Could you please recommend me some great 1930s, 1940s and 1950s movies?

Montana Smith

Active member
AndyLGR said:
I knew I'd mentioned them somewhere, I actually thought it was this thread. If you know the Conan Doyle stories you will recognise which ones these 2 films were loosely based on. As many film series from this era they were very much of their time, made on a budget, slightly wooden acting, with actors that you will think, 'I've seen him somewhere before', usually because they were in multiple films in the series playing different characters.

Speaking of Holmes murder mysteries, The Scarlet Claw is posssibly the best of the Basil Rathbone films, (personally its a toss up between this, Terror by Night, Hound or House of Fear for me), Scarlet Claw features a series of linked murders in a small Canadian village which is permanently shrouded in fog. Its the old dark house theme but expanded out to this small village. That has elements of the supernatural too. Equally Terror by Night follows the formula but is set on a train.

Looks like all of these will be available on YouTube:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/DM8g7jfQccA?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/f8p5pJtWgds?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


I just went into the Cliffhangers thread and found your mention of the genre, and it brings us full circle back to The Cat and the Canary!

AndyLGR said:
I picked Iron Claw because I'm a big fan of the old dark house style movie, Cat and the Canary, The Secret of the Blue Room, Sherlock Holmes faces Death, even What a Carve Up too........
 
Last edited:

AndyLGR

Active member
Good finds Montana, if you like old style detective films like those then they are well worth an hour of your time to view each of them.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
AndyLGR said:
Good finds Montana, if you like old style detective films like those then they are well worth an hour of your time to view each of them.

I like atmospheric old films.

So many films available on YouTube and other sites that you really have to know what you're looking for, or go by recommendation. (y)
 

AndyLGR

Active member
Montana Smith said:
I like atmospheric old films.

So many films available on YouTube and other sites that you really have to know what you're looking for, or go by recommendation. (y)
I think the majority of Rathbone movies have atmosphere in abundance. The possible exceptions for me are Dressed to Kill, Pursuit to Algiers and In Washington, Im not sure what it is about those 3 but they are my weakest of the series IMO.

Its interesting to note the difference in atmosphere in the first 2 Rathbone Holmes movies produced by Fox, Hound of the Baskervilles and The Adventures of..., as both of those films were set in Victorian London. Then Universal took over the series and brought Holmes in to the present day.
 

AndyLGR

Active member
I forgot to mention And Then There Were None - based on the Agatha Christie novel of the same name, ten guests, each with a skeleton in their closet, are summoned to a hotel and are killed off one by one. Its been re-made several times, but I prefer the version from the 1940's.

Tears for Simon (aka Lost) - this is another kidnapping film set in 1950's London, I've not seen this for years but I have memories of it being a gritty crime drama. Again familar British actors appear. I need to track this down.
Found this film yesterday, I did some more digging and its also known as 999 Scotland Yard, strange that it has 3 titles around the world. Anyway I ordered a copy.
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
AndyLGR said:
I think the majority of Rathbone movies have atmosphere in abundance. The possible exceptions for me are Dressed to Kill, Pursuit to Algiers and In Washington, Im not sure what it is about those 3 but they are my weakest of the series IMO.

I watched the four Holmes films - Faces Death, Scarlet Claw, House of Fear, and Terror by Night. Pretty good fun!

Generally it appears that the nasty stuff is kept off screen, such as lifting the sheet on a dead body or reporting a gruesome injury, but a scene in Terror by Night came as a surprise. The still smouldering corpse recently pulled from the furnace in the cellar. :dead:

And I thought of another family movie with a similar scene - Star Wars with the still smoking bodies of Owen and Beru.

AndyLGR said:
Its interesting to note the difference in atmosphere in the first 2 Rathbone Holmes movies produced by Fox, Hound of the Baskervilles and The Adventures of..., as both of those films were set in Victorian London. Then Universal took over the series and brought Holmes in to the present day.

I'm downloading those first two now.

Checking Basil Rathbone's bio on IMDB, Universal were really knocking those films out fast. Twelve of them between 1942 and 1946. But then they were low budget, as you wrote. You can see models standing in for buildings, what looks like cardboard railway carriages in a railway station, and model trains and archive footage for exterior shots.

On looking for Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon I found there's a colour version:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/lRtiS3LGa8Y?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

AndyLGR

Active member
Montana Smith said:
I watched the four Holmes films - Faces Death, Scarlet Claw, House of Fear, and Terror by Night. Pretty good fun!

Generally it appears that the nasty stuff is kept off screen, such as lifting the sheet on a dead body or reporting a gruesome injury, but a scene in Terror by Night came as a surprise. The still smouldering corpse recently pulled from the furnace in the cellar. :dead:

Glad you liked them.

Speaking of off screen stuff, The Pearl of Death had one of the scariest villains (at least thats what I thought as a kid anyway) in The Oxton Creeper, played by Rondo Hatton, who's MO was to break peoples backs :sick:

Montana Smith said:
I'm downloading those first two now.

Checking Basil Rathbone's bio on IMDB, Universal were really knocking those films out fast. Twelve of them between 1942 and 1946. But then they were low budget, as you wrote. You can see models standing in for buildings, what looks like cardboard railway carriages in a railway station, and model trains and archive footage for exterior shots.

Those first 2 from Fox are really good I think and benefit from them being set in the Victorian era, I also think that Hound benefits from being in b&w too. The fact they were low budget is part of the charm of these films too I think.

Montana Smith said:
On looking for Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon I found there's a colour version:

I'm going to watch that, thanks (y) One of the things I always think about with a colourised film is how do they know what colours to use, do they just take a flyer and give it their best guess as to what the colours should be and what looks good?
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
AndyLGR said:
Glad you liked them.

I have all 14 on disc now!

AndyLGR said:
Speaking of off screen stuff, The Pearl of Death had one of the scariest villains (at least thats what I thought as a kid anyway) in The Oxton Creeper, played by Rondo Hatton, who's MO was to break peoples backs :sick:

I first saw him in the film In Old Chicago. Typecast due to his unfortunate condition.

AndyLGR said:
Those first 2 from Fox are really good I think and benefit from them being set in the Victorian era, I also think that Hound benefits from being in b&w too. The fact they were low budget is part of the charm of these films too I think.

Fog and smog played they part well in those!

AndyLGR said:
I'm going to watch that, thanks (y) One of the things I always think about with a colourised film is how do they know what colours to use, do they just take a flyer and give it their best guess as to what the colours should be and what looks good?

Here's a quote from the wiki page on the Rathbone series:

Colour versions and restoration

Four of the films—Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, The Woman in Green, Terror by Night and Dressed to Kill—are in the public domain.[54] In 2006 the four films were digitally restored and computer colourised by Legend Films, who released the colour and black and white films on DVDs.[55][56]

And on digital colourization:

Digital colorization

Computerized colorization began in the 1970s with a process developed by Wilson Markle. Movies colorized using early techniques have soft contrast and fairly pale, flat, washed out color; however, the technology has improved since the 1980s.

To perform digital colorization, a digitized copy of the best monochrome film print available is needed. Technicians, with the aid of computer software, associate a range of gray levels to each object, and indicate to the computer any movement of the objects within a shot. The software also is capable of sensing variations in the light level from frame to frame and correcting it if necessary. The technician selects a color for each object based on (1) common "memory" colors such as blue sky, white clouds, flesh tones and green grass, and (2) based on any known information about the movie. For example, if there are color publicity photos or props from the movie available to examine, authentic colors may be applied. (3) In the absence of any better information, the technician chooses a color that fits the gray level and that the technician feels is consistent with what a director might have chosen for the scene. The computer software then associates a variation of the basic color with each gray level in the object, while keeping intensity levels the same as in the monochrome original. The software then follows each object from frame to frame, applying the same color until the object leaves the frame. As new objects come into the frame, the technician must associate colors to each new object in the same way as described above.[5] This technique was patented in 1991.[6]

A major difficulty with this process is its labor-intensity. For example, in order to colorize a still image an artist typically begins by dividing the image into regions, and then assigning a color to each region. This approach, also known as the segmentation method, is time consuming, as the process of dividing the picture into correct segments is painstaking. This problem occurs mainly because there have been no fully automatic algorithms to identify fuzzy or complex region boundaries, such as between a subject’s hair and face. Colorization of moving images also requires tracking regions as movement occurs from one frame to the next (motion compensation). There are several companies which claim to have produced automatic region-tracking algorithms.

Legend Films describes their core technology as pattern recognition and background compositing which moves and morphs foreground and background masks from frame to frame. In the process, backgrounds are colorized separately in a single composite frame which functions as a visual database of a cut, and includes all offset data on each camera movement. Once the foregrounds are colorized the background masks are applied frame to frame in a utility process.[clarification needed]

Timebrush describes a process based on neural net technology which produces saturated and crisp colors with clear lines and no apparent spill-over. It is claimed that the process is cost effective and equally suitable for low-budget colorization, as well as for prime time broadcast-quality or theatrical projection.

A team at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's Benin School of Computer Science and Engineering describe their method as an interactive process which does not require precise, manual, region detection, nor accurate tracking and is based on the simple premise that nearby pixels in space and time that have similar gray levels should also have similar colors. At the University of Minnesota, a color propagation method was developed that uses geodesic distance.[7]

A highly labor-intensive process, employed by the UK-based film and video colorization artist Stuart Humphryes in conjunction with video restoration company SVS Resources, was employed by the BBC in 2013 for the commercial release of two Doctor Who serials - episode one of The Mind of Evil and newly discovered monochrome footage in the Director's Cut of Terror of the Zygons. For these ventures approximately 7000 key-frames (approximately every 5th PAL video frame) were fully colorized by hand, without the use of masks, layers or the segmentation method. These were then utilised by SVS Resources to interpolate the colour across the intervening surrounding frames using a part computerized/part manual process.[8]

I found one more of the colour versions:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/f8ORDBmGum0?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

AndyLGR

Active member
After having the b&w versions engrained on my mind for 30 years its really strange to see them in colour. I'm actually not sure that the colour will improve them.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
AndyLGR said:
After having the b&w versions engrained on my mind for 30 years its really strange to see them in colour. I'm actually not sure that the colour will improve them.

What you lose in 'authenticity' you gain in seeing...colours!

The Secret Weapon looks really good colourized. It's a good print too.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
AndyLGR said:
I think the majority of Rathbone movies have atmosphere in abundance. The possible exceptions for me are Dressed to Kill, Pursuit to Algiers and In Washington, Im not sure what it is about those 3 but they are my weakest of the series IMO.

I've been watching them in chronological order and have got to 1946.

I agree with you on In Washington and Pursuit to Algiers. The latter was my least favourite so far.

AndyLGR said:
Speaking of off screen stuff, The Pearl of Death had one of the scariest villains (at least thats what I thought as a kid anyway) in The Oxton Creeper, played by Rondo Hatton, who's MO was to break peoples backs :sick:

The Pearl of Death was one of my favourites. Not only was The Creeper creepy, but the story itself was one of the more 'mature' ones. This one and The Woman in Green have a tone that sets them apart from those that I regard more as 'family' films.


AndyLGR said:
Those first 2 from Fox are really good I think and benefit from them being set in the Victorian era...

I think that Holmes in the 1940s works better when isn't foiling 'Nazi plots'. Those stories obviously contain the most propaganda elements, including Holmes reciting speeches by Churchill, and they also set him in a world so alien from his late Victorian beginnings. The non-Nazi agent stories feel more traditional.
 

AndyLGR

Active member
Montana Smith said:
I've been watching them in chronological order and have got to 1946.

I agree with you on In Washington and Pursuit to Algiers. The latter was my least favourite so far.

The Pearl of Death was one of my favourites. Not only was The Creeper creepy, but the story itself was one of the more 'mature' ones. This one and The Woman in Green have a tone that sets them apart from those that I regard more as 'family' films.

I think that Holmes in the 1940s works better when isn't foiling 'Nazi plots'. Those stories obviously contain the most propaganda elements, including Holmes reciting speeches by Churchill, and they also set him in a world so alien from his late Victorian beginnings. The non-Nazi agent stories feel more traditional.
I agree on the propaganda films, they are ones I least enjoy, not that they are bad films, but I too much prefer the standalone stories. Voice of Terror and Washington spring to mind as the most war driven of the series. And what was going on with holmes hair in some of those?

I think Algiers is my least favourite because of the story, The Narrow Margin which is a much better film reminds of Algiers story wise, and the setting is even more wooden than the others too.

There are a few in the series that are a bit more mature in their tone. I think scarlet claw is another.

One of the things that always grates on me is the different actors they used to play Moriarty. With them being made do close together i wonder why they didn't use the same actor. I'm sure some Moriarty actors played other characters in the series too.
 
Last edited:
Top