Manhattan Tower

I don't know what to make of the rave reviews of this movie on IMDB. They *all* praise the story, which is really awful.

I wanted to watch this movie because of curiosity about the director, Frank Strayer. He directed the early movies in the Blondie series and he was surprisingly adventurous for a b-movie director (one entry was even a musical). I was surprised that someone with so much artistic ambition was so forgotten.

Manhattan Tower may be a good explanation of why.

The movie starts very well, establishing the hustle and bustle of a skyscraper, with workers and business people toiling away and with birds-eye looks at the hectic streets below. There are quirky and original shots, most notably the way traveling through the elevator shaft is used to indicate height in the building.

Unfortunately, the movie is painfully dull, involving a bickering couple and a sleazy executive. The story is as thin as gruel, both unpersuasive and completely predictable (hence my confusion at the IMDB reviews). The acting is abysmal. The financial stuff is a bit unclear. The comic relief of the drunk guy and the pill-popping receptionist fails to work.

This, perhaps, is the difference between someone like Lewis Milestone and someone like Frank Strayer. They both liked to play with the camera, but the former understood that trick shots are nothing if you don't have a solid story behind them.

Surprisingly entertaining B-movie about intertwined lives during a typical day in a downtown office tower. The cast is attractive, and there's a suitably despicable villain who gets what he deserves. Starts out looking like it's going to be a Grand Hotel knock-off but only one story is covered. Later a hint of the bank run of American Madness is thrown in sketchily. Like other such contemporary lower case pictures with similar styles & themes (such as Hotel Continental from the same year, which really IS a Grand Hotel knock-off), it has no street exteriors --saving money -- and moves satisfyingly fast with second-tier actors showing their stuff. But this one is distinguished by a really unusual scene-changing device making use of the skyscraper's vertical architecture really well. Made by a no-name company with a Gower Gulch list of techs and creative talent behind the camera.

I had no idea this type of production could be so good.

Entertaining period piece, but little more. It's 1932 and neither banks nor the stock market are trusted, thanks to the financial crash of '29. On the other hand, the shots of Manhattan Tower resemble a soaring temple to the movie-makers confidence in both business and the future, despite the recent calamity. The tower shows level after rising level of bustling business people, also providing a good chance to catch ladies fashions of the day as they hustle in and out of offices. Too bad there's no glimpse of the impoverished masses that truly epitomize the age.

The plot concerns the free-wheeling industrial executive Burns who's not above using other people's hard earned cash to float his own misbegotten investments. These shenanigans eventually culminate in a run on a cash strapped Tower bank and hardship for the workers. At the same time, Burns chases anything in skirts, his beleaguered wife be darned. So how will things straighten out.

It's a low-budget, indie production with a largely lesser-known cast except for Bryan and Hall, and a few glimpses of an early Walter Brennan. The acting's okay, though, as others point out, the fistfight is amateurish, along with a cheaply done featureless sky in scenes from atop the tower. Also, the comedic scenes with the pill-popping secretary and the silly wandering drunk tell the audience that despite serious intent, it's only a movie after all. Besides, the occasionally clever innuendo provides all the chuckles needed.

Overall, as a product of its time, the cheap flick succeeds importantly in giving us a one-sided glimpse of that stressed out time in a largely entertaining way.

(In Passing-- in the year following this movie's release, namely 1933, Congress passed the New Deal's Federal Deposit Insurance legislation that insured bank deposits up to an elevated amount. The practical effect was to prevent 'bank runs' such as occur in the movie. Now depositors could rest easier if a bank got in trouble.)

Take some exterior and lobby shots of the Empire State Building. Add in some touches of Rockefeller Center. Blend plots from GRAND HOTEL and SKYSCRAPER SOULS, and sift out the more blatant Pre-Code elements and you've got MANHATTAN TOWER, a very pleasant little B movie.

It's a well-constructed movie, with a goodly number of second-ranked players which focus around Clay Clement, a womanizing executive, Irene Rich as his wife, tired of his cheating and anxious to get a divorce so she can marry Hale Hamilton, who is also concerned about buttressing a shaky bank. Director Frank Strayer does a fine job of mixing major and minor characters, and cinematographer Ira Morgan of some offers some fine camera-work. Editor Harry Reynolds does some fine work, even though some of his cuts don't quite work; his moving wipes achieved by taking the camera up through floors gives the unfortunate sense that the shutter has stuck midway between frames. Once you get used to the effect, you'll likely admire the technique, while understanding why it didn't catch on.

Nonetheless, it's a nicely concocted movie, with some good talent, including James Hall in his last movie, elegant Irene Rich (unfortunately slow in her line readings) and a stuttering Walter Brennan. It's by no means a great work, but it will pass an hour of your time very pleasantly.

In its defence, nobody involved with the production of this had ever seen a motion picture before and the verb, 'to act' was not one which any of the cast had ever come across. Alternatively, this might just be inexcusably awful.

This has to be one of the worst pictures I've ever seen. That something can be this atrocious defies logic. The world is fortunate that Remington Pictures was so short-lived if this example is anything to go by. Apart from those clicking elevator noises which fascinate me in early thirties movies, the only thing which made me watch this to its absurd denouement was to satisfy my morbid curiosity to see how it managed to get increasingly worse with each passing minute. Quite an achievement.

The only picture I can think of that's worse is MURDER AT MIDNIGHT and that's also directed by this guy, Frank Stayer...hmm. OK, he uses some interesting wipes between scenes but unfortunately these lead to the scenes if you can call them that. If you want to put someone off ever watching a 1930s film, show them this.

This was a cheap rip-off of the excellent SKYSCRAPER SOULS (1932) but made apparently by amateurs. It's so awful however that it's almost insulting to real films like SKYSCRAPER SOULS to mention this in the same breath or be on the same IMDb site. Imagine you showed the Mona Lisa to a six you'd child and said 'copy that.' The child might be able to create something which looks like the real Mona Lisa but you'd hardly exhibit it in The Louvre!