A Holy Terror (1931)

The relevance of the title is anybody's guess; but slickly directed by Irving Cummings and fluidly shot on location by veteran cameraman George Schneiderman (who with leading man George O'Brien had worked on John Ford's 'The Iron Horse' in 1924), 'A Holy Terror' ambles along agreeably until an abrupt and surprising ending that anticipates 'The Empire Strikes Back'.That this is a pre-Coder is signalled by the scene in which hero George O'Brien crashes his plane into Sally Eilers' bathroom while she's in the shower. James Kirkwood brings his usual gravitas to the role of the film's villain, and not surprisingly proves to be a far from run of the mill baddie. But the reason this film is remembered today is the presence of Humphrey Bogart in a ten gallon hat as Kirkwood's principal henchman, fourth in the cast list and far more relaxed in front of the camera and like his later sardonic self than he is in most of his other early talkie roles; he and third-billed Rita La Roy as the 'other' woman with boyishly short hair make a far more interesting couple than the nominal leads.

When the film begins, a rich man, Thomas Woodbury, dies. His son, Tony (George O'Brien), soon learns that for decades his father has been having a man named William Drew watched by private detectives. And, he learns that his father actually had a previous identity and lived originally in Wyoming. So, he decides to head to Wyoming and learn from Mr. Drew himself what the connection is between them. However, a few hiccups occur during his investigation. First, his plane crashes right into a pretty lady's bathroom while she's taking a shower. She's unhurt and Tony is DEFINITELY interested in seeing more of her. Second, one of Drew's employees, Steve Nash (Humphrey Bogart), is REALLY curious about Tony and why he wants to see Drew...and so he takes it upon himself to rough up the young man. But Tony soon escapes. What's really going on here? Who is Drew really and why would Nash act this way?This is an early film of Bogart and that's the reason I decided to watch the movie. The print is pretty lousy but considering how hard it is to find Bogart's early films, I watched it on YouTube despite its shortcomings. While most folks today recognize Bogart as a top- tier star, he acted in a bunch of films in mostly minor roles for nearly a decade before his talents were recognized. Films like "A Holy Terror" might explain why, as Bogart was oddly cast as a guy from Wyoming...despite his strong New York accent and manners.So is it any good? Well, since it's a cheap B-movie from Fox, it had a relatively small budget and certainly was NOT one of their premier productions back in 1931. And, I must admit that the secret that Tony discovers is a real DOOZY...making it worth your time waiting for this. But, on the other hand...the film just inexplicably ends...no fade out, no incidental music...almost like the just ran out of film! Odd...but still watchable.

I'm beginning to think that the biggest haters of Spaghetti Westerns are the fans of Hollywood Westerns. It would explain the mediocre reviews on this one. I'm just the reverse, and really enjoyed this movie.An early "talkie", there's no soundtrack as that concept didn't exist yet. Bogart's fifth full length movie, I liked his character in this one much more than usual. I'm not a fan of Bogie movies. Having him as the villain of the piece and a nasty one at that fits him much more, imho. He's constantly rejected by his love interest, not swooned over. Much better!I would argue that this movie shows that the Spaghetti Western style of Western was the natural progression, but that was derailed by the Hollywood Production Code and those in Hollywood that thought they had to be the conservative moral saviors of the country. It's not so much the cinematography and there's no musical score, it's more the way common Western elements are handled. I got a DVD with some Spaghetti Westerns on it the other day and an insert had some classic Western characters on it with the caption, "My heroes have always been cowboys". That made me realize how that's so Hollywood and very much the opposite of the Spaghetti genre. Bogart plays a SW type cowboy, not a Hollywood styled one. Revenge and mystery are the plot drivers, so, I really don't think it's a stretch to compare it to the Italian variety. The plot is solid and moves the action along. The acting is good. Being 85 years old it's interesting just to look at things from the point of view of a picture that was totally contemporary at the time.

I wound up with a copy of this film by accident--and figured I'd watch it before sending it back to the collector who made me a copy of this instead of the film I'd actually requested, so I had little or no expectations...just wanted to see what it was. The first few scenes take place back east and feature Robert Warwick, so I was thinking "oh no, another of those 'dude goes West' films." However, the film soon shifts into high gear with Warwick's death, which motivates George O'Brien to go out to Wyoming. There's some well-placed humor in the film, such as when O'Brien lands his plane in a lady's bathroom (!), but the film is as much a mystery as it is a western. There's also a nice "Bad Day At Black Rock" kind of feel to the small town in which O'Brien arrives, asking questions. The way the plot develops is suspenseful, and the finale, which ends cold right after the climax, is powerful. The film, as with most 1931 productions, has no music, so ending the film abruptly and in silence is a powerful technique. The heavy in the film is played by the young Humphrey Bogart, in what must have been one of his first significant roles, and he is menacing and intense, just as he would be a few years later in PETRIFIED FOREST. George O'Brien, best known today for the silent classic SUNRISE and for his work in John Ford films, can play an upper-class polo-playing young man, but he is also genuinely tough (not a surprise, considering he was a boxing champ earlier in his life), has a keen sense of humor, and has a warm screen presence. He's also a fine horseman. In under one hour, this film tells a complex story, yet is exciting and plays like a good mystery, though in a western setting. Some who aren't that familiar with early-sound films may find it a bit slow going, but it's actually quite fluid for a 1931 film, and I give it a full 10 star rating. It completely achieved what it set out to do and holds up well today. (interestingly, my copy had "fade in" and "fade out" on the screen in between a number of films--was this a television print with those meant for the local TV station projectionist???). I don't get the Fox Movie Channel, but as this was a Fox film, maybe it will be shown there sometime. Watch for it...and don't get up to get a soda or a snack. Watch it uninterrupted.