Mubi Monday: House By The River (1950)

If you're like me then hearing the name Fritz Lang has your mind going immediately to two all-time classics of cinema. At the very least. Lang helmed some enduring masterpieces. You could even say that he Brigitte Helmed at least one of them (hey, it might be a weak pun, but I felt the need to share it). There are so many more movies throughout his filmography that are also worth checking out though, and House By The River is one such example.

Unable to control himself when the housemaid, Emily (Dorothy Patrick), comes close to him while dressed pretty and smelling nice, author Stephen Byrne (Louis Hayward) makes an unwanted advance. Being loudly rebuffed, he sets out to keep Emily quiet as a neighbour moves around outside. Which leads to murder. Stephen then concocts a story to garner the sympathy and assistance of his brother, John (Lee Bowman), and the two of them set out to dispose of the body and conceal the crime. Soon making use of the "disappearance" of Emily to gain some publicity for his books, Stephen starts to become more brazen, and it soon becomes clear that he can easily shift the blame to his brother if the finger of suspicion is pointed his way. It could be his wife, Marjorie (Jane Wyatt), piecing things together though.

Based on a novel by A. P. Herbert, this was one of a good run of thrillers and noirs written by Mel Dinelli, and I highly recommend checking out their first half dozen or so movies (at the very least). It's a delicious and dark premise, especially when the second half shows Stephen being "inspired" in his writing, and the two brothers being inextricably tied together by the crime is a great way to give viewers a way to easily root for one and against the other. 

It's hard to remember to credit Lang, but the fact is that he does such a good job with the direction that the film never feels forced or awkward, despite the contrivances being dotted around the plot to keep raising the stakes on the way to a strange, but very entertaining, final sequence. Lang steers the whole thing with a steady hand, allowing for it to jump between a feeling of very dark comedy and very palpable danger.

Hayward is very good in his role, always getting close to full-on panto villain without becoming outright laughable, and he's helped by some solid supporting performers. Bowman may have a decent amount of screentime, but he has to be the growing conscience of the film, meaning that he doesn't get to have nearly as much fun. He's easy enough to like though, as is Wyatt, and both deserve so much better than the apparent fate awaiting them in the third act. Patrick doesn't get many scenes, obviously, but does well enough in her role, and Ann Shoemaker, Jody Gilbert, Peter Brocco, Howland Chamberlain, and Will Wright all deliver enjoyable character turns.

Like some other Lang movies I could mention, although they are movies that aren't the first ones to be brought up when his filmography is being discussed, this has an excellent mix of superior visual language, dark content handled with a light touch, and sheer entertainment. Recommended.

8/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Prime Time: The Man Who Cheated Himself (1950)

NOTE - please be wary of the horrible colourised version on Prime Video. I am reviewing the film, but went out of my way to find the original B&W presentation after quickly realising how awful the Prime Video version looked.

Written by Seton I. Miller and Philip MacDonald, The Man Who Cheated Himself is one of many typical noir films you can stumble across once you've made you way through most of the more well-known titles. It has a director (Felix E. Feist) who seems to be a safe and competent pair of hands, there's at least one star name (Lee J. Cobb) to help hold your attention, and the thrills and tension are couched in a feeling of familiarity and cosy expectation that things will somehow work out alright in the end . . . for someone.

Cobb plays Lt. Ed Cullen, a man who is about to work more closely with his newly-promoted brother, Andy (John Call). Andy is doubly happy, having done well at work just before his wedding to Janet (Lisa Howard). Ed has his own looming happiness whenever Lois Frazer (Jane Wyatt) separates from her husband, Howard (Harlan Wade), but things abruptly change when Howard returns home to catch his wife being unfaithful to him. Some bullets fly and Ed has to take charge, getting rid of the body and ensuring that everything looks good enough for when the main investigating officer turns up. And wouldn't you know it . . . Andy ends up on the case.

I'm not sure if I'll remember this a year from now. I'm not even sure if I'll remember it next month. I had fun with it while it was on though. It's all about the situation, watching Ed alternate between relaxing and tensing up as he tries to stay one step ahead of the investigation, and there are particularly enjoyable scenes featuring Charles Arnt and Marjorie Bennett as two people who may have inadvertently witnessed some corpse disposal. It's just a shame that things never get more intense, and the third act feels a bit padded out, making the 81-minute runtime feel surprisingly overlong. Feist does well enough with the material, but he undermines everything slightly by refusing to add any edge to any scenes.

Cobb is a great choice for the main role, a man forced to make one bad choice after another, yet also doing his best to protect everyone he cares about. Call has to play his part with a bit more sappiness and innocence throughout the first half, especially in scenes that allow him to be loved up and happy alongside the lovely Howard, but he's easy enough to keep rooting for as he skirts closer and closer to a danger he is often oblivious to. Wyatt is just fine, but it's a shame that there are only two quick moments that allow her to show any sharp edges.

Like so many others of this ilk, there are obvious reasons why this isn't included alongside the classics of the era. It's still worth a watch though, especially when you have worked your way through many of the more obvious noir titles from the '40s and '50s. 

7/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing, and ALL of the links you need are here - https://linktr.ee/raidersofthepodcast
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

Amityville: The Evil Escapes (1989)

Well, well, well, if I thought that the third Amityville Horror movie was bad I should really have reserved my final judgment until seeing this film and, indeed, the sequels that would come after it. I'm now quite apprehensive about my future visits to Amityville but I've started so I'll have to finish. It's my OCD and if things just keep getting worse and worse well . . . . . . . . maybe I'll save some other poor soul from my fate and it will all be worth it.

As you might have guessed from the title, Amityville: The Evil Escapes, this movie relocates the horror of the first few movies. The evil from Amityville does, indeed, escape. But how would it make such an escape? Possessing an unsuspecting visitor? Staying indoors while some rich ghosthunter moves the entire house across the country? A portal of some kind? No, the evil essence of Amityville puts itself into a . . . . . . . . . lamp.

It's hard to take a horror movie seriously when the main icon of evil is an upright lamp so fair play to writer-director Sandor Stern (and John G. Jones, who wrote the book) for sticking to his guns and providing audiences with more lamp-centric horror than they probably ever knew that they wanted. Of course, the movie is preposterous AND pretty dull and just downright bad. I was initially going to put all of the blame onto Stern but I now feel a bit guilty for two reasons. 1) The man did write the screenplay for the first movie, proving that he could do a good job with the material. 2) He also wrote and directed the excellent Pin (trust me, seek it out if you like great psychological horror).

The cast are no great shakes and don't do anything to help the weak material. Patty Duke, Jane Wyatt, Fredric Lehne (who is saddled with most of the more ridiculous lines), Lou Hancock, Brandy Gold, Zoe Trilling, Aron Eisenberg, etc, all have at least one laughable moment and none of them manage to give solid performances from start to finish.

There's nothing here to make this movie worth a watch. Not even any of the lowest common denominators - gratuitous nudity or excessive gore. Nope, all we have is an evil lamp. Indeed, the ridiculousness of that sentence really tells you all you need to know about the film.

3/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Amityville-The-Evil-Escapes-DVD/dp/B000A0XTP8/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1346100249&sr=8-2