24 Hours to Kill

When it comes to movies, sometimes you should just listen to your gut. I recorded 1965's 24 Hours to Kill off of Turner Classic Movies back in early February, and there it sat on the DVR for two-plus months. I watched five or 10 minutes and was intrigued, but something seemed a little odd. Maybe my gut was ahead of my brain in this case. It's got a couple redeeming features, but mostly....yeah, just bad.

Flying his commercial flight with a full crew and packed airliner, pilot Jamie Faulkner (Lex Barker) is forced to land in Beirut when the plane has engine troubles. He thinks it'll be a quick fix, but mechanics say otherwise. The plane is going to be grounded for 24 hours while the engines are worked on. One of the members of his crew, Norman 'Jonesy' Jones (Mickey Rooney), seems especially distressed at the news, hanging close to the crew as they head into Beirut. What's wrong? What isn't he telling them? He tells Faulkner over drinks that a friend of his robbed a crime syndicate in Beirut of a gold shipment, the syndicate blaming Jonesy for the theft. Is there more to his story? Maybe, but now Faulkner is forced to be on guard for one of the members of his crew while also seeing if he can find out the truth. The clock is ticking.

I typically like 1960s crime thrillers made in Europe and the Middle East. There's a certain low budget hidden away charm that comes from movies like this, movies that aren't readily available or even readily known in the U.S. When 'Kill' popped up on TCM's schedule, I was intrigued. From director Peter Bezencenet, 'Kill' has some potential but it goes nowhere. International intrigue with smuggling and a crime syndicate and all sorts of ulterior motives, nothing wrong there, but the execution just isn't there. The best thing going is the on-location shooting in Beirut, a bit of a time capsule to a city that would be torn apart by war in 1970s with the Lebanese Civil War. The Beirut backdrop provides some gorgeous, very cool locations to a story that unfortunately does not hold its own.

A Hollywood legend who started his career all the way back in the 1920s, Mickey Rooney passed away this April at the age of 93. There isn't much he didn't do over a career that spanned 10 decades. In the second half of his career, Rooney did his best to reinvent himself, taking darker, more sinister roles than the ones audiences had come to expect from him. This performance certainly qualifies, an airplane engineer who clearly isn't letting on to everything he knows. A bad guy is one thing, but a lousy character is another. Rooney does his best, but this is not a well-written character. It's basically a series of bluffs as Jonesey sees what he can get away with in dealing with both his friends among the crew and the syndicate trying to track him down. All he does is whine and moan, getting into one stupid situation after another. I'm a big Rooney fan, but this isn't his best moment.

So as mentioned, a lot of that has to do with the script. The on-location shooting in Beirut is a definite positive, but I'm also beginning to suspect maybe Lebanon had some financial backing to advertise their city. A script that should have been a more modern film noir simply falls short. It becomes light comedy as we hang out with Jamie's crew, including babely Louise (Helga Sommerfeld), who Jamie has some sort of relationship with (I'm thinking work mistress). There's also Tommy (Michael Medwin), a ladies man with a little black book who's ignoring the advances of similarly babely Franzi (France Anglade), another stewardess. Oh, and there's co-pilot Kurt (Wolfgang Lukschy) who's struggling with a gambling addiction of sorts. Who cares?!? Focus on the crime syndicate and all the underhanded, dastardly doings from the criminal underworld, not a travel guide for Beirut!

It's a 94-minute movie without much in the way of energy, just a series of scenes joined by tourist detours around the city. The ending doesn't pull any punches, but by then it's too late. I had checked out long before. If there's a minor positive, it's Walter Slezak in Bond-villain mode as Malouf, the mysterious bad guy in the syndicate who wears a Fez, has an imbecile enforcer who's a doctor, and a hot blonde limo driver. Other than that? Steer clear.

24 Hours to Kill (1965): */****

Lifeboat

The timing here was interesting, two completely different types of movies, and I couldn't help but be slightly amused by it. I just recently reviewed Around the World in 80 Days, a huge scale epic that had locations around the world. Then there's this review, an entire movie set on an adrift boat at sea. I love a good epic, but an entire movie contained on one set? That's impressive. The movie is 1944's Lifeboat.

On its way to England during WWII, an Allied supply ship crewed by merchant marines is attacked by a German U-boat and sinks. Aboard a sturdy lifeboat, respected writer Connie Porter (Tallulah Bankhead) rescues Kovac (John Hodiak), a member of the crew from the engine room. Connie tells him that the German U-boat sunk as well in all the chaos. Minutes pass and they begin to pick up other survivors until there is nine of them all told. Among them is a German sailor, Willi (Walter Slezak), who no one is sure what to make of. Should they throw him overboard or keep him as a prisoner? With food and water limited, their decision could directly affect their survival.

Do you need proof that director Alfred Hitchcock was a director far ahead of his time? First off, if you said 'yes,' shame on you. Second, this film should serve as proof....if it was some how needed. Some four years before his 1948 film Rope and 13 years before 12 Angry Men used the formula, Hitchcock films the entire movie on one set, in this case the lifeboat adrift at sea. The entire movie. There are no asides or flashbacks or anything that distracts from the very singular location. This well-made, sturdy boat ends up being a weirdly compelling additional character. By the end of the movie, you feel claustrophobic and alone. Not a lot of directors could pull this premise off successfully, but Hitchcock seems to do it with ease.

Working with an ensemble cast, Hitchcock brings together a group of actors/actresses from all walks of life with more than a few differences in background. Bankhead as Connie gets top billing and delivers a solid performance but is far from sympathetic. Hodiak brings a tough guy edge to his part as Kovac, the former slaughterhouse worker turned sailor and maybe the one thinking the clearest. Slezak ends up being Evil Incarnate as Willi, the German sailor who knows more than he is letting on. Also look for William Bendix as Gus, the lovable sailor wanting to get back to his dancing girlfriend, Mary Anderson as Alice, a young nurse nervous about reaching London, Henry Hull as Rittenhouse, a proud, self-made businessman, Hume Cronyn as Sparks, the radioman who bonds with Alice, Canada Lee as Joe, the black steward, and Heather Angel as Mrs. Higgins, a mother traveling with infant to visit her husband.

What is impressive about the film can also be a weakness depending on your point of view. Hitchcock chooses not to use any gimmicks or tricks in developing a story that clocks in at 97 minutes. There are no marauding sharks circling the boat or patrolling plane overhead. This is an ultra-personal story that is entirely contained within the confines of the boat. Because there is nothing to distract from the task at hand, this is a dialogue-heavy movie. At times, it gets to be a little much. You can only hear so many monologues about the past and how people got here, their beliefs and relationships before things get a little on the slow. When it does work though, it's great. The story gives a window into mob mentality, especially when survival is on the line. Not surprisingly, you react differently to a situation at hand when life and death hangs in the balance.

Setting the survivor story (yeah, alliteration!) during WWII was no doubt a timely one. I can't help but wonder though what the story would have been like in a more existential setting; just survivors on the open sea hoping to make it to land or rescue of some sorts. Yes, the Willi character and his sinister motives are necessary, but that could have been tweaked too. The WWII dynamic is one thing, but a solid, interesting story detours and degenerates some in the finale as a propaganda message is not to subtly blared at us as a viewing audience. Oh, Germans are bad! There was potential for a twisted, darker ending in the closing minute, but the propaganda shuts the door on that possibility. Still, it's an impressive movie, and one that's easily recommended.

Lifeboat (1944): ***/****

The Fallen Sparrow

Before he died at the young age of 39, actor John Garfield sure packed a lot into a brief career.  In just over 10 years, he was in 32 movies, some parts bigger than others and not all of them starring parts.  But he carved out a niche for himself playing tough guys who remained likable despite their on-screen actions especially in The Postman Always Rings Twice where he's a wandering, murdering lover.  In 1943's The Fallen Sparrow, he gets to play a character that reminded me in a lot of ways that reminded me of Leonardo DiCaprio in Shutter Island.

Garfield plays John McKittrick, 'Kit' to his friends, a man wrestling with his past demons.  In the 1930s, McKittrick traveled to Spain and fought in the Spanish Civil War.  Toward the end of the war, his battalion was involved in a bloody battle that resulted in a majority of the men being killed or captured.  Kit has an item the enemy would love to get their hands on but refuses to give it up and is sent to a prison where he rots for two years, his captors torturing him physically and mentally.  Finally he escapes with the help of a childhood friend and returns to the U.S. where he lives on a ranch in Arizona (it's hinted this is some sort of asylum).  But even free from the prison, he's tortured by his memories of what happened in the prison, the sounds, the smells, all the little things get to him as he tries to cope.

Here's where the story kicks in because all of that background is handled in a few scenes of dialogue as information is slowly filtered out. Kit travels to New York when he receives word that a friend of his -- the one who helped him escape -- died when he accidentally fell to his death from a window on a top floor of a skyscraper.  Kit doesn't believe it for a second and starts his own investigation.  He meets all sorts of people who were at the party when his friend fell, but no one seems to be telling him the truth.  It's just the start of a story that goes left and right with twists around every corner as Kit tries to reveal the truth while also struggling to keep his sanity.

My plot description was a little shorter than usual and for good reason.  Even after finishing the movie, I wasn't quite sure what I'd just watched or what exactly happened.  Foreshadowing the huge popularity of film noir that was to come, 'Sparrow's' story isn't content just to keep you guessing as to what is to come.  This is a story that feels the need to confuse you.  Characters are introduced and then drift in and out as needed, disappearing for extended segments and then reappearing when some new twist or reveal appears.  Granted, I watched this movie in a couple different windows, but I'm usually able to keep up with most movies.  Not so much here.

SPOILERS As for the twists and turns that I did keep up with, it's all pretty ridiculous.  Garfield's Kit stumbles into a web of political intrigue with international spy rings, government agencies, blackmail, murder and Nazis hiding out in 1943 in NYC as refugees.  Then as for the big reveal of who the actual bad guy is, I thought I'd missed something.  From the get-go, their very first appearance it is obvious to a blind man who the Nazi killers really are.  Then the story spends the next hour and a half getting to that point of the reveal.  One worthwhile point mentioning, Hugh Beaumont (Ward Cleaver, the Beav's Dad on Leave it To Beaver) is one of the Nazi agents working with his 'dad' Walter Slezak.  The reveal is so obvious it threw me off to the point where when the camera zooms in and the music swells I thought I'd missed something else.  Nope, that was it, and I called it five minutes in like most moviegoers had to do when seeing this one.

But because of the good performances in this mess of a movie, I can't completely rip it to pieces.  Garfield is a strong lead as he tries to piece all this crazy evidence together with everyone around him thinking he's completely lost his mind.  Maureen O'Hara plays Toni Donne, a pawn in a much bigger picture who is forced to do things against her will.  She of course falls in love with Kit right away in one of those ultra-believable romances that I'm such a fan of.  Also look for a much thinner, very young John Banner as Anton, a mysterious piano player who knows more than he's letting on.  It took me quite a while to figure him as Sgt. Schultz from Hogan's Heroes.  This isn't going to be a very long, very detailed review because even with the solid cast, this one was a stinker.  Pass and pass again.

The Fallen Sparrow <----trailer (1943): * 1/2 /****

Jack Sparrow's long-lost relatives

In 2003, Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow helped revitalize the pirate movie with the hugely popular and trilogy spawning Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl.  Basically, he made pirates cool again mostly because Depp is one of the coolest actors around.  For years though, the pirate movie had been a thing of the past -- other than the box-office bomb Cutthroat Island -- after being extremely popular in the Hollywood studio era.  The star most often associated with these swashbuckling roles was Errol Flynn, but many actors took to the high seas as a pirate.

Where Flynn was an ideal choice to play a pirate -- roguish but not a killer, smooth but particularly vicious at times -- those other actors had their work cut out for them...usually because they were compared to Flynn.  Some were better than others, but I watched two recently that certainly qualify in the odd casting department, Paul Henreid in 1945's The Spanish Main and Sterling Hayden in 1952's The Golden Hawk.  I typically think of Henreid as a second banana, and I questioned whether Hayden has the on-screen presence to overact as pirates normally do in any number of extravagant ways.  Safe to say, neither is Johnny Depp, but here goes.

Given away as a bride to the viceroy of Cartagena, Spanish contessa Francesca (Maureen O'Hara) is en route when her ship is attacked by the Barracuda, an infamous pirate ship in the Caribbean captained by Laurent Van Horn (Henreid).  She is taken prisoner, and Van Horn demands that she marry him.  Bargaining to save the life of the crew, Francesca agrees.  But the viceroy (Walter Slezak) hears of this and is none too pleased because he's long hunted Van Horn.  The pirate thinks he is in the free and clear with his new wife, but his crew and the pirate code say he has broken their rules.  Nothing comes easy as a pirate.

First off, the casting.  Henreid is not the right choice to play a swashbuckling pirate.  He's too much of a dandy and to say the least, is not intimidating.  He does little of his own stunts with an obvious double stepping in for him.  You want to root for him as he takes on the evil viceroy, but it's hard to get behind him.  O'Hara is quite the looker here with her strikingly red hair, but she's an Irish actress playing a Spanish contessa.  Something doesn't add up, especially when she tries a Spanish accent.  Slezak isn't much of a bad guy either as the somewhat vicious but mostly stupid viceroy.  It's all wrapped up nicely with a bow in the end.

Read any of my previous reviews of a Sterling Hayden movie, and you'll get the same idea with each one.  He's at his best when he's playing the steely-eyed hero.  Ask him to show too much emotion or fire, and it gets awkward real quick.  Transferring that thought, a pirate might not be the ideal choice for a part.  Honestly, Hayden is the least of the problems in The Golden Hawk.  It's a B-movie and not a good one.  The script is awful having characters who hate each other fall madly in love with each other because the story requires it and little else.  'Hawk' has a cheap look to it, lots of studio work, and miniatures serving for any shots of cities or ships sailing the ocean blue.

If you're looking for a plot description, read the one from 'Spanish Main' but replace the actors names.  Hayden is a French (really? French? That's a good one) pirate looking to avenge his mother's death years before.  Hayden's Kit 'the Hawk' Gerardo sails the seas taking down any ship he can.  On board one of theses ships he captures a beautiful woman (Rhonda Fleming) who ends up being a rival pirate.  Throw in a kidnapped Spanish wife who's married to the evil captain, and you've got this stinker.  Look for Michael Ansara in a good supporting part as Bernardo, one of Kit's men.  Other than that, pass on this one in a big way.

The moral of the story after seeing these two pirate movies is this; stick with Errol Flynn and his swashbuckling pirate movies where money was spent on casting, costuming and getting a decent story to work with.  Henreid and Hayden just aren't cut out for parts as pirates, but it's not like the rest of these movies helps out.  O'Hara and Fleming both look great and its refreshing to see some take no crap badass chicks in older movies, but they're lost in a sea of bad movie.

The Spanish Main <---trailer (1945): **/****  
The Golden Hawk (1952): */****