Bradford, a rich party girl who dabbled in stolen bonds. She was helping a gangster named Jake Bello (Irving Pichel) while everyone thought she'd cleaned up her act since being engaged to the respectable Spencer Carleton (Lyle Talbot). Meanwhile, she was deeply admired by her stepsister Val (Margaret Lindsay) while her stepfather, Everett Bradford (Arthur Byron), had had just about enough of her.

There was plenty going on in this flick full of well known names; names like Bette Davis, Lyle Talbot, Hugh Herbert, Arthur Byron, Robert Barrat, Irving Pichel, Douglass Dumbrille, and Gordon Westcott. Make sure to follow the bouncing ball as the plot takes you everywhere.

I thought the movie was firing on all cylinders until one part.

A reporter named Tony Sterling (Donald Woods), who was in love with Val Bradford, found her sister Arlene's dead body. Instead of telling Val like a decent human being, he left her to keep believing that Arlene was alive, which eventually led to Val being kidnapped.

I thought his true colors showed at that point and that there was nothing he could do to make up for it. I thought that he would be squarely in the doghouse with respect to Val from then on.

Imagine you believed your missing sibling was alive while your sweetheart knew your sibling was dead but kept it hidden for a big news story. Now add to that the fact that you were running headlong into trouble because you believed your sibling was still alive. What would be your feelings and attitude toward your burgeoning romantic interest once you found out he/she lied about something as important as your sister being dead?

Maybe I'm less forgiving than most, but we'd be done effective immediately.

Not so Val. Once she was saved from her kidnappers all was forgotten and forgiven. The movie ended with her in Tony's arms as if he didn't betray her for a stupid story. She didn't have one negative word to say to him.

That didn't sink the movie, but it sure had me grumbling.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

"Wharf Angel" is a movie that took place on the docks in San Francisco for the most part. It's a romance with unnecessary drama. I don't mean unnecessary in that a movie does not need drama, because every movie needs some type of drama to even be interesting. What I mean is that the nature of the drama in this movie was unnecessary.

At the very beginning a man named Como Murphy (Preston Foster) burst into a bar where he let them know he was running from the police. A patron named Turk (Victor McLaglen) and the proprietor, Mother Bright (Alison Skipworth) gave him refuge as they weren't all that fond of the police themselves. No one knew what he was running from the police for, but they helped him anyway.

While trying to hide, Como found himself in a flat belonging to a woman named Mary aka Toy (Dorothy Dell). Toy also gave refuge to Como. Her profession kept her on the wrong side of the law as well, so in Como she saw a kindred spirit.

For good measure Toy pressed Como about why he was wanted by the police. He told her that they suspected him of a murder he didn't commit.

Como and Toy had an instant attraction. He was a nice enough guy and she was available, so they fell in love on the spot. But Como could not stick around the docks and play boyfriend because he was a wanted man. As a result he decided to board a ship headed to China where he would work in the boiler room amongst a bunch of other sailors.

Como was one thread of the unnecessary drama.

The other thread was Turk (Victor McLaglen). Turk was a big, gruff, brute who happened to believe that Toy was into him. He thought Toy's affections were a sign of something more than her doing her job, which was prostitution. He took her signs as actual love as though he was the best thing since sliced bread and she recognized it. The truth is he was a john, and the moment she found Como she forgot all about Turk and she forgot all about that entire lifestyle of hers. However, Turk was not ready or willing to let Toy go, but he had to board a ship so he had to leave her alone for at least the next six months.

That was the Turk thread of the unnecessary drama.

Aboard the ship, Turk and Como became the best of friends. Turk saw that Como was a real standup guy and he befriended him. What Turk and Como did not know is that they had eyes on the exact same girl. Como, for good reason, because she was truly in love with him, and he was in love with her. Turk, however, had no good reason to be waxing poetically about Mary when he didn't even know where she lived, who she was, or if in fact she truly loved him. You knew this would become an issue later and it did, and that's the biggest bone of contention I actually had with this movie.

The two threads intertwined when both Turk and Como docked back in San Francisco. The drama truly stemmed from Turk having this obsession with Toy and this bewildering understanding that she actually loved him and wanted him. He was an absolute moron, but I don't think he was so dumb as to take subtle signs of affection to be actual love and desire. It was like this guy had not been a sailor his whole life.

For whatever reason, he thought that Toy was not like other janes. Toy did not help matters when later, after Turk and Como returned from sea, she accepted money from Turk in order for her and Como to skip town. She had to know that Turk had serious feelings for her. He proposed to her God's sake! So, for her to then take money from Turk was none other than a clear sign to him that she at least had some feelings for him. Another woman--a smarter woman, less desperate woman--would've shut him down the moment he mentioned marriage. She would've said clearly and unequivocally that she was not in love with him, and that she did not want to marry him, but Toy was too shy or too distracted to do that.

It ended with Turk doing right by Como, but not until he had done wrong by him. It was a frustrating mess because of Turk's irrational behavior. There was drama to be had without Turk being emotionally stunted, the writers only needed to look a little harder.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

This movie was just strange; and not in a good way.

Vicki (Joan Blondell) was married to Tony Wallace (Warren William). They seemed to be in complete bliss. It was a fairly normal looking relationship for two people that are fond of each other. Then, within the first five minutes, Vicki playfully called Tony "diced carrots" during a bridge game, which drove him into a rage, then he flipped the card table over and slapped her.

It was bizarre.

And if that wasn't bizarre enough, Vicki went on behaving in a cheery, jubilant manner like some sort of Stepford wife, yet she insisted on a divorce. Her mood truly defied the nature of what had occurred and what she was requesting. She was slapped and she wanted a divorce, but she looked and behaved like she was in the best of moods-- as if she was totally unaffected by the matter. She still had a smile plastered on her face and not the least bit of angst.

Her friend Anita (Claire Dodd) only added to the weirdness of this movie. After the slap she had a sly grin on her face like she just saw something she wasn't supposed to and she was happy to be a witness. Even when Anita informed Tony's neighbor George (Frank McHugh) she was smiling ear to ear as if she was excited by it all. Then, later she said, "A good sock in the eye is something every woman needs... at least once in her life."

WHAT!?

What am I watching??? What is going on??? Is this a sci-fi and all of these events are occurring on another planet? Are Vicki and Anita even human? Are they some sort of robots unable to properly emote?

Moving forward.

Vicki got her divorce then immediately married her lawyer Vernon Thorpe (Edward Everett Horton). She went on with her life as if she'd never experience love, loss, or any mature feelings. Later, Vicki enthusiastically invited Tony (her ex) over to the house for a dinner party. To call it poor taste is putting it mildly. When Tony got there she was wearing a backless dress that her husband (Vernon) forbade her to purchase, and she was throwing herself all over Tony.

Her next move was to provoke Vernon to hit her, which he did. She behaved like such an impudent child Vernon lost himself and slapped her. She then used that as grounds to run right back to Tony. Once she was back at Tony's and Vernon had given up his quest to win her back, she began provoking Tony! He then ripped off her dress and slapped her... AND SHE LIKED IT! It was like some kinky role playing stuff. The last words spoken in the movie were: "Tony dear. Hit me again."

The whole affair was queer.

This was by far the worst role I've ever seen Joan Blondell in. I normally like her in everything I see her in, but this was just lousy. I wonder if it was a contractual obligation or a money issue.

And what were the writers thinking, or the director for that matter? Were they high at the time? I know this is a comedy, but there was no rhyme or reason to it. Honestly, this movie just left me scratching my head.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

In 1930 sin took a holiday, in 1934 it's death that takes a holiday. When sin took a holiday it was figurative. Death taking a holiday was quite literal.

"Death Takes a Holiday" takes place in Italy. Death, tired or bored of his regular routine, decided to take a three day holiday to primarily "discover why men fear him like they do." On his holiday he would take the form of Prince Sirki (Fredric March), the prince of some foreign country. He would take on the full human form, anatomy, and biology so that he could fully experience what it is to be human.

He stayed as a guest at the estate of Duke Lambert (Guy Standing). Lambert was the only one who knew what Prince Sirki really was and he was forbidden to tell any other guests.

Almost instantly, two female guests were hopelessly attracted to Sirki: Alda de Parma (Katharine Alexander) and Rhoda Fenton (Gail Patrick). They fawned over him, but he was attracted to neither of them. He was irresistibly attracted to Grazia (Evelyn Venable), daughter of Princess Maria (Kathleen Howard), and also a guest in Lambert's home. This was going to shape up to be something of a problem because Grazia and Corrado (Kent Taylor) were an item.

"Death Takes a Holiday" lost me by and by as it pivoted off of being comical and contemporary into being serious and archaic. I don't find romances dripping with pretentious poetic and figurative speech interesting at all. In the attempt to sound profound, movies like this leave the viewer behind as he/she tries to figure out what the speaker means. Some things were clear, then others weren't; almost as if the writer wanted there to be a thousand different understandings.

In the end, my takeaway was that Grazia was suicidal.

Think about it. She felt a connection to Cirki right away. She then left and felt compelled to come back to Duke Lambert's estate. Then she fell in love with Cirki (death) very quickly and she was inexorably stuck on him. And if the viewer came to the conclusion that she was in love with Cirki the man-- when Cirki changed back to his regular form Grazia was just as entranced with him as before. So, now you tell me what does that mean?

She was suicidal and this movie romanticized it.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

"Murder at the Vanities" was fun for a murder mystery. To begin with, the movie was produced in the Hayes Code era, but I think this movie may have slipped through the cracks. They pushed the limits with outfits in this one. Loretta Young and Carole Lombard were shown in just their bra in "Born to Be Bad" (1934) and "Twentieth Century" (1934) respectively, yet the outfits in this movie were as skimpy as I've seen up to this point. In one scene the women were using only their hands to cover their breasts, and other outfits were showing plenty of side boob.

That was about as spicy as the movie got. As a murder mystery, it was standard fare. A producer named Jack Ellery (Jack Oakie) was putting on a big production called The Vanities. His two leads, Eric Lander (Carl Brisson) and Ann Ware (Kitty Carlisle) were engaged to be married which upset another main character named Rita Ross (Gertrude Michael).

Rita Ross was a mean one. She was bitterly jealous of Eric and Ann even though she and Eric were no longer an item, and she was abusive to her hired help, Norma (Dorothy Stickney). Jack was having a difficult enough time handling the three personalities without murders happening on his set, which is what happened backstage.

A female private eye was killed in the rafters where dangerous items had been falling from near Ann (Eric's fiance). Jack was trying to keep the show going while also allowing the police to investigate. It was a tough juggling act.

Rita Ross would be killed before the movie ended. I only bring it up because she was killed by a bullet while a prop gun was being fired. It's the same thing that was done in "The Death Kiss" (1932), "The Crime of Helen Stanley" (1934), and "Journal of a Crime" (1934).

What truly differentiated "Murder at the Vanities" from other murder mysteries was Jack Ellery doing his level best to prevent the cops from shutting down his production before it was over. He had to do a lot of convincing and it made for some comedic scenes.

Free on Odnoklassniki.

"Thirty Day Princess" is one of those movies that used the same actress to play two different identical roles. "Strangers in Love" (1932), "Twin Husbands" (1933), as well as a couple of other movies did the same thing in the early-thirties. You know that it will lead to some sort of mix up or confusion.

In "Thirty Day Princess," the small country of Taronia was in need of a loan to build affordable housing and provide hot water to many of its citizens. An American banker named Richard M. Gresham (Edward Arnold) had the idea of selling bonds in America to fund the Taronian project, but Taronia was such an unknown country that selling bonds for them would prove nearly impossible. Taronia would need a spokesperson to go on an American tour to garner the interest of the American people. That job would go to Princess Catterina Theodora Margarita aka Zizzi (Sylvia Sidney). She had the looks to interest the simpleminded Americans.

Zizzi got sick with the mumps upon her first day in America. It seemed as though all hope was lost until Gresham (the banker) came up with another idea. He had private investigators scour New York City to find Zizzi's doppelganger, and they came back with an identical woman named Nancy Lane (also Sylvia Sidney). Nancy Lane was already an actress which made her doubly perfect. With a little coaching she could master the Taronian accent, culture, and history all for the nice sum of $10,000. And there was an additional $5,000 in it for her if she could schmooze Porter Madison III (Cary Grant), a newspaper owner who mercilessly attacked Gresham whenever he could. You knew that Nancy (acting as the princess) and Porter would fall in love. You also knew that her true identity would eventually be revealed.

I liked "Thirty Day Princess" for the most part, although I was waiting for the moment it would be revealed that Nancy was an imposter. How would they reveal it? How badly would Porter (Cary Grant) be hurt since he fell in love with the princess (really Nancy), etc.?

Her revelation was standard fare. It went about as I expected, yet the movie still hit a major pothole that made me give it a mandatory demerit.

After Nancy's identity was revealed and she was paid for her performance, the only thing left was the happily ever after between her and Porter. Porter would have to get over his anger and humiliation and realize he loved her.

He did just that, then Nancy did the irksome thing. She ripped up her check. She tore up her payment for pretending to be the princess because she never meant to fall in love and she never meant to hurt Porter.

Why o why do people do that? Why do people tear up, burn, or otherwise destroy the money they earned for doing what they promised they'd do? Sure, you may have a change of heart, but don't tear up the money!! Donate it if you must, but you earned it!! It's yours!!! I'd rather be morally embattled with money in my pocket rather than morally embattled and broke. Ugh that grinds my gears so much.

Besides that utterly bewildering and objectionable move by Nancy Lane, I had no real qualms with "Thirty Day Princess."

Free on Odnoklassniki.

"Born to be Bad" was a movie that was stuck in the middle for me. It wasn't good, that's for sure, but it wasn't quite bad either.

A very young woman named Letty Strong (Loretta Young) had a seven-year-old boy named Mickey (Jackie Kelk) who was a wild one. He stayed in trouble and was constantly skipping school. We find out that his behavior is directly attributable to his mother. Letty bore him at a young age and she was so spurned by life in general that she raised Mickey very atypically. She taught him life's lessons early and unfiltered, and she didn't harness him with tales of morality and ethics. She, herself, was tricking to take care of them.

When a driver for Amalgamated Dairies hit Mickey while he was playing in the street, we got our first view of Cary Grant. He played Malcolm 'Mal' Trevor, the president of Amalgamated Dairies and he wanted to do right by Letty and her boy.

Initially, I thought Malcolm was single with the way he approached Letty. It wasn't overtly romantic and desirous, but it certainly was a little more than business-like.

Malcolm would end up adopting Mickey in order to keep him out of a group home. That's when we found out that Mal was married.

Now I'm thinking, "How are you and Letty going to be a romantic item? Is your wife ugly or mean? Is your wife an invalid? Or is your wife out of the picture altogether?"

I was wrong on all accounts.

Mrs. Alyce Trevor (Marion Burns) was pleasant, pretty, and present. She was the perfect wife. We didn't even hear a fuss from her when Mal brought home a seven-year-old with behavioral problems. Likewise, she didn't fuss about a very beautiful and seductive Letty staying at her home. And she barely fussed when Letty pretty much stole her husband.

Yeah, that happened.

Letty worked on Malcolm to get her son back. Her main weapon was sex and she knew how to use it. And she did. Malcolm fell for Letty and he fell hard. He even told his wife that he was in love with Letty. And that's where I had a problem.

By all accounts and by all depictions, Malcolm was a saint. He was wealthy, big-hearted, and never raised his voice even when he had been wronged. This guy could practically walk on water. So, when he cheated on his wife--and make no mistake about it, he cheated on his wife--I thought, "There it is! He's no saint. He wants what every other man wanted from Letty (she even paid her doctor's bill with sex). Now we're going to see the real Mal." But then they made him a saint even in cheating!!!

Malcolm professed his undying love for Letty, which she captured on phonograph. She thought she entrapped him which would give her the leverage she needed to get Mickey back. Come to find out, he told his wife that same night!!

Come on man. Gimme a break.

Malcolm was so sickeningly saintly that he told his wife he cheated on her and was, in fact, in love! No, it wasn't a fling with him. It wasn't that his sex drive got the best of him. This fool was genuinely in love. And he was a fool because he couldn't see that Letty was playing him.

And even more saintly than Malcolm was Alyce. She had a few unkind words for Letty, but ultimately she was more matronly towards her than catty. Where most women (decent women too) would be trying to claw Letty's eyes out, Alyce simply yielded her position to the new lady in Mal's life and gave her some good advice on how to keep him. She lectured Letty on how much of a gentleman Malcolm was and went on singing his praises even though he just cheated on her.

The whole thing was surreal. It definitely didn't resemble anything I would call realistic. It was a Hollywoodland scene for sure.

As much as I didn't like Malcolm and Alyce (for being too unreal), I liked Letty. She was a little bit much with the constant smoking and perpetual use of her sexuality, but she was apologetic about it. Letty was rough around the edges. She'd been beaten up by life and it showed. For my part, I liked that she remained hard boiled even after the virtuous and divinely-crafted Malcolm professed his love for her. In another movie his love would've reached her soul and reformed her.

His love and kindness did reach her; as did the kindness of Alyce, but it wasn't like Letty ran out to join a convent as a result. She didn't follow through with her plan to take Mickey away, but we could see that it didn't affect her overall character.

In the end Letty did the right thing and bowed out of the picture. Mickey would be better off in a loving home with two saints raising him than he would be with her grinding out a living. And Mal would be better off with Alyce than being married to her.

Free on DailyMotion.

"Little Children" was two unhappily married adulterers and an ostracized p*dophile; and apparently that makes a movie.

The first hour of the movie meandered to the inevitable. We got a glimpse of a man (Patrick Wilson) and a woman (Kate Winslett) who were clearly in loveless marriages which is always a prelude to cheating; especially when the two kissed in the park and couldn't stop thinking of one another. Once we got to the inevitable sexual encounter with the gratuitous nudity, and the romanticizing of adultery, it seemed to consume the better part of the movie. They dragged their pathetic story to the bitter end with the message being: extramarital affairs are OK when you're in a passionless marriage. Just get it out of your system and go on with your marriage.

There wasn't even a true resolution and conclusion to their affair. Patrick Wilson got hurt skateboarding and Kate Winslett ran from the park where she was waiting for him. None of this was an indicator that their relationship was truly over. For all we know that could've been just a brief respite for the two ungrateful philanderers who were playing house with each other while their spouses worked.

Meanwhile, the pedo (Jackie Earle Haley) was featured a few more times doing some creepy stuff. The movie tried to make the community look bad when they ordered all the kids out of the pool while he was swimming. As though the suburban community were a pack of easily frightened meerkats with no real cause for alarm. As to say, "Can't the guy just swim among kids? He was only convicted of indecent exposure?"

No, he can't swim around my kids because it's indecent exposure today and molestation tomorrow.

They ended the movie with a "touching" moment, if you want to call it that. Jackie Earle Haley, apparently bothered by his being ostracized, seemed to have done a self-castration as a means of atonement or just as a means of trying to fix himself. He was hurt badly and was in danger of bleeding out. That's when his main nemesis, Larry Hedges (Noah Emmerich), saw him and rescued him.

Whatever.

Between this and "The Woodsman" it seems viewers love repentant child predators.

Have a heart for the child molester. That was my takeaway from this gobbly gook.

I was interested because Kevin Bacon, Mos Def, and David Alan Grier are in it. Kevin Bacon has done some awesome movies over his career and I thought this may be another one. Wrong! Bacon plays a guy named Walter Rossworth who just got out of prison for child molesting. These guys are so low on the filth totem pole that some of them don't even make it out of prison. In fact, they have to be put into protective custody (PC) to ensure their survival.

Walter gets out of prison, gets a place (across the street from a school!!!), lands a job, and bags a girlfriend all within the first 15 minutes of the movie which is about two weeks cinema time. There are felons guilty of holding marijuana who don't get those kinds of breaks. Just seeing this slimy perv out and about turned my stomach. But the part that bothered me the most, or the character who bothered me the most, was Vicki (Kyra Sedgwick). She was straight from the Ho' Emporium which is a subsidiary of Ho's R Us. She works at a lumber yard with a bunch of dudes and the ones she doesn't like she cusses out like a sailor, but Walter, she likes. She screws Walter on their first encounter. But before having sex with him she asks, "What are your secrets?"

Walter: "Why?"

Vicki: "Because I'd like to know before we have sex. I don't like to waste time."

Me: "What? Really? Are you really doing this? You're a different kinda harlot."

Vicki: "So, are you going to tell me?"

Walter: "No."

And then she slept with him anyway. And it was "intense" as she said. Then, a few scenes later and a few more sexual escapades later he tells her that he molested girls. What was the response of Ms. Screw-First-Ask-Questions-Last? Shock. But she quickly got over it because everyone needs love. Her brothers molested her, and she loves them still, so why not love this child molester?

If I wasn't flabbergasted at her behavior the first time, I certainly was when she decided to resume her affair with the pedophile. I guess the small niche where I'm from I'm not used to pedophile-loving women. There's usually this maternal thing in the women I know that keeps such men at bay.

Vicki is one of those mother hens that loves a project. Walter was damaged goods and she was the woman to repair him.

Bottom line, I couldn't get with the program. I don't know what's the point of doing a sentimental piece about a child molester. Let's do a sentimental piece on John Wayne Gacy while we're at it. I don't care how far he went with the girls, because however far he went was too far.

I don't know what I expected from this movie: a reformed sinner, a pedo who helps police, or a perv who slowly wastes away being eaten up by his crime. Any of these would've been acceptable. What I didn't expect was a pedophile protagonist with a fairy godmother who chases him around like a wounded puppy dog.

But we should love Walter because he resisted his urge to molest another little girl he met in the park. Hurray Walter! And, because of his pedo-spidey senses he was able to beat up another child molester and, in effect, help catch him. Hurray again! Walter you're a regular superhero. In fact, you deserve a plaque. Everyone who hates you is wrong. This movie was screaming, "You see, you shouldn't hate pedophiles, you should love them and come to their aid."

This was some putrid claptrap not worthy of being outhouse toilet paper.