The Miami Story (1954)

A really strong cast, 11 December 2020

A group of Miami’s civic leaders and police bring a gangster out of “retirement” to help take down the city’s crime syndicate. 

Overall, I found The Miami Story very enjoyable.  Sure, there are issues with the plot that require a gigantic leap in logic, but if you’re willing to look past these issues (and I looked past most – not all, but most), it’s a fairly rewarding and entertaining experience.  The film is more graphic than most I’ve seen from the era, with a woman being badly beaten-up, more blood than I expected, and a more explicit inference of prostitution.  For 1954, this is about as far as you could go in the depiction of the sleaze and nastiness resulting from crime.  The acting is  particularly noteworthy.  Barry Sullivan (rock solid and believable in the lead), Luther Adler (the perfect baddie), and Adele Jergens (as the tough-as-nails “dame”) are all outstanding.  But I was happiest to see Beverly Garland’s fantastic performance.  I’ve always been a fan regardless of the dreck she sometimes appeared in.  The Miami Story also benefits from solid direction.  Fred Sears’ pacing is perfect.  From the opening shootout to the final chase, The Miami Story rarely lets up.  And, the film looks fantastic.  I especially enjoyed the shots of Miami from the 50s – how things have changed!  It’s all nicely done.

Finally, I’ve often seen The Miami Story listed as a film noir.  I’d argue that’s not exactly accurate.  I could cite a number of reasons, but the main one is the film’s ending.  You don’t get that in a typical noir.

6/10

Spiker (1985)

Who was this made for?  10 December 2020

Not that it matters, but here goes - two beach volleyball players are invited to tryouts for the U.S. men’s Olympic team.  One makes it, one doesn’t, and the team qualifies for the Olympics – end of movie.

Spiker is the purest form of garbage (and not the entertaining kind of garbage) from beginning to end that I’ve seen in a long time.  As I’ve said countless times, I watch and rate movies based on entertainment value.  With Spiker, there’s not an ounce of entertainment to be had in the entire ridiculously long 104 minute runtime.  The endless volleyball practices, the stock volleyball footage, the inane conversations, people eating, and the predictable nature of most everything that happens – 104 minutes of this crap.  Who cares? 

And what was that whole cloak and dagger bit in the middle of the movie about getting some sort of secret documents out of Poland (I think I have that right)?  It leads nowhere and adds nothing other than an extra 10-15 minutes to the 104 minute runtime. 

Not that I wanted another minute (have I mentioned the 104 minute runtime), but I couldn’t believe Spiker ended just as the team qualified for the Olympics.  You’d have thought going for a gold medal would be the big payoff. 

I haven’t mentioned the acting (bad), the directing (dull), the plot (pointless), or any other technical aspects (horrendous) of Spiker.  It’s not worth the effort. 

In the end, I’m left with a number of questions – Why was this made?  Who was this made for?  Did anyone involved think they were making a “good” movie?  Did anyone expect to make a return on their investment?  Why was Michael Parks in this mess of a film? 

1/10 

Dark Alibi (1946)

“Skeletons in closets always speak loudest to police.”  10 December 2020

Charlie Chan agrees to help a man who has been wrongly convicted of murder during a bank robbery.  Even though his fingerprints were found at the scene of the crime, he swears he’s never been in that particular bank.  In nine days, he faces a date with the executioner if Chan can’t prove his innocence. 

I’ve never been much of a fan of the Monogram Chan films.  In general, I find them too short on plot and too long on comedy.  And that’s the case with Dark Alibi.  The film runs about 61 minutes in length.  I didn’t pull out a stopwatch or anything, but I’d wager that no more than 20 minutes is spent on plot development.  One of my favorite bits in most Chan films are the suspect interrogations.  Here, Chan runs through all of them at breakneck speed.  So our one chance to get to know something . . . anything about the characters is gone.  Instead, we’re treated to multiple scenes of Benson Fong and Mantan Moreland creeping around in the dark or talking about nothing.  Admittedly, the scenes with Moreland and partner Ben Carter doing their vaudeville comedy bit are truly amazing and the film’s highlight, but after the third such scene (when Chan embarrassingly joins in), I realized that this too was just padding.  Overall, it’s just a weak, rushed story that offers little of what I enjoy about watching a Chan film.

Dark Alibi does feature a few familiar faces in the supporting cast – John Eldredge, Russell Hicks, and Milton Parsons.  At first glance, none of these names may mean much, but any fan of older movies will have undoubtedly seen their work.  Unfortunately, in the case of Parsons, he’s criminally underutilized here much to the movie’s detriment. 

 

4/10

Exposed (1947)

Unremarkable,  9 December 2020

Female PI Belinda Prentice is hired by a rich businessman to check up on his son who has been withdrawing unexplained sums of money.  But before she can get started, her employer is found murdered.  

I suppose the most remarkable thing about Exposed is how totally unremarkable the whole thing is.  There’s really not much to talk about.  The mystery is never properly fleshed out and there is no last minute surprise during the denouement - things typical of a good mystery.  And for a film with a short 59 minute runtime, it sure does drag.  I suppose the most exciting thing that happens is a prolonged fistfight, but it ends up lasting so long it feels like padding.  I admit I did enjoy the first 10 or so minutes.  The set-up had promise.  But once the body is discovered, it’s all downhill from there.

The beautiful Adele Mara plays Belinda Prentice.  She’s okay in the role, but never  seems natural in her delivery.  I suppose I should see more of her work before I pass judgement.  Co-stars include Mark Roberts and Robert Armstrong.  

3/10

Riffraff (1947)

A nice surprise,  9 December 2020

It seems that everyone in Panama has their eyes out for a missing map worth a fortune and P.I./con-man/fixer Dan Hammer (Pat O’Brien) is at the center of everything.  Caught between the police, hoodlums, and gorgeous dame, Hammer’s got his work cut out for him.  But like everyone else, he has no idea where to find the map - even though it’s hidden in plain sight.

What a nice surprise!  Going in, I had no idea what to expect from Riffraff (or Riff-Raff or Riff Raff or however you want to spell it), but it’s truly a wonderful little film.  It’s got a lot going for it. Frist, the cinematography is fantastic.  Riffraff looks way better than its modest budget would suggest.  Second, the acting is very strong.  Overall, I’m not much of a Pat O’Brien fan, but here, he does a nice job.  Anne Jefferys is more than his equal as the blonde love interest.  Walter Slezak makes for the perfect heavy.  And Percy Kilbride (of Ma and Pa Kettle fame) shines as the comic relief.  Third, the direction is spot on.  Director Ted Tetzlaff does a remarkable job with the film’s nifty pacing.  There are very few dull moments to slow things down.  And that opening - wow!  It must have been a gamble to film the first 10 or so minutes in silence, but it paid off.  Finally, the writing is first rate.  Riffraff has all that cool, fast-talking dialogue I’ve come to love in a film noir. 

7/10

Happy Death Day 2U (2019)

“On the bright side, you’ll come back.  I died eleven times.”  8 December 2020

As with the first film, Happy Death Day 2U centers on college student Tree Gelbman (Jessica Rothe) living the same day over and over again, facing her own death over and over again.  But there’s a twist - this time, Tree also finds herself in an alternate universe.

There’s just something about these two movies that I love.  Granted, Happy Death Day 2U isn’t quite as good as the first, but I think the main reason is that it lacks a lot of the surprise factor of the first.  But, there’s still plenty here to enjoy.  First, Rothe and co-star Israel Broussard make for a fantastic screen pairing.  It’s hard not to root for them.  Second, I like the way that 2U takes what were secondary characters with only a scene or two and fleshes them out.  Take Ryan Phan for example.  Blink and you’ll miss him in the original.  Here, actor Phi Vu gets a chance to shine.  Third, while most of the horror elements are gone, they’re replaced by more comedy and plenty of sci-fi mumbo-jumbo.  The bit with the science professor and the “blind” student had me in tears.  Finally, there are plenty of twists and turns in the plot to keep things fresh.  The big reveal from the first isn’t the same as in 2U.  And the plot twist involving Tree and her parents - well, I won’t spoil it, but it was nicely handled. 

As I said in commenting on Happy Death Day, I know I”m in the wrong demographic of this film.  But Happy Death Day 2U works on me nonetheless.  A fun movie with an interesting script and an engaging cast equals a winner with me.  

Finally, I would strongly recommend watching these two movies back-to-back.  If you’ve seen the first, do yourself a favor and rewatch it before watching 2U.  

7/10

The Alphabet Murders (1965)

Comedy?  8 December 2020

Hercule Poirot (Tony Randall) sets out to solve a series of murders where the victims’ initials - A.A., B.B., and so on - seem to be the main clue.  Can Poirot stop the killer before C.C. is killed?

My problem with The Alphabet Murders has nothing to do with my lifelong love of Agatha Christie’s work or her creation, Hercule Poirot.  I don’t mind someone poking fun.  The problem I have with The Alphabet Murders is, for a comedy, it’s just not funny.  I can only think of one moment where I so much as chuckled to myself - the scene where Hastings and two police officers help Poirot get dressed. I’m convinced that had the writers been more true to Poirot’s nature and put him in uncomfortable situations and played on his eccentricities, it might have worked.  Instead, the Poirot presented here is nothing like the Poirot I know.  Bowling, horseback riding, hiding in a car trunk - that’s not Poirot.  I don’t object to Randall as Poirot (even if his accent was all over the place) and I don’t blame him for my issues with the movie.  He was a capable, solid comedic actor.  With the right script, I think he was more than capable of pulling it off.  

4/10