The Circus Queen Murder (1933)

“It’s a well known fact that cannibals differ from the rest of us in their dietary customs.”  5 June 2020

Police commissioner Thatcher Colt (Adolphe Menjou) has had it up to here with New York crime.  Wanting to get away and recharge the batteries, he sets off with his secretary for a vacation in the middle-of-nowhere upstate New York.  There, Colt runs into a traveling circus and murder.  Not much of a vacation.

It’s unfortunate that The Circus Queen Murder suffers from such a poor storyline, becuase there’s a lot here to like.  The film looks absolutely fantastic and the acting is as strong as you’ll find in a “B” from this era, but there’s not much to work with when it comes to the story.  First, the film’s title gives away far too much, destroying any hope of suspense.  Second, the killer’s identity is a given throughout the film, destroying any hope of mystery.  Third, the film’s pacing is a mess.  I’m convinced that director Roy William Neill did the best he could, but without much to work with, the film tends to bog down from time-to-time (who am I kidding - parts of the film are downright boring).  Fourth, our hero, Thatcher Colt, doesn’t really do much.  He knows who the killer is and he knows who the intended victim is, but does nothing about it.  He pretty much sits back and lets the murder happen.  Which leads to - fifth, the ending is complete bananas.  

In the end, the best I can rate The Circus Queen Murder is a very average (and maybe even generous) 5/10.

Finally, I’m not an expert on pre-code films, but I generally get a kick out of them.  It’s amazing to me what filmmakers could do and get away with in 1933 that they couldn’t just a couple years later.  Marital infidelity, blood, risque wardrobes, and even something as innocent as Colt and his secretary traveling together would have most likely been axed by the Code.  Interesting stuff.

5/10

Murders in the Zoo (1933)

An unforgettable opening set-piece, 30 December 2009

There are very few films that I have waited as long to see as I have Murders in the Zoo. I've been aware of the movie for something like 40 years, but for whatever reason, just watched it for the first time a couple of nights ago. So, was it worth the wait? Overall, I'd say yes. The film features Lionel Atwill at his absolute best. He's an overly possessive husband willing to take the most extreme measures imaginable to deal with any man paying too much attention to his wife (played by the incredible Kathleen Burke). During his career, Atwill played a variety of mad characters, but few could top the decidedly evil Eric Gorman. The almost gleeful manner in which he toys with his intended victims – not unlike a cat "playing" with a mouse – is a joy to watch. You can all but see the psychosis in Atwill's eyes. And what Gorman does to his first victim is the stuff of classic horror movie legend. If you're an Atwill fan, this is one you don't want to miss.

Unfortunately, Murders in the Zoo is almost done-in by the ridiculously unfunny performance of Charles Ruggles. Ruggles, playing the worst sort of comic relief imaginable, actually managed to be higher billed and have more screen-time than Atwill. Whose idea what that? If the rest of Murders in the Zoo weren't so good, I could easily see dismissing the film based on Ruggles. He really is as bad and annoying as you've read.

7/10

The Invisible Man (1933)

"I think we'll start with a reign of terror.", 17 May 2006

People tend to use the word "classic" too freely. I can't help but laugh when I hear some of the movies that people call "classics". The term gets thrown around so much that it often looses some of its importance and real meaning. I try to reserve "classic" to a select group of films that I believe have achieved a certain status and have withstood the test of time. And I have no problem putting the label "classic" on The Invisible Man.

James Whale made a lot of great films in the 1930s. Some (Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein, for example) may be better known, but I've always thought of The Invisible Man as the best of the bunch. It's got everything. Terrific performances, incredible special effects, nice comedic touches, and technical brilliance are found in abundance throughout the film.

- Terrific Performances: For someone who only has a few seconds of actual screen time, Claude Rains is amazing. His voice creates such a presence that at times it's easy to forget that he's not actually there. As for Una O'Connor, I've seen some people complain about Whale's use of her, but I think she was never better than in The Invisible Man. She's great whether playing the proper landlord showing a new guest to his room or as the overly hysterical woman afraid for her life. The rest of the cast, especially E.E. Clive and Gloria Stuart, is exceptional.

- Incredible Special Effects: It's amazing to revisit The Invisible Man and see how well the special effects have withstood the passage of time. They were state-of-the-art in 1933 and they remain impressive today. It took some real craftsmanship to pull-off the invisibility gags seen in The Invisible Man. To me, none is more impressive than the first time we get a glimpse under the bandages while he's eating and we see no lower jaw. Impressive stuff!

- Nice Comedic Touches: Billed as a horror film, The Invisible Man actually contains more scenes of humor than horror. I've already mentioned O'Connor, but she's only a small part of the humor in the film. The police, the various frightened passersby, and even Claude Rains himself add to the fun found in The Invisible Man. I'm of the opinion that it never goes overboard, but fits nicely into the plot.

- Technical Brilliance: Beyond the special effects, the film is wonderful from a technical standpoint. Lighting, cinematography, and set design are incredible and some of the best of the 30s. Everything looks perfect. In my opinion, Whale never did better. I've always been impressed by the way Whale used his camera as part of the action when many of his contemporaries seemed content with the "plant it and shoot" style of film-making.

The only negative aspect of the film that I can possibly complain about is William Harrigan in the role of Rains' rival, Dr. Arthur Kemp. He's just not as good as those around him. Other than that little quibble, I've got nothing to complain about. I believe it should be easy to see why I, for one, consider The Invisible Man a classic!

9/10

The Son of Kong (1933)

"You'll never catch a monkey that way.", 25 November 2005

In this quickly produced sequel to the iconic King Kong, Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong) and company head back to Skull Island in search of treasure. Once there, they run into the expected larger than life monsters. Fortunately for our group of explorers, they also run into Kong's offspring who proves to be more agreeable than his old man.

Son of Kong was put together in a hurry and it shows. Willis O"Brien's stop-motion work is not as convincing as it was in King Kong. Creature movements are even more jerky and unnatural than in the original. And the screen time given to O'Brien's creatures has been reduced to a fraction of that in King Kong. Instead, the characters spend the majority of the movie on another island with not much to do other than bore the audience. It's a real shame that more time and care wasn't taken with this sequel. King Kong deserved better than this.

Several members of the original cast are back, but neither Robert Armstrong nor Frank Reicher appears to be as interested in the proceedings as they did in the original. Helen Mack is on hand to basically take the Fay Wray role. She's a poor substitute.

But the worst part of Son of Kong was the decision to allow baby Kong to mug for the cameras. There are a couple of scenes where the ape looks right at the camera and all but winks at the audience. The effect of these scenes is to completely destroy any suspense and credibility the movie might have had going for it. It just makes the whole movie seem silly.

4/10