Hell-Fire Austin (1932, directed by Forrest Sheldon)


Having just gotten out of the army after serving in World War I, Bouncer (Nat Pendleton) and his friend, “Hell-Fire” Austin (Ken Maynard), head out to find their fortune in the west.  Austin claims that he’s an old west legend but, despite his claims, he still can’t get away with not paying his bill at a local café.  Austin and Bouncer are arrested and sentenced to work on a chain gang.

Times are tough but they start to look up when businessman Mark Edmonds (Alan Roscoe) arranges for them to be set free, on the condition that they train his horse and then ride it to victory in an upcoming race.  Edmonds wants the ranch that’s owned by Judy Brooks (Ivy Merton) and, in order to get it, he has to make sure that her horse, Tarzan, doesn’t win the race and the prize money that comes with it.  The only problem with the plan is that Austin likes Tarzan and he’s a little partial to Judy as well.

Hell-Fire Austin is an amusing film.  Like many of  the early western stars, Ken Maynard was a former rodeo star who turned to the movies and he looked authentic jumping on and riding a horse.  In Hell-Fire Austin, he and Nat Pendleton are a good comedy team, playing off of each other as only two friends who have been through both war and prison could.  The comedy comes less from what they say and more from their attitude towards each other.  They’re stuck with each other, no matter how much they might wish differently.  Hell-Fire Austin is an extremely simple movie but fans of the genre should enjoy it.  It’s post-World War I setting adds an extra element of meaning to the story, with Austin and Bouncer standing in for all the soldiers who, having seen terrible fighting in Europe, were now back in America and wondering what to do with their rest of their lives.  Austin and Bouncer had west, hoping to find a life like the one they’ve seen in the movies.  They find it but, of course, they have to go to prison first.

Ken Maynard was an actor who probably could have been nicknamed “Hell Fire” himself.  He was a big star in the early days of Hollywood but his reputation for drinking too much and being egotistical and temperamental sabotaged his career and he ended up back where he began, doing rodeo tricks for Ringling Bros.  He spent his last years living in a trailer, nearly forgotten and selling “memorabilia” that later turned out to be fake, a sad ending for an authentic cowboy.

Music Video of the Day: Problem Child by The Beach Boys (1990, directed by ????)


I have never seen any of the Problem Child films and I have mixed feelings about learning that, in the 90s, The Beach Boys had gone from Pet Sounds to performing the theme song for this particular film.  But none of that matters because we’re all here for Gilbert Gottfried, rest in peace.

Enjoy!

Law of the Rio Grande (1931, directed by Forrest Sheldon)


I nearly didn’t review Law of the Rio Grande.

First, the only copies I could find were at the Internet Archive and on YouTube.  The available copies run 48 minutes but according to the IMDb, Law of the Rio Grande originally had a 57-minute run time.  If that number is correct, that means that the versions on the Internet Archive and YouTube are missing 9 minutes.  Since there doesn’t appear to have been anything objectionable in the film (this is a 1931 b-western, after all), I’m going to guess that the 9-minutes were probably cut when the movie started playing on television in the 50s.  That is something that happened to a lot of the old western programmers.  Television was quick to buy them because they were cheap and they made for appropriate children’s programming but the movies were always edited for time and often, the original versions were lost.

Secondly, edited or not, Law of the Rio Grande is not very good.  It was made, for a very low-budget, by Syndicate Pictures, a poverty row studio.  The majority of the cast was made up of actors who had found success in the silent era but who never made the adjustment to the sound era.  Though the actors have the right look to play cowboys, none of them know how to actually make dialogue sound convincing.  There’s also a persistent sound of crackling static in the background of most of the scenes.  I don’t know if that’s the fault of the film or if it’s just a bad upload but it’s obvious that the cast and crew of Law of the Rio Grande were not used to working with sound.

Despite the film’s title, the Rio Grande was nowhere to be seen in the version that I saw.  Instead, the film is about two outlaws, Jim (Bob Custer) and Cookie (Harry Todd), who are determined to go straight.  Jim and Cookie end up working for Colonel Lanning (Carlton S. King) and his daughter, Judy (Betty Mack).  But then a former acquaintance known as the Blanco Kid (Edmund Cobb) shows up and threatens to reveal the truth about Jim’s background.  It’s a typical western programmer, with the main message being you can’t escape your past but you can beat it up in a fair fight.

The kids probably loved it in 1931.  Today, it’s mostly interesting as an example of one of Bob Custer’s final films.  Custer was a legitimate rodeo star who went to Hollywood during the silent era and who had a lot of success because he looked authentic jumping on a horse.  Like many silent era stars, he didn’t have to actually recite or even know his lines.  He just had to be himself.  Unfortunately, the sound era destroyed his career because, while he may have looked like a character from the old west, he didn’t sound like one.  Unable to find work at the major studios, Custer ended up making movies like this one for studios like Syndicate Pictures.  He retired from acting in 1936 and went on to become a building inspector for city of Los Angeles.  It turned out that he was a better engineer than he wan actor and eventually, he named Chief Building Inspector for the city of Newport Beach, California.  He passed away in 1974, nearly forty years after starring in his final film.  He was 76 years old.

TV Review: The Girl From Plainville 1.5 “Mirrorball” (dir by Pippa Bianco)


Well, I tried.

I really did.  Coming off of the high that I got off reviewing each episode of The Dropout, I thought it would be pretty easy to review all 8 episodes of The Girl From Plainville but, having watched the fifth episode last night, I think I’m done.

Don’t get me wrong.  I will continue to watch the series.  (There’s only three weeks left.)  And I’ll certainly include any thoughts that I have about the show in my “Week in Television” post.  But I think I’m done with trying to come up with 500-1000 words to use to review each episode because, quite frankly, there’s just not much to say about The Girl From Plainville.  The story of how Michelle Carter encouraged Conrad Roy to commit suicide is well-known.  The fact that Michelle Carter was put on trial and convicted is also well-known.  This show is trying to build-up suspense about a story that most viewers will already know.

It perhaps wouldn’t matter if The Girl From Plainville had something new or unexpectedly insightful to say about the case.  But the fact of the matter is that Michelle Carter is not that interesting of a human being.  Everything that I’ve read and seen about the case seems to suggest that she really didn’t have much going on inside of her brain.  Because she lacked an actual personality, Michelle learned how to behave and how to interact through social media and television.  Conrad’s death allowed her to live her life as if it was an episode of Glee, or at least that’s what Michelle was hoping.  And now, years after Conrad’s suicide, Michelle is out of prison and being played in a miniseries by Elle Fanning.  It doesn’t seem to be quite fair, does it?

As for last night’s episode, it felt pretty much like a filler episode.  The prosecution team continued to build a case against Michelle while Michelle had to deal with going from briefly being the most popular girl in school to being an absolute pariah.  We also got a few clumsily handled flashbacks to Michelle texting Conrad.  Last weekend, I watched Dopesick, which also aired on Hulu and also used a jumbled timeline.  The timeline in Dopesick did occasionally get confusing but, at the same time, it worked because it took place over several years and the actors could be made to look older or younger, depending on the timeline.  If Michael Keaton had a hint of hair, you know the show was taking place in the 90s.  If he was bald, you know it was 2004.  The Girl From Plainville, on the other hand, is only dealing with a two-year period and, as such, it’s hard to keep track of what’s happening when.  The characters played by Elle Fanning and Chloe Sevigny pretty much look and act the same in 2012 as they do in 2014.  It’s a very clumsily constructed story structure, one that does the miniseries little good.

That said, Elle Fanning continues to give a convincingly unhinged performance as Michelle and Colton Ryan is appropriately vulnerable as Conrad.  (Sorry,  I’m not going to call him Coco.)  I think if the miniseries had done away with all of the flashback nonsense and just told their story in chronological order, Fanning and Ryan’s strong performances would have been better served.  For now, I’m done with doing full reviews of this show but, if next week’s episode is a surprisingly good one, that could change.

Music Video of the Day: Wall of Hate by Shine (1988, directed by Richard Levine)


To tell the truth, up until 8:03 pm yesterday, I had never hear of Shine nor had I ever heard their first single, Wall of Hate.  It was at 8:03 that I came across an entry for this video over at the Internet Movie Video Database.  I liked the song so I decided to go with it.

This video was uploaded to YouTube by George Wheelwright, who was a member of the group.  In the video’s description, he explains that this was Shine’s first single and that it was released by RCA.  He writes that the song did well on college radio and the video occasionally aired on MTV “but alas didn’t set the world on fire, story of a thousand bands i know, but we had a great time…”  I’m glad they had a great time because it’s actually a pretty good song.  Wheelwright adds that the video was shot around Glasgow.  The video has a very 80s, Miami Vice-like feel to it, as does the song.

Today, I’m featuring this video as a way to honor all of the good bands that “didn’t set the world on fire” but who still produced some damn good music.  If you get a chance, click on the video YouTube link and let George Wheelwright know that the song is still appreciated.

Enjoy!

The Hard Hombre (1931, directed by Otto Brower)


In this short and comedic western, Hoot Gibson plays a cowboy who is so mild-mannered that his nickname is Peaceful.  William “Peaceful” Patton is such a pacifist that he’s even named after the first Quaker, William Penn.  When the movie starts, a group of cowboys are shooting at each other from opposite sides of a ravine.  Patton rides into the middle of the fight and tells them to put down their guns and settle things peacefully.  Everyone ignores him.

Patton has gotten a job in a neighboring town, working on the ranch of Senora Martini (Lina Basquette).  Leaving behind his beloved mother (Jessie Arnold), Patton heads to the Martini ranch and he discovers that everyone is scared to death of him.  That’s because Patton looks just like a notorious outlaw known as The Hard Hombre.  The Hard Hombre has killed a man for every year that he’s been alive.  Realizing that he can use this to bring peace to the town and to help Senora Martini get her cattle back from rival rancher Joe Barlowe (G. Raymond Nye), Patton pretends to be the Hard Hombre.

Soon, everyone in town is getting along and Senora Martini has fallen in love with the man that she thinks is the Hard Hombre.  But then, the Hard Hombre actually does show up in town!  Even worse, Peaceful’s mother also shows up and wants to know why everyone thinks her son is a killer!

With a 64 minute running time, this low-budget programmer isn’t bad.  It pokes fun at every western cliché, showing that even in the early days of Hollywood, the conventions of the western were already set in stone.  The film gets a surprising amount of comedic mileage from people acting scared of the mild-looking and acting Hoot Gibson.  Gibson was one of the earliest western stars, playing heroes who used their wits and who rarely carried a gun.  Appearing in a film for a poverty row studio was a step down for Gibson but his casting still pays off in That Hard Hombre and he gives a good performance as a cowboy who just wants everyone to get along and to make his mother proud.

Book Review: The 103rd Ballot by Robert K. Murray


Cinematically, the 1968 Democrat Convention has been done to death.

There have been a lot of movies made about the 1968 Democrat Convention and certainly, I can understand why.  Not only did you have an epic battle taking place in the Convention Hall between the Democrat establishment and the reformers but there were also riots in the streets.  The police were beating up protestors and slogans were being chanted and Haskell Wexler was filming footage for Medium Cool.  Yes, it was all very cinematic but again, it’s just been done to death.  We don’t need another movie about what happened in 1968.

Instead, what is needed is a movie about the 1924 Democrat Convention, which was held in Madison Square Garden and which lasted for two and a half weeks because none of the men running for President could get enough votes.  The two major candidates were Al Smith of New York and William McAdoo of California.  Smith was an anti-prohibitionist and was seeking to become the first Catholic to be nominated by a major political party.  McAdoo was the son-in-law of America’s greatest monster, Woodrow Wilson.  Smith’s campaign was managed by a young Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was making a political comeback after being previously struck down by polio.  Though he was not himself a member and had no use for the organization, McAdoo found himslef being supported by the Ku Klux Klan, who was then at the height of its political influence and which opposed Smith because of his Catholicism.

With neither Smith nor McAdoo able to command a majority of the delegates, other “favorite son” candidates emerged.  U.S. Sen. Oscar Underwood of Alabama, a longtime opponent of Klan, was not only nominated but also fought a heroic but losing battle to insert a plank condemning the Klan into the Democrat platform.  West Virginia’s John W. Davis was nominated, as was Kansas’s Jonathan M. Davis.  Meanwhile, in the wings, William Jennings Bryan managed the presidential campaign of his brother, Charles, and waited to see if the Convention would perhaps turn to him and put him on the national ticket for a record fourth time.  (Little did Bryan know, of course, that the Scopes Monkey Trial was waiting for him, right around the corner….)

In the end, 58 men received votes for the presidential nomination at the 1924 Democrat Convention.  It took a record 103 ballots for the party to finally nominate a candidate who, after all of that, would still have to run against the enormously popular incumbent, Calvin Coolidge.  Along the way, there were fist fights, political chicanery,  and many accusations of lies, bad faith, and prejudice.  FDR re-launcher his career with his pro-Smith speech but, in doing so, he also inspired the jealousy that would lead to Al Smith becoming one of the leading opponents of the New Deal.  Meanwhile, the aging William Jennings Bryan struggled to control a party that no longer had much use for him.

It’s a fascinating story, and one that I know about because I read a book called The 103rd Ballot, which tells the story of not only the convention but also the election that followed it.  The book was written by Robert K. Murray and it was originally published in 1976.  It’s been around for a while but the issues that it deals with and the politicians that are profiled all feel very familiar.  Today, control of the major political parties is still being fought over by the activist who do the work and the politicians who reap the rewards.  Extremism is still a threat.  Just as the Democrats did in 1924, Americans are still trying to figure out what the country’s role in the world should be.  As described by Robert K. Murray, historic figures like FDR, Al Smith, McAdoo, Calving Coolidge, and John W. Davis all come to life.  Their motivations are often petty but their actions change the course of history.

The next presidential election is going to be the 100-year anniversary of the 1924 debacle and the issues that made that convention so chaotic are the same issues that political types are still dealing with today.  In 1924, America was recovering for a war and a pandemic.  In 2024 …. well, you get the idea.  The main difference, of course, is that we now have air conditioning.  At the 1924 convention, air conditioning was still a relatively new concept and the delegates spent two and a half-weeks jammed into Madison Square Garden in the summer.  Agck!

So, seriously, some aspiring Aaron Sorkin (though not Sorkin himself, that’s the last thing we need) needs to buy the rights to this book and get to work on a movie or a miniseries about what happened in 1924.  I can’t wait to see who plays Al Smith!

Film Review: Death on the Nile (dir by Kenneth Branagh)


The main mystery at the heart of Kenneth Branagh’s adaption of Agatha Christie’s Death on the Nile is not who committed the film’s murders but just how seriously we, the audience, are meant to take what we’re watching.

In this much-delayed (by COVID and a cast full of actors who could not escape personal scandal) follow-up to 2017’s Murder on the Orient Express, Kenneth Branagh again plays the eccentric detective Hercule Poirot.  Poirot is again in an exotic land, this time Egypt.  And again, circumstances have conspired to isolate him and a group of wealthy and glamorous suspects from the rest of the world.  In Murder on the Orient Express, everyone was stuck on a train.  Here, they are stuck on a boat.  Admittedly, the boat provides a nice view of the pyramids but, eventually, even those testaments to engineering seem to be mocking the people stuck on the boat.  The pyramids, after all, have survived for centuries.  The same cannot be said for the people who have come to see them.  Over the course of the film, there are several murders.  (Indeed, Death on the Nile is significantly bloodier than Murder on the Orient Express and, unlike what happened on the Orient Express, the majority of the victims have done nothing to deserve their grisly fate.)  Like Murder on the Orient Express, Death on the Nile is based on a novel by Agatha Christie.  Branagh changes a few details from Christie’s novel, which is understandable since it’s important to keep the audience guessing.  For instance, Bouc (Tom Bateman), who was Poirot’s assistant in Murder on the Orient Express, returns in Branagh’s film version and provides some continuity between the two films.  It also provides a nice side-mystery as the audience tries to figure out how Poirot and Bouc could just happen to run into each other in Egypt.  Fear not, the film offers up a solution.

As is to be expected, the victims and the suspects are brought to life by a cast of stars and familiar character actors, all of whom act up a storm.  Some, of course, do a better job of embracing the melodrama than others.  Armie Hammer and Gal Gadot play a glamorous couple and, regardless of how we feel about Hammer as a human being, it works because Gadot and Hammer both look they could have stepped out of a sophisticated, 1930s RKO comedy.  (Hammer’s stiff line readings, which are totally appropriate for his character, would actually be a highlight of the film if he wasn’t Armie Hammer.)  Russell Brand is oddly subdued as the doctor with the secret while Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders show up to keep all of the British comedy fanatics happy.  Sophie Okonedo plays a jazz singer and how you react to her character will depend on how much patience you have for anachronistic musical numbers.  (There’s a surprisingly large amount of them.)  Annettte Bening plays Bouc’s mother and there’s really not a subtle moment to be found in her performance but again, it works because Death on the Nile is not a particularly subtle film.  It’s a film that demands a certain amount of calculated overacting and Bening is enough of a veteran performer to deliver exactly what the film needs.

No, there’s nothing particularly subtle about Death on the Nile but then again, that’s always been a part of Kenneth Branagh’s appeal.  Branagh’s endless (and often justified) faith in his own abilities as a director and an actor means that Branagh is willing to do things that others would avoid, whether that means making a 4-hour version of Hamlet or a black-and-white film about growing up in Belfast or, for that matter, a gaudy Agatha Christie adaptation in which he plays the lead detective.  Death on the Nile is a celebration of melodrama, beautiful people, and nice clothes.  Even the fact that the Egyptian backdrops are obviously phony works to the film’s advantage, giving the proceedings a bit of a retro, Hollywood studio system feel.  At its best, Death on the Nile is an homage to old-fashioned camp..

And yet, there are hints that Branagh means for the film to be something more.  The films opens with a prologue, one that is not included in Christie’s book or in anything else that Christie wrote about Poirot.  The prologue, which is filmed in black-and-white, features Poirot getting terribly wounded during World War I and growing his famous mustache to cover his scars.  We also discover that the great love of Poirot’s life was a nurse who died during the war.  Later, while solving the murder, Poirot often talks about how he has shut himself away from the world, never wanting to risk falling in love again.  There’s even a hint that Poirot has fallen for one of the suspects.  Branagh’s a good actor and can obviously pull off Poirot’s inner turmoil but those little serious asides still feel out of place in a film that features Armie Hammer and Russell Brand as romantic rivals.  It’s hard not to wonder if Branagh is in on the joke or if he’s seriously attempting to use Poirot as a symbol for an alienated and traumatized society.

One could argue that Poirot uses his mustache to hide from the world in much the same way that many people have spent the past two years using their masks to hide from COVID.  Except, of course, Death on the Nile was actually filmed three years ago, before anyone had even heard of COVID-19.  The film was first delayed by the theaters shutting down.  It was delayed a second time by the scandals surrounded Armie Hammer.  (Indeed, this film will probably be the last major studio release to feature Armie Hammer.)  It was finally released in February of this year and, within a month, it was on Hulu and HBOMax.  It didn’t exactly kill at the box office but I think Death on the Nile will be rediscovered over the years.  It’s a minor entry in Branagh’s filmography but it’s still enjoyably silly, regardless of whether that was Branagh’s intention or not.