Cyke
Joined Feb 2001
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews128
Cyke's rating
120: The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934) - released 12/23/34, viewed 9/25/08.
DOUG: From the makers of 'The Private Life of Henry VIII,' our next entry is 'The Scarlet Pimpernel.' Leslie Howard (from 'Of Human Bondage' previously and 'Gone With the Wind' eventually) plays Sir Percy Blakely, a seemingly empty-headed aristocrat who secretly works the underground as the Scarlet Pimpernel, helping innocents out of France during the revolution. Pimpernel is kind of a super-hero identity, although he has no costumed persona, but he does have a logo (the titular flower), and many disguises. He's something of a French version of Zorro, minus the sword. About that: Call me ignorant, but I always thought Orczy's original story for Pimpernel was a swashbuckler; I'm pretty sure other versions have actual swordplay. But there is not a sword to be seen here; Blakely's weapon of choice appears to be the eyeglass. The movie yields a good performance from Howard, who works Blakeny's act nicely between underground vigilante and witless fop. Oberon is especially good as Marguerite, the wife who can't stand her seemingly clueless husband but admires the courage of the mysterious Pimpernel. Even without the action, this is a capable suspense yarn set in the backdrop of revolutionary France, with some very good performances and compelling twists and turns.
KEVIN: I am happy to see that Leslie Howard is not always as bland as he was in 'Of Human Bondage.' In many ways, 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' is a superhero story, which is probably why it's one of my favorites of the year, up there with 'The Count of Monte Cristo.' The Pimpernel may not have a costume, but he does have a superhero symbol and a host of disguises. Characters like Batman and Iron Man stole the idea of a wealthy aristocrat who utilizes his wealth and resources to aid those in need. But in a totally not-made-up twist, it turns out to be the aristocracy rather than the peasantry that is persecuted under the Reign of Terror. There's also the old crime-fighter trope of the hero assuming the boorish fop persona to throw off suspicion, which in a way gives the hero the chance to be as memorably crazy as the villains. Although it makes for some of the best scenes in the film, I wondered if it was really necessary for Blakeney to maintain his foppishness around the woman he married. Which brings us to the awesome Merle Oberon as Lady Blakeney. She has nearly as much screen time as Howard. It's her story just as much as his, if not more so. Raymond Massey, looking like Paul Muni by way of Boris Karloff, chews memorable amounts of scenery as the dastardly Chauvelin, tasked with uncovering the Pimpernel's true identity. Although the film restoration leaves much to be desired, I would highly recommend this to fans of the book, of lavish adventures in general, and of both Howard and Oberon.
Last film: Bright Eyes (1934). Next film viewed: The Crowd (1928). Next film chronologically: Bride of Frankenstein (1935).
DOUG: From the makers of 'The Private Life of Henry VIII,' our next entry is 'The Scarlet Pimpernel.' Leslie Howard (from 'Of Human Bondage' previously and 'Gone With the Wind' eventually) plays Sir Percy Blakely, a seemingly empty-headed aristocrat who secretly works the underground as the Scarlet Pimpernel, helping innocents out of France during the revolution. Pimpernel is kind of a super-hero identity, although he has no costumed persona, but he does have a logo (the titular flower), and many disguises. He's something of a French version of Zorro, minus the sword. About that: Call me ignorant, but I always thought Orczy's original story for Pimpernel was a swashbuckler; I'm pretty sure other versions have actual swordplay. But there is not a sword to be seen here; Blakely's weapon of choice appears to be the eyeglass. The movie yields a good performance from Howard, who works Blakeny's act nicely between underground vigilante and witless fop. Oberon is especially good as Marguerite, the wife who can't stand her seemingly clueless husband but admires the courage of the mysterious Pimpernel. Even without the action, this is a capable suspense yarn set in the backdrop of revolutionary France, with some very good performances and compelling twists and turns.
KEVIN: I am happy to see that Leslie Howard is not always as bland as he was in 'Of Human Bondage.' In many ways, 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' is a superhero story, which is probably why it's one of my favorites of the year, up there with 'The Count of Monte Cristo.' The Pimpernel may not have a costume, but he does have a superhero symbol and a host of disguises. Characters like Batman and Iron Man stole the idea of a wealthy aristocrat who utilizes his wealth and resources to aid those in need. But in a totally not-made-up twist, it turns out to be the aristocracy rather than the peasantry that is persecuted under the Reign of Terror. There's also the old crime-fighter trope of the hero assuming the boorish fop persona to throw off suspicion, which in a way gives the hero the chance to be as memorably crazy as the villains. Although it makes for some of the best scenes in the film, I wondered if it was really necessary for Blakeney to maintain his foppishness around the woman he married. Which brings us to the awesome Merle Oberon as Lady Blakeney. She has nearly as much screen time as Howard. It's her story just as much as his, if not more so. Raymond Massey, looking like Paul Muni by way of Boris Karloff, chews memorable amounts of scenery as the dastardly Chauvelin, tasked with uncovering the Pimpernel's true identity. Although the film restoration leaves much to be desired, I would highly recommend this to fans of the book, of lavish adventures in general, and of both Howard and Oberon.
Last film: Bright Eyes (1934). Next film viewed: The Crowd (1928). Next film chronologically: Bride of Frankenstein (1935).
118: The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) - released 12/1/1934, viewed 9/11/08.
A gunfight with the FBI outside Chicago results in the death of Baby Face Nelson.
KEVIN: Our very first Alfred Hitchcock film is hardly a masterpiece, but still a standout suspense yarn among all the rom-coms and melodramas of this year. Were that not the case, this movie would be pretty disposable. As it is, it's a healthy dose of Hitchcock-style cool. Except for Peter Lorre, I didn't recognize any of the actors in this movie, which made me realize that casting recognizable faces can sometimes help the viewer follow the story easier. The leading husband and wife (Leslie Banks and Edna Best) came off kind of bland, but do what they must to move the story along. It was hard to get emotionally invested in their daughter being abducted by bad guys because the actors didn't sell it much beyond what's written in the script. As sometimes happens with movies like this, it's the villains, especially Lorre, who really make it worth seeing, even though we never get a good idea of what their clandestine organization is all about.
DOUG: I don't have a whole lot to say in overview for this, our first Hitchcock movie on the Odyssey, so I'll just sum up my thoughts with some bullet points: --I couldn't tell you why we chose this to be our first Hitchcock film on the Odyssey instead of The Lodger. Still, Hitch did consider this film the real start of his career, so I guess we'll be okay. -We had to watch this one twice to catch the complexities of the plot and get through everyone's accents. Why do so few of these old DVDs have captions? --Peter Lorre, fresh out of Germany in his first English-speaking role, drops just a bit of weight and sports a skunky white streak in his hair to play the villain of the piece. --A lot of the film does seem overtly experimental, especially in the transitions, like cutting to a screaming train as Jill sees the ransom note. Even this early in his career, Hitch wanted to try new things. --A word on the authorities in this film: The lead government heavy who gets in Lawrence's face seems almost angry at him for not handing over the info, even though he knows this will cost the kidnapped daughter her life. Lawrence has no obligation to help the police or the government if his family is in danger, so it should be their priority to help him get his kid back before he hands over the information they want. --I look forward to checking out the '56 remake eventually and comparing the two. I know Hitch preferred the later one (and I probably would too, if I got to take something I made while I was a rookie and make it again as a pro), but many buffs prefer this early version. --I would only recommend this film if you are really, really curious about Alfred Hitchcock and his early work; otherwise, there are many far better choices from the career of the Master of Suspense.
Last film: Imitation of Life (1934). Next film: Bright Eyes (1934).
A gunfight with the FBI outside Chicago results in the death of Baby Face Nelson.
KEVIN: Our very first Alfred Hitchcock film is hardly a masterpiece, but still a standout suspense yarn among all the rom-coms and melodramas of this year. Were that not the case, this movie would be pretty disposable. As it is, it's a healthy dose of Hitchcock-style cool. Except for Peter Lorre, I didn't recognize any of the actors in this movie, which made me realize that casting recognizable faces can sometimes help the viewer follow the story easier. The leading husband and wife (Leslie Banks and Edna Best) came off kind of bland, but do what they must to move the story along. It was hard to get emotionally invested in their daughter being abducted by bad guys because the actors didn't sell it much beyond what's written in the script. As sometimes happens with movies like this, it's the villains, especially Lorre, who really make it worth seeing, even though we never get a good idea of what their clandestine organization is all about.
DOUG: I don't have a whole lot to say in overview for this, our first Hitchcock movie on the Odyssey, so I'll just sum up my thoughts with some bullet points: --I couldn't tell you why we chose this to be our first Hitchcock film on the Odyssey instead of The Lodger. Still, Hitch did consider this film the real start of his career, so I guess we'll be okay. -We had to watch this one twice to catch the complexities of the plot and get through everyone's accents. Why do so few of these old DVDs have captions? --Peter Lorre, fresh out of Germany in his first English-speaking role, drops just a bit of weight and sports a skunky white streak in his hair to play the villain of the piece. --A lot of the film does seem overtly experimental, especially in the transitions, like cutting to a screaming train as Jill sees the ransom note. Even this early in his career, Hitch wanted to try new things. --A word on the authorities in this film: The lead government heavy who gets in Lawrence's face seems almost angry at him for not handing over the info, even though he knows this will cost the kidnapped daughter her life. Lawrence has no obligation to help the police or the government if his family is in danger, so it should be their priority to help him get his kid back before he hands over the information they want. --I look forward to checking out the '56 remake eventually and comparing the two. I know Hitch preferred the later one (and I probably would too, if I got to take something I made while I was a rookie and make it again as a pro), but many buffs prefer this early version. --I would only recommend this film if you are really, really curious about Alfred Hitchcock and his early work; otherwise, there are many far better choices from the career of the Master of Suspense.
Last film: Imitation of Life (1934). Next film: Bright Eyes (1934).