robertguttman

Based upon a book by Dorothy Macardle, who was better known for writing romance novels, this is actually one of the first "haunted house" movies in which the notion that a house may be haunted is actually treated seriously, rather than as a joke or as a hoax. In this instance a brother and sister get a good deal on a beautiful old house and soon discover that there is a reason why nobody else wanted to buy it. Moreover, they become socially involved with the daughter of the previous owner who appears to harbor a strange and seemingly somewhat unhealthy fascination with the house. Little by little they uncover the history of the house and its previous residents which may or may involve infidelity, adultery and murder.

This is a stylish film with an excellent story and a good cast which has held up remarkably well over the years. Better, in fact, than poor Gail Russel, whose first movie this was. Despite her extremely promising start Her career petered out far too quickly and she died far too soon.

This is a splendid, spectacular Hollywood swashbuckler with all the trimmings. Stewart Granger is well suited to play the title role although he, and everyone else, is overshadowed by Eleanor Parker, who pretty much steals the movie from the rest of the cast. Although still set during the French Revolution, in this film those events are merely peripheral to the story, rather than being central to it.

About the only criticism one could make to this film is that it omits a great deal of the story and much of what remains has been altered. "Scaramouche" was Raphael Sabatini's first successful book and it was actually a historical novel set during the time of the French Revolution. The fact of the matter is that anyone interested in seeing a film that is much closer to Sabatini's original novel would be well advised to see the 1923 silent movie version, directed by Rex Ingram and starring Ramon Navarro. Incidentally, that 1923 film also included Lewis Stone in the cast, playing one of the principal characters, and the 1952 re-make was actually his last movie performance.

Despite those deficiencies, the 1952 re-make hits all the right notes and is well worth seeing. The climatic sword fight, which is said to have been longest ever filmed, is worth the price of admission alone.

So far as I am aware, Episode 4 ("At Night All Cats are Gray") was the only occasion during which Boris Karloff and Christopher Lee ever appeared together. For that reason alone this series is worth a look.

It is also a very cleaver detective series featuring the inimitable Boris Karloff as a brilliant and unconventional one-eyed Scotland Yard sleuth. That is not the sort of role with which Boris Karloff is generally associated. However, he was actually a highly accomplished actor who was quite capable of playing all sorts of parts. It was no fault of his that he ended up being type cast as a "monster. For example, prior to his memorable performance the 1931 production of "Frankenstein", Karloff frequently appeared in gangster roles.

Karloff plays the erudite, one-eyed Colonel March who single-handedly runs Scotland Yard's "Department of Queer Complaints". Being the 1950s, that title has nothing whatever to do with homosexuality. Instead, it simply means that March is assigned all of the unusual cases that nobody else can manage to solve.

Much of the criticism of this film appears to be of the fact that it deviates from the original novel by Johnathan Swift. However, it should be kept in mind that the original novel was a social satire written by a university don and intended for intellectuals, while the film is a fantasy intended for children. In addition, if the filmmakers had chosen to dramatize the entire book as written, the film would have been at least four times as long. That is because the film only depicts Gulliver's experience in Lilliput while, in the novel, he visits no less than three other very different places.

Taken for what it is, and allowing for the year in which it was released, this is actually a pretty amazing movie which has stood up very well to the passage of time. The Fleischers were not Disney imitators. They were producing successful animated films for as long as Disney had been, if not even earlier. Dave Fleischer was the director and provided the artistic, creative and comic muse, while his brother Max was the inventive technical genius who made the animation work. Max Fleischer was so innovative, and so far ahead of his time, that in 1923 he actually made an animated film explaining Einstein's theory of relativity, a concept understood by very few laymen at the time.

Over the years Gulliver's Travels has been overshadowed by Disney's feature length animated motion pictures of the same era, particularly Snow White. That is a shame because Gulliver's Travels is every bit as well done. This is a timeless movie which still holds up today.

Ah, yes, William Castle's famous "Percepto" movie. I remember when this was initially released. It was the movie in which William Castle who, even then, was known for his gimmickry, had joy buzzers installed beneath the theater seats so that the viewers could actually "feel" the "Tingler". I know that probably sounds ridiculous in this age of CGI magic, but it was typical of William Castle, a filmmaker whose like will probably never be seen again.

Modern viewers will probably laugh at the special effects. However, it must be borne in mind that this movie was made on a budget of only $250,000. Under the circumstances, I doubt if any filmmaker today could have done better. Furthermore, these sort of movies always made always money, so Castle laughed all the way to the bank.

Despite the gimmickry, The Tingler is actually a pretty good movie based upon a genuinely original premise. That is more than can be said for most low-budget horror films of the time. In addition, it contains a sequence involving the use of LSD which was way ahead of its' time. Bear in mind while watching it that the whole "acid trip" thing did not begin until nearly a decade later and that, in 1959, nobody in the audience would even have heard of LSD before.

"Tobruk" is a big-budget action adventure movie depicting what was actually a small part of a very much larger story. There actually was a raid on Tobruk during September 1942 in which a British unit of German-speaking Jewish refugees took part, known euphemistically as the "SIG" (Special Interrogation Unit). However, the real "Operation Agreement" was a much larger and more elaborate operation, of which the events depicted in this film were only a small part.

A film about the real raid on Tobruk would be of great interest because it was a text-book instance of how NOT to stage such an operation. The real "Operation Agreement" was an unmitigated disaster in which the British lost more than 800 killed and over 500 captured, in exchange for a mere handful of German and Italian casualties. However, none of that was the fault of the men depicted in the film "Tobruk", who carried out their part of the business.

The failure of "Operation Agreement" lay entirely with the people at the top who did the planning. It was a clear demonstration of what happens when a highly complex and many-faceted operation is planned and assembled too quickly, without sufficient preparation, and with too many additional elements added on at the last moment. The whole thing involved too many disparate elements which were thrown together too rapidly, and which had to perform their various actions in different places on schedule and in exact coordination with one another, in order for the whole operation to achieve success. Furthermore, it presupposed that the Germans and Italians would be caught napping, which did not happen.

Some elements, principally the Long Range Desert Group and SAS, performed their allotted missions successfully. However, the main amphibious assault on Tobruk, itself, which involved the coordination of land, sea and air assets, was a disaster.

"Tobruk" makes a pretty good action-adventure film so far as it goes. However, it omits the much bigger, and really much more interesting, picture.

This is not anywhere near Fritz Lang's best film. However, I chalk that up not to any inadequacies on his part but on the rather weak script that he had to work with. Despite Lang's skill as a director, Gary Cooper and the rest of the OSS agents seem to accomplish everything they do much too easily. However, I chalk that to the writers, not to Lang.

In addition, Gary Cooper makes a pretty unconvincing undercover spy. Everything about him shrieks "American!", even when he attempts to speak German (with a decided American accent). OSS agents were supposed to be able to speak the language and blend in with the local pollution. However, Cooper stands out like a barber pole at a funeral.

Furthermore, real OSS Agents underwent months of specialized training while, in this film, Cooper is sent overseas immediately without any preparation whatsoever. Beyond that, he is supposed to be one of the scientists working on the Manhattan Project and he is simply summarily taken away from his work to be sent behind enemy lines. That plot point, alone, doesn't seem credible. Would the Government, at that point in the war, have permitted somebody that important to the Manhattan Project to be taken away from that vitally-important, top-secret work, let alone be risked behind enemy lines, especially considering the amount that he knows about the Allied atomic bomb project? The very idea is ridiculous. But then again, that is a question of stupid script writing, for which one cannot blame Fritz Lang.

I saw "2001" when it was first released. At that time it left audiences both dazzled and perplexed. The imagery was absolutely dazzling, and it was widely said that it could only be truly appreciated while tripping on LSD. On the other hand, nobody seemed able to figure out exactly what it was about, and the ending left audiences perplexed, unresolved and, ultimately, unsatisfied.

The staging of "2001" changed the way in which motion pictures, and particularly science-fiction motion pictures, were produced from then on. Furthermore, don't expect much in the way of linear storytelling or character development.

Most importantly, don't expect speed. The operative word in the term "motion picture" is "motion", and there simply isn't much "motion" in "2001". Despite his meticulous attention to detail and dazzling imagery, Stanley Kubrick's one fault as a filmmaker is that he likes his movies s-l-o-w. And if you think "2001" was the only one of his movies that suffered from that phenomenon, just try sitting through "Barry Lyndon", if you can. At the time of that film's original release, I recall one critic saying that watching "Barry Lyndon" was a "like looking at a beautiful still-life painting".

They ran this film again last night after a long hiatus and it confirmed once again just how perfect it is. The comedies produced by Ealing Studies during the 1950s represent the peak of British filmmaking, and "The Lady Killers" was. Perhaps, the best of the best. It is impossible to find fault with this production. The cast, the script, the direction, the pacing, everything is simply spot-on. It is impossible to cite anything that could possibly be improved upon.

At the time Alec Guinness passed away I was astonished that all the obits cited him for was his performance in "Star Wars", when he had created so many more memorable performances, not least the one in "The Lady Killers". It has been said that the producers originally wanted All-star Sim for the part, and that Guinness based his characterization on Sim. Although there may be some truth in that assertion, nevertheless there is no doubt that Guinness created one of the most remarkable of his many performances in "The Lady Killers".

In addition, one cannot say enough for Katie Johnson's perfectly hilarious deadpan performance as the object of the title characters' malevolence. Despite everything that happens her composure remains perfectly impenetrable.

It is impossible to improve upon perfection. Anyone who has not seen "The Lady Killers" has missed one of life's great pleasures.

During the 1970s motion pictures began to alter their depiction of the Medieval Era from colorful and chivalric to dark, grungy and brutal. "Flesh + Blood" pretty much exemplifies that shift in perception. As one character says, "It isn't a sin if nobody sees it".

The story takes place in 1501, at the very end of the Medieval Period and the beginning of the Renaissance. Although the particular region of Europe is not specified, the implication is that it is somewhere in Italy. One of the principal characters is a nobleman called "Arnolfini", which sounds Italian. Furthermore, another of the principal characters is Sir John Hawkwood, who was an actual historical figure, an English knight who became a highly successful "Condottiero" (leader of a company of mercenary soldiers) in Medieval Italy. However, the real Sir John Hawkwood lived and died more than a century before the story depicted in the film takes place. The nationality of the soldiers who are the central characters in the story is not specified, not need it be. Late Medieval Europe was full of companies of free-lance mercenaries willing to fight for anyone wealthy enough to pay them.

"Flesh + Blood" depicts a Medieval world in which there is no "honor", no chivalrous knights and no virtuous ladies, with plenty of "protagonists", but no "good guys". As a result, there are only two kinds of people; predators and prey.

Like it or not, "The Ten Commandments" is truly epic filmmaking in the sense that any aspiring filmmaker needs to view it as a prime example of exactly how to make an epic motion picture. Although Cecil B. DeMille's movies certainly never were everyone's cup of tea, there is no denying that he knew how to make BIG movies. In fact, it became a standing joke that Moses only parted the Red Sea once, but Cecil B. DeMille accomplished it TWICE. Granted that DeMille's movies tend towards heavy-handed melodrama, and the combination of religious piety and sex may move modern audiences to laughter. Nevertheless, there is it cannot be denied that no one could direct a cast of thousands better than DeMille could back in the days before the introduction of CGI special effects, when that sort of cinematic generalship was a necessary skill.

Most "re-makes" are worse than the originals. However, in this instance the re-make" works on its' own terms. Part of the reason is that, while the two versions tell the same story, their approaches are totally different. The original version of "The Little Shop of Horrors" was an ultra-cheap film produced in less three days on a budget of $22,000. Roger Corman, who produced and directed it, once noted that one "cannot set out to make a cult film. Only the audience can make a cult film." the original "Little Shop" became a perfect case in point.

This version could not be more different from the original. This time it is a fully-rigged musical with a Hollywood "A-List" cast, elaborate special effects and one of the biggest budgets of any film produced up to that time. However, those factors alone do not guarantee a successful film.

What makes the remake of "Little Shop" work is an excellent and witty script, good songs and, perhaps most important, a good sense of pacing. That last factor cannot be over-emphasized, and provides an object lesson to many contemporary directors. Far too many movies have been dragged down by the director's poor sense of pacing, allowing their film to get bogged down with scenes and characters that don't matter and only serve to slow things down. For all its' extravagant special effects and big production musical numbers, "Little Shop" does not fall into that trap. The story keeps moving along. In that sense, it could be held up as an example of the proper way to make a film.

So, which version of "Little Shop" is better, the original or the remake? The answer is that both work equally well - on their own terms.

This movie is a veritable tribute to Murphy's Law which famously states that "anything that can go wrong, will". In this film noir crime drama a meticulously-planned robbery is carried out but, as the saying goes, crime does not pay. At least, in Hollywood it doesn't. How and why everything goes pear-shaped is the gist of the story, and I won't give any of that away. However, a classic cast of film noir character actors, under the brilliant direction of a young Stanley Kubrick, makes it all well worth seeing.

The 1953 musical Fred Astair musical "The Band Wagon" depicts an unsuccessful attempt to stage a Broadway Musical based upon Faust. However, in 1955 George Abbott did exactly that, successfully, with "Damn Yankee". This, the subsequent movie version, replicates that Broadway hit. In this case, one thing that the producer did right was to retain the original stars of the stage version, Gwen Verdon and Ray Walston, both of whom stole the show on stage and do so again on screen.

The story involves a middle-aged die-hard fan of a losing baseball team who sells his soul to the Devil for the chance to win the pennant for his beloved Washington Senators (a real baseball team in the 1950s, although they no longer exist today).

Most of all, "Damn Yankees" provides an opportunity to see the great Gwen Verdon in her prime. Although Gwen Verdon was a major star on the Broadway stage for many years, she rarely appeared in motion pictures and this is one of the few instances where she can be seen, including a memorable number with Bob Fosse, her future husband and one of Broadway's greatest choreographers and directors. For that alone, "Damn Yankees" is definitely worth a look.

Ridley Scott, who directed "Alien" in 1979, revisits all the plot and character points of that earlier movie with the addition of a great deal of pseudo-religious "Creationism". The movie begins, presumably on Earth at the "dawn of time", with an "Engineer" (i.e., an Alien) who is on Earth for no reason that is ever explained, and who promptly commits suicide for no reason that is ever explained. If you find that perplexing, don't worry about it because the scene is never revisited or explained again.

The scene switches to 2093, when a spaceship is sent on a "scientific" mission of discovery to a particular moon of a particular planet in particular solar system, the selection of which as a destination is never adequately explained, in order to find and confront the alien beings who created mankind to learn the reason for creation. Once there, the "scientists" and crew behave in the usual un-scientific and un-methodical manner of humans in any new environment, exploring the new world with all of the finesse of a herd of bulls in the proverbial china shop. One repeatedly hears one character or another warn, "Don't tough that", only to be ignored with the obligatory dire consequences. Upon encountering an unknown but threatening life form, one character, purportedly a biologist, reacts by trying to pet it - with the obligatory dire consequences. When, for no reason that is ever explained, a character who is already dead turns up unexpectedly alive outside the ship, the crew immediately open the door to admit him - with the obligatory dire consequences. One of the most jarringly absurd aspect of the movie is the scene where a woman performs a caesarean section upon herself in order to abort her unborn alien fetus. If that isn't ridiculous enough, she promptly snaps back a moment later just as fit and active as she was before the surgery.

Although the story takes place in 2093 and the film was made in 2012, some of the characters behave more as though they were in movie the 1950s or 1960s. At one point the captain of the ship accuses the leader of the expedition, who is a woman, of "being a robot" because she won't put out. Today one would expect a woman to respond to that with indignation, to fire him for sexual harassment or even to have him prosecuted. However, her response is to tell him to meet her in his room in ten minutes!

However, perhaps the most jarring note in "Prometheus" is the pro-creationist/anti-evolution note that runs through the entire narrative. At one point one of the characters, purportedly a biologist, makes a remark about "throwing out three centuries of Darwinism". NO scientist, least of all a biologist, would talk like that. The theory of evolution IS NOT, and NEVER HAS BEEN, a religion and Charles Darwin was NOT the prophet of a religion. In fact Darwin, who was the son of a Protestant minister, would have been appalled at any such notion. The theory of evolution is exactly what it says it is, a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, arrived at through observation and inference.

This is a very under-rated sci-fi thriller based upon an interesting and original premise. I acknowledge that the special effects could have been a lot better, and certainly would have been if this film had been produced today, with a large budget and modern special effects. However, one has to allow for the fact that this film was produced in the 1950s in a fairly short time and on a relatively-low budget, so it would be unfair to deprecate it for those shortcomings. In fact the "aliens", when they finally make their appearance, are quite original striking.

"Condemned!" is an early prison melodrama with the accent on "melodrama". Admittedly, "melodrama" was much more acceptable to audiences in 1929 than it is today. That being said, this film does have a good deal in its' favor. It has a great cast including Dudley Digges, somewhat miscast as a French prison administrator, and Ann Harding, much better-cast as his meek, put-upon wife. Also, look for a rare appearance by Louis Wolheim (and, admittedly, his presence is very hard to miss) in the role of a convict. Best remembered today for his memorable performance in the 1930 film, "All Quit on the Western Front", Wolheim's career was unfortunately cut short when he died suddenly in 1931 at the age of only 50. Although usually cast as a plug-ugly thug, Wolheim was actually a graduate of Cornell University and a former college professor whose distinctive appearance was the result of a college football injury (apparently football was a rougher game in those far-off days). Lastly, of course, this movie features the great Ronald Coleman in his prime, an actor whose presence was always a major asset to any film.

The overbearing administrator of a French penal colony in South America considers it beneath his dignity for his wife to be seen doing housework. Consequently, overruling his meek and much put-upon wife's protests that she is afraid of the convicts and does not want one of them in the house, the administrator insists upon selecting a convict to serve as their "house-boy". Needless to say, he selects the most handsome and charming of the convicts for the job, Ronald Coleman. This being a melodrama, anyone can immediately predict where that is going to lead except, of course, the woman's husband. It takes him quite a while to catch on to what is perfectly obvious to everyone else. Of course, once he does, his reaction is equally predictably vindictive and nasty.

Being a very early example of a "talkie", this movie inevitably suffers from some technical crudity. However, it also displays some striking visual effects in those scenes which do not require dialogue. In addition, despite this movie's rather dated melodramatics, it is still worth seeing for its' excellent cast.

This is supposed to be cutting-edge film-making but it is really nothing more than a remake of "The Blair Witch Project", only set on board a spacecraft en route to Europa, one of the moons of Jupiter. If that is your dish, help yourself.

While the Black Plague is ravaging 14th-Century England, tough but dedicated soldier Sean Bean (Richard Sharpe) is charged with leading his band of equally hard-boiled troops in search of a heretic village that has been spared the pestilence and is therefore presumed to be under the influence of witchcraft. Enlisting the aid of a young novice monk, the band finds the village, but they also find more than they bargained for. This is one of those movies that lays out its' story without really taking sides. It is ambivalent about which side is right and which is wrong. Nevertheless, it is worth a look, provided one doesn't mind the somewhat excessive degree of violence that has become common in movies nowadays.

"Yangtse Incident" ("Battle Hell" is a dreadful alternate title) is an excellent account of the Amethyst Incident. Although little-remembered today, the incident made international headlines at the time for the courage, resourcefulness and determination of the crew of the beleaguered British frigate, HMS Amethyst. It also marked the end of a century of foreign nations exercising "gunboat diplomacy" along the inland waterways of China. Although the issue is barely touched upon in the movie that circumstance, imposed upon China by numerous foreign powers through unequal treaties, was a one which all the Chinese, and not just the Communists, had been coming regard as increasingly intolerable over the years.

However, it is not the political situation that is the central focus of the film, but the actions of the beleaguered British seamen who found themselves caught up in a desperate situation not of their own making. In that regard, "Yangste Incident" is comparable to "Zulu", another fine British film based upon a real historical event in which a small detachment of British soldiers also found themselves, through circumstances beyond their control, having to fight their way out of an impossible situation.

Of course, as is usually the case in movies of this kind, much has been left out. For example, many years after the fact, I actually met a man who had served on the Amethyst during the Yangtse Incident. At that time he held the rank of "Boy, First Class". He had much to say about Lt. Cmdr. Kerans, the officer who assumed command of the ship after the captain was killed. One thing I recall was his pointing that Kerans' post at the time, that of Assistant Naval Attache, was actually considered to be a dead-end job for an aspiring professional naval officer, and that Kerans was actually an officer who was considered to have very little future in the Navy. Needless to say, his conduct during the Yangtze Incident completely turned that situation around for him.

Although British films frequently featured American actors in order to attract American viewers, in "Yangtse Incident" all the leading roles are played by British actors. The only "American" actors in evidence are Akim Tamiroff, and Keye Luke, both of whom are cast as Chinese "baddies". Akim Tamiroff had previously portrayed a Chinese General in "The General Died At Dawn, so the role was not new to him. Of course, Keye Luke portrayed Chinese characters throughout his long career, most famously during the 1930s as Charlie Chan's "Number One Son" and, decades later, as "Master Po", the Shaolin Sage in "Kung-Fu".

Another, and perhaps more glaring, omission, is any mention of "Simon". The film provides only a brief, fleeting glimpse of Simon, and no mention whatever is made of him, or his remarkable part in the story. Badly wounded by shrapnel in the initial attack, Simon, the Amethyst's cat, was not expected to survive. However, he not only recovered. but resumed his duty as the ship's rat-catcher, which proved an invaluable service considering the limited amount of food available to the crew on board the ship. Afterwards, when Simon's story became known, his heroism was recognized by the award of the "Dicken Medal", the highest award for valor for animals, sometimes referred to as the "Animal's V.C".

However, perhaps the real centerpiece of the film is the presence of HMS Amethyst herself, as the filmmakers used the actual ship as the movie set. That sort of verisimilitude is simply not possible using CGI special effects.

This is a dreadful movie. However, the problem with this movie is in the production, not the performances. Phil Silvers and his supporting cast were great. "Top Banana" is essentially a showcase for old-time burlesque comedy presented by Phil Silvers and company, all of whom were veteran burlesque comics. In fact, the very title of the movie, "Top Banana", is an old burlesque term for the lead comic in a burlesque show, who's was invariably supported by a "Second Banana".

"Top Banana" was a long-running hit show on Broadway. The problem with this movie is that it is basically nothing more than a filmed version of the original stage show, and a very badly-filmed version, at that. The scenes are static, which is what one would expect when the director id doing nothing any more creative than to have a single fixed camera film a show being presented upon a stage. Worse that that, however, is that the movie is poorly edited, disjointed, chaotic and often incoherent. One can only suppose that Phil Silvers and company must have been appalled when they finally saw what a mess the movie studio had made of their hit Broadway show.

I read about Shackleton's expedition many years ago. Having spent 30 years going to sea, and having experienced some pretty terrible conditions, I am still in awe of these individuals. Worsley's feats of navigation in getting the expedition to Elephant Island, as well as the subsequent voyage from Elephant Island to South Georgia stand among the greatest achievements in the history of navigation. As if that weren't enough, the men followed that up by crossing the island of South Georgia on foot, something which no one had ever done before, with nothing but a length of rope and a carpenter's adze. I don't know how they made it, except that they simply knew that failure was not an option. Although the movie centers on Captain Frank Worsley, these were all truly iron men, of a sort whose like we shall never see again. For example, First Mate Frank Wilde deserves a tremendous amount of credit for keeping the shipwrecked survivors on Elephant Island alive for over four months, during which they had no idea whether rescue was ever going to come. And, of course, although the film plays down Shackleton's contributions in favor of Worsley's, it was Shackleton who was the supreme leader, "The Boss", who held everyone together throughout the entire ordeal.

This is one of the most incredible true stories you will ever see. If anyone ever wrote this story as a work of fiction, no publisher would ever accept it because they would consider it too far removed from realm of possibility. However, this all actually happened just the way it is depicted here. They even brought back the pictures to prove it, thanks to the expedition's photographer, Frank Hurley. This film will make Hollywood action-adventure movies seem tame by comparison.

Cosmos presents an interesting idea, but does not present it particularly well. For one thing, this two-hour movie uses up an entire hour before anything actually happens. Secondly, the characters spend the entire film murmuring, mumbling and whispering, so that it is usually difficult to figure out what it is that they are saying or what it is that they are trying to accomplish. Third, the aforementioned circumstance is rendered even worse by an overpowering film score which makes it even more difficult to understand what the murmuring characters are saying, and which I found particularly annoying. Lastly, the filmmakers decided to throw in a totally gratuitous and completely unnecessary high-speed car sequence. Presumably, the filmmakers decided that, since the rest of the movie was so static (it takes place almost entirely inside a parked car) they needed to throw in at least one "action" scene.

"The Crime Doctor" was the first of a series of WW-II-era "B-Picture" mysteries based upon a popular radio series. During WW-II many well-known leading actors left Hollywood to enlist in the military, including such famous stars as James Stewart, Leslie Howard, David Niven, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., Robert Taylor and Henry Fonda. As a result, the movie industry had to fall back upon well-known actors who had once been popular stars, but who were now becoming older, and would otherwise probably not be have been engaged for leading roles. One such actor was Warner Baxter, formerly a well-known and popular leading man who, though now in his 50s, was clearly still capable of getting the job done.

In this case Baxter portrays a character of indeterminate age, but one who is clearly not necessarily a young man. He has had been suffering from amnesia for the past ten years after being found beside the road suffering from a head injury. Although he has no knowledge of his previous life, the implication is that he had formerly been some sort of criminal. In an effort to recover his memory (and despite his age and the fact that he has no identity or credentials), he enrolls in medical school and becomes a psychiatrist.

At that time psychiatry was still fairly new and revolutionary, and books and movies concerning the work of psychiatrists were very popular. It was during that period that Hollywood produced films well-known such as "Kings Row" and "Now, Voyager", both of which were heavily involved with psychiatry. Clearly, "The Crime Doctor" series was intended to cash in on that popularity.

"The Crime Doctor" is typical of the sort of low-budget "B-Picture" movies series that Hollywood produced during the war years. While they were not bad, their production values were clearly constrained both by budget and time. However, they provided employment to a lot of talented people who would otherwise have been unemployed, and they provided a brief escape for audiences during a period when the entire world was plunged into a conflict, of which the outcome was still not yet certain.

This was a great series. However, it occurs to me that they probably could not make a series such as this today. Think about it: every episode was filmed on location in a different part of the country, to which a different set of actors had to be brought, and for which an original script had to be written that had to be relevant to that particular location. Such a television series would probably be prohibitively expensive to produce nowadays. Added to which, consider that it was necessary for the two principal actors (Martin Milner and George Maharis) and the rest of the crew to remain "on the road" for long periods of time while the series was in production.