2/10
Saturday, August 28, 2010
The Wicker Man (2006)
"Oh, no! Not the bees! Not the bees!", 9 February 2008
What a freakin' joke! The 1973 version of The Wicker Man is a true classic and one of the most powerful movies I've ever seen. The final scenes have lost nothing and remain as strong today as they were over 30 years ago. The 2006 version of The Wicker Man manages to take most everything that made the original such a wonderfully compelling piece of cinema and chuck it out the window. How you can take out the religious and sexual aspects that were a focus of the original story and still call it The Wicker Man? And what do you use to replace the religious and sexual aspects so key to understanding the central character? Bees! Yes, that's right – bees, for God's sake! What an insult! There's a story that the original negatives of the 1973 film were buried in a landfill under a roadway in England. Why couldn't it have been the 2006 abomination?
2/10
2/10
SST: Death Flight (1977) (TV)
Cookie-cutter 70s disaster film-making, 8 February 2008
Here's a an idea – let's round-up a bunch of Hollywood has-beens, second rate TV actors, and a bunch of no-names and put them all on board a cross Atlantic flight. And let's add a crazed mechanic with a grudge. Oh, and how about adding a deadly virus that fills the plane? You've got the recipe for a 1970s TV movie-of-the-week!
How many of these doomed airplane movies did they make? If you believed what you saw at the movies and on television, planes were dropping out of the skies like flies in the 70s. These kinds of movies were all the rage and SST: Death Flight was meant to grab onto the disaster-cycle coattails. I'll give the movie credit, though – it's actually not much worse than most of the rest of its ilk. The acting is what you would expect from the likes of Lorne Greene, Tina Louise, and Bert Convy. The manufactured tension comes across 30 years later as more humorous than anything else. The characters are cardboard cutouts with overly dramatized problems that can miraculously be solved in an hour or so. The one thing SST: Death Flight has going for it is a slightly unusual twist at the end where the characters the choice of life or death. Other than that, it's cookie-cutter 70s disaster film-making at it's best (or worst, depending on how you look at this stuff.)
4/10
How many of these doomed airplane movies did they make? If you believed what you saw at the movies and on television, planes were dropping out of the skies like flies in the 70s. These kinds of movies were all the rage and SST: Death Flight was meant to grab onto the disaster-cycle coattails. I'll give the movie credit, though – it's actually not much worse than most of the rest of its ilk. The acting is what you would expect from the likes of Lorne Greene, Tina Louise, and Bert Convy. The manufactured tension comes across 30 years later as more humorous than anything else. The characters are cardboard cutouts with overly dramatized problems that can miraculously be solved in an hour or so. The one thing SST: Death Flight has going for it is a slightly unusual twist at the end where the characters the choice of life or death. Other than that, it's cookie-cutter 70s disaster film-making at it's best (or worst, depending on how you look at this stuff.)
4/10
Fantastic Four (2005)
"It's clobbering time!", 8 February 2008
Fantastic Four (2005) is essentially the origin story of this band of Marvel superheroes. The four soon-to-be heroes are sent into space, subjected to cosmic radiation, shocked at the resulting effects on their bodies, and band together to stop a would-be evil villain. An origin story like this would seem to be a good place to begin a franchise. Unfortunately, the results are incredibly mundane. For the first in a series, Fantastic Four felt awfully tired. There's just nothing here to get all that excited about. Special effects – seen 'em before. Characters – 2-D and paper thin. Comedy – lame. Plot – predictable. Acting – is that what they were doing? I can't think of one moment in the movie that made me sit up and take notice. There wasn't a single "Wow" moment for me.
A lot has been made about the casting of Jessica Alba in the role of Sue Storm. Besides the fact that I've never understood the attraction of this Barbie of a woman, I thought she was terribly miscast. She's supposed to be Johnny's older sister? Ridiculous! I just love the scene where she scolds her "younger" brother. Watching Alba attempt to act mature is hilarious. And her relationship with Reed has all the chemistry of oil and water. Again, she's too young to pull it off. Finally, Jessica Alba as a genetic researcher? Yeah, right. The worst case of casting since Denise Richards played a nuclear scientist in The World is Not Enough. Unbelievable!
4/10
A lot has been made about the casting of Jessica Alba in the role of Sue Storm. Besides the fact that I've never understood the attraction of this Barbie of a woman, I thought she was terribly miscast. She's supposed to be Johnny's older sister? Ridiculous! I just love the scene where she scolds her "younger" brother. Watching Alba attempt to act mature is hilarious. And her relationship with Reed has all the chemistry of oil and water. Again, she's too young to pull it off. Finally, Jessica Alba as a genetic researcher? Yeah, right. The worst case of casting since Denise Richards played a nuclear scientist in The World is Not Enough. Unbelievable!
4/10
Girl in Gold Boots (1968)
"I had a pretty mind! Oh God, I wish I had my pretty mind back.", 7 February 2008
Michele Casey (Leslie McRae) has bigger plans for her future than working at her father's diner in the middle of nowhere. She dreams of being a dancer. When a smooth-talking lowlife named Buz Nichols (Tom Pace) offers her a ride to Los Angeles, she jumps at the chance. Along the way, the pair meet up with a draft dodger named Critter (Jody Daniels) who's also looking to get to L.A. Michele ends up getting a job dancing with Buz's junky sister at a club called the Haunted House. The club is run by some of the greasiest customers to ever use Vitalis. They've soon got Buz dealing dope for them. Can Michele escape the squalor her life has become or will she be dragged into the gutter?
Girl in Gold Boots is a difficult movie for me to rate. On the one hand, it's the kind of movie that makes you feel like taking a shower. It's a greasy experience. One scene in particular in the movie perfectly illustrates this effect on me. Buz's sister (the druggy) has almost passed out and is on the floor. There's a camera shot looking up from her perspective at her slimy boss. In the background just over his head is a giant brown stain on the drop-tile ceiling. It's nasty and disgusting but looks like most everything else in Girl in Gold Boots. I would like to think that the director, Ted V. Mikels, carefully chose this shot to use the brown stain as a representation of sorts for the character standing under it. But that's probably giving Mikels way too much credit. My guess is that the stained ceiling came with the location they were using. As nasty as it looks, it fits nicely with the rest of the movie.
But I've rated Girl in Gold Boots a 6/10 so it should be obvious that I found something about the movie to enjoy. It's hard to put finger on, but something about the story, the characters, and the incredibly lame dancing actually works for me. Some of it may be in the at "so bad it's good" sort of way, but whatever, I find it entertaining. I suppose this is one of those cases where comparing the movie to a train wreck is appropriate – it's hard to look away. However, be warned – based on the IMDb rating of 2.8, it's obvious that I'm pretty much alone on this one.
Girl in Gold Boots is one of those movies that I've seen both with and without the MST3K commentary. My opinion of the movie remains unchanged whichever way I watch it. The MST3K commentary itself is very funny. I rate Girl in Gold Boots a 5/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
6/10
Girl in Gold Boots is a difficult movie for me to rate. On the one hand, it's the kind of movie that makes you feel like taking a shower. It's a greasy experience. One scene in particular in the movie perfectly illustrates this effect on me. Buz's sister (the druggy) has almost passed out and is on the floor. There's a camera shot looking up from her perspective at her slimy boss. In the background just over his head is a giant brown stain on the drop-tile ceiling. It's nasty and disgusting but looks like most everything else in Girl in Gold Boots. I would like to think that the director, Ted V. Mikels, carefully chose this shot to use the brown stain as a representation of sorts for the character standing under it. But that's probably giving Mikels way too much credit. My guess is that the stained ceiling came with the location they were using. As nasty as it looks, it fits nicely with the rest of the movie.
But I've rated Girl in Gold Boots a 6/10 so it should be obvious that I found something about the movie to enjoy. It's hard to put finger on, but something about the story, the characters, and the incredibly lame dancing actually works for me. Some of it may be in the at "so bad it's good" sort of way, but whatever, I find it entertaining. I suppose this is one of those cases where comparing the movie to a train wreck is appropriate – it's hard to look away. However, be warned – based on the IMDb rating of 2.8, it's obvious that I'm pretty much alone on this one.
Girl in Gold Boots is one of those movies that I've seen both with and without the MST3K commentary. My opinion of the movie remains unchanged whichever way I watch it. The MST3K commentary itself is very funny. I rate Girl in Gold Boots a 5/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
6/10
Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959)
"I'm muzzled by army brass!", 7 February 2008
Watching Plan 9 from Outer Space is like watching an instructional video on how to make a bad movie. It's all here – poor acting, dime store special effects, ridiculously flimsy sets, absolutely no continuity, bad editing, and an incoherent plot. But the most offensive part in my mind is the dialogue. It's completely inane. Criswell's opening monologue is a perfect example – "Greetings, my friend. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future…." Huh? Does any of that make the least bit of sense? Not to me.
Some people, however, go so far as to call Plan 9 from Outer Space the worst movie ever made. That's ludicrous if you ask me. It might be the most famous bad movie, but not the worst. There are any number of movies more unwatchable, more wretched, and more mind-numbing than Plan 9. For sure, it's bad, but it doesn't deserve the reputation it's gotten over the years. There are several positive aspects of Plan 9 I could cite, but I'll limit this to my old standard argument on Ed Wood as a filmmaker. He may not have had the most talent, the biggest budgets, the most gifted actors, and the best written scripts, but there's not denying Ed Wood's love for movies. You can see it in almost every frame of the film. His enthusiasm for his work is almost infectious. And in my mind that counts for something. It makes watching Plan 9 a reasonably fun experience. Sure, a lot of the fun comes from unintentional sources, but Wood's vision is still there for all to enjoy. And with the fun comes entertainment. I will continue to argue that entertainment is the most important factor for me in watching a movie. That's why I've got no problem giving Plan 9 a 5/10.
5/10
Some people, however, go so far as to call Plan 9 from Outer Space the worst movie ever made. That's ludicrous if you ask me. It might be the most famous bad movie, but not the worst. There are any number of movies more unwatchable, more wretched, and more mind-numbing than Plan 9. For sure, it's bad, but it doesn't deserve the reputation it's gotten over the years. There are several positive aspects of Plan 9 I could cite, but I'll limit this to my old standard argument on Ed Wood as a filmmaker. He may not have had the most talent, the biggest budgets, the most gifted actors, and the best written scripts, but there's not denying Ed Wood's love for movies. You can see it in almost every frame of the film. His enthusiasm for his work is almost infectious. And in my mind that counts for something. It makes watching Plan 9 a reasonably fun experience. Sure, a lot of the fun comes from unintentional sources, but Wood's vision is still there for all to enjoy. And with the fun comes entertainment. I will continue to argue that entertainment is the most important factor for me in watching a movie. That's why I've got no problem giving Plan 9 a 5/10.
5/10
The Hardy Boys: The Mystery of the Applegate Treasure (1956) (TV)
I've waited over 30 years to see this, 6 February 2008
Finally! After 30 some odd years, I finally got the chance to see The Hardy Boys: The Mystery of the Applegate Treasure in its entirety. In the early 70s, one of the local UHF channels ran repeats of the Mickey Mouse Club from the 50s. Included was the daily serial The Mystery of the Applegate Treasure. For whatever reason, I never got to see the whole thing. So for over 30 years I was left wondering about the show and what happened and how the mystery was resolved. And for 30 years, I've had the theme song stuck in my head. I'm very happy Disney released this series.
So was it worth the wait? You betcha! While The Mystery of the Applegate Treasure may not have been as "spooky" as I remembered, it was a lot of fun reliving this moment of my childhood. The story is solid in that innocent, child-friendly, 50s sort of way. Remember, this is a serial designed for kids and made more than 50 years ago. The acting is actually quite good. While neither Tommy Kirk nor Tim Considine is what I would call a world-class actor, both give it their all and are a joy to watch. The supporting players are just as good (if not better in some cases) with Arthur Shields, Florenz Ames, and Carole Ann Campbell really shining. The sets are much better than I remembered. Sure, it's all stage-bound, but the Applegate Tower looked as good as I remembered. The direction is capable at a minimum with the usually dependable Charles Haas at the helm. Overall, it's a good show.
Disney has released The Hardy Boys: The Mystery of the Applegate Treasure as part of their Walt Disney Treasures line. While I didn't really care about seeing the Mickey Mouse Club stuff or some of the other extras, the overall package is very nice. It makes for a very welcome addition to my DVD library.
9/10
So was it worth the wait? You betcha! While The Mystery of the Applegate Treasure may not have been as "spooky" as I remembered, it was a lot of fun reliving this moment of my childhood. The story is solid in that innocent, child-friendly, 50s sort of way. Remember, this is a serial designed for kids and made more than 50 years ago. The acting is actually quite good. While neither Tommy Kirk nor Tim Considine is what I would call a world-class actor, both give it their all and are a joy to watch. The supporting players are just as good (if not better in some cases) with Arthur Shields, Florenz Ames, and Carole Ann Campbell really shining. The sets are much better than I remembered. Sure, it's all stage-bound, but the Applegate Tower looked as good as I remembered. The direction is capable at a minimum with the usually dependable Charles Haas at the helm. Overall, it's a good show.
Disney has released The Hardy Boys: The Mystery of the Applegate Treasure as part of their Walt Disney Treasures line. While I didn't really care about seeing the Mickey Mouse Club stuff or some of the other extras, the overall package is very nice. It makes for a very welcome addition to my DVD library.
9/10
Hamlet (1961) (TV)
Dreary, 1 December 2007
There's really not much need to begin this little review with a plot synopsis. I mean it's Shakespeare's Hamlet for goodness sake – probably one of the best known plays ever written. I'm not embarrassed to admit that I came to this version of Hamlet the way most people on IMDb have – through Mystery Science Theater 3000. While the show may not be the best venue to use to judge a movie, in this case I cannot imagine attempting to watch it without the comedic quips. In a word, this German, made-for-TV version of Hamlet is dreary. 152 minutes? No way! It's too dark and depressing to be anything I want to spend almost three hours on. I've said it any number of times, but entertainment is the thing for me. And this wrist-slitter is far from entertaining. I will, however, give it a couple of points for what I felt was some reasonably good acting. A 3/10 sounds about right to me.
As much as I enjoy MST3K, their comments don't help to make Hamlet any more palatable. There are a few good riffs here and there, but overall, Hamlet is just the wrong movie for MST3K. Shakespeare is far too talky to allow the comedy to have any sort of rhythm or flow. As much as it pains me, I've got to give Hamlet a 1/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
3/10
There's really not much need to begin this little review with a plot synopsis. I mean it's Shakespeare's Hamlet for goodness sake – probably one of the best known plays ever written. I'm not embarrassed to admit that I came to this version of Hamlet the way most people on IMDb have – through Mystery Science Theater 3000. While the show may not be the best venue to use to judge a movie, in this case I cannot imagine attempting to watch it without the comedic quips. In a word, this German, made-for-TV version of Hamlet is dreary. 152 minutes? No way! It's too dark and depressing to be anything I want to spend almost three hours on. I've said it any number of times, but entertainment is the thing for me. And this wrist-slitter is far from entertaining. I will, however, give it a couple of points for what I felt was some reasonably good acting. A 3/10 sounds about right to me.As much as I enjoy MST3K, their comments don't help to make Hamlet any more palatable. There are a few good riffs here and there, but overall, Hamlet is just the wrong movie for MST3K. Shakespeare is far too talky to allow the comedy to have any sort of rhythm or flow. As much as it pains me, I've got to give Hamlet a 1/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
3/10
Racket Girls (1951)
Setting new standards in movie badness, 14 November 2007
I just finished watching Racket Girls and it's got me thinking about some of the ratings I've given other movies. Do those movies really deserve a 1/10 when compared with the hella bad Racket Girls? Is Hillbillys in a Haunted House as bad as Racket Girls? In comparison, Hillbillys was almost fun – stupid fun, but fun nonetheless. What about Zombie Lake? Zombie Lake comes close to falling into that "so bad, it's good" category – something Racket Girls could never hope to achieve. Sinbad of the Seven Seas? Lou Ferrigno can be good for an unintentional laugh or two – something I can't say about anything in Racket Girls. How about a movie like Red Zone Cuba? Well, you got me there – but Racket Girls is just as bad. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Racket Girls has to be one of the very worst movies I've ever had the misfortune to see. Many of the other movies I've given low ratings to come out smelling like roses in comparison. The plot, such as it is, involves a shady wrestling promoter who is also into gambling, prostitution, and drugs. Nice fella, huh? He's got the local mob after him for $35,000 so he tries to have his girls throw a few matches to raise the cash he needs. They won't go for it so he tries to make a run for it. It's tacky, dull, and lacks anything in any way resembling entertainment. Movies truly don't get much worse than this.
There's really only one way to watch a movie like Racket Girls. The Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary turns this piece of trash into a goldmine of laughs. It's a very solid effort on the part of the MST3K crew. I give it a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
1/10
I just finished watching Racket Girls and it's got me thinking about some of the ratings I've given other movies. Do those movies really deserve a 1/10 when compared with the hella bad Racket Girls? Is Hillbillys in a Haunted House as bad as Racket Girls? In comparison, Hillbillys was almost fun – stupid fun, but fun nonetheless. What about Zombie Lake? Zombie Lake comes close to falling into that "so bad, it's good" category – something Racket Girls could never hope to achieve. Sinbad of the Seven Seas? Lou Ferrigno can be good for an unintentional laugh or two – something I can't say about anything in Racket Girls. How about a movie like Red Zone Cuba? Well, you got me there – but Racket Girls is just as bad. I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Racket Girls has to be one of the very worst movies I've ever had the misfortune to see. Many of the other movies I've given low ratings to come out smelling like roses in comparison. The plot, such as it is, involves a shady wrestling promoter who is also into gambling, prostitution, and drugs. Nice fella, huh? He's got the local mob after him for $35,000 so he tries to have his girls throw a few matches to raise the cash he needs. They won't go for it so he tries to make a run for it. It's tacky, dull, and lacks anything in any way resembling entertainment. Movies truly don't get much worse than this.
There's really only one way to watch a movie like Racket Girls. The Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary turns this piece of trash into a goldmine of laughs. It's a very solid effort on the part of the MST3K crew. I give it a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
1/10
Friday, August 27, 2010
Gamera (1965)
It will never be confused with Godzilla, 13 November 2007
To be such a legendary kaiju and to have spawned a hoard of sequel, Gamera is a decidedly pedestrian film. Gamera was originally designed to be Daiei Studio's answer to Toho's Godzilla, but it's really no competition. From the moment Gamera makes his first screen appearance, the creature looks terribly silly. While I can believe in any number of kaiju (Godzilla, Rodan, etc.), Gamera never works for me. A giant bipedal turtle with long arms and the ability to fly and breath fire – it's just too absurd for words.
But to be honest, the monster is the least of Gamera's problems. I don't know if the little Japanese boy, Kenny, is as annoying in the other versions, but I wanted to strangle him the moment he appeared on screen. And his constant protests to save Gamera because he is good and a friend to children everywhere is particularly stupid given Germa rampage through downtown Tokyo. Some friend, huh?
Another big weakness is the use of miniatures in Gamera. Toho was particularly adept at solid miniature work. Even when they looked like miniatures it didn't matter because they looked so cool. Sadly, based on this movie, I can't say the same thing about Daiei's work. The miniatures in Gamera look more like toys than anything else. Fisher Price makes more authentic looking boats. It's difficult to take anything seriously when the special effects are so weak.
Finally, the plot in Gamera is neither very good nor original. The parts that work seem to have been lifted from Godzilla and similar Toho movies. The parts that don't work are just plain old ridiculous. Take the final scenes and Gamera's fate – I sat with my mouth open in amazement at what the movie was asking me to swallow.
So in the end, while I can appreciate the importance of Gamera and its place in history, that doesn't mean I have to like it.
4/10
To be such a legendary kaiju and to have spawned a hoard of sequel, Gamera is a decidedly pedestrian film. Gamera was originally designed to be Daiei Studio's answer to Toho's Godzilla, but it's really no competition. From the moment Gamera makes his first screen appearance, the creature looks terribly silly. While I can believe in any number of kaiju (Godzilla, Rodan, etc.), Gamera never works for me. A giant bipedal turtle with long arms and the ability to fly and breath fire – it's just too absurd for words.But to be honest, the monster is the least of Gamera's problems. I don't know if the little Japanese boy, Kenny, is as annoying in the other versions, but I wanted to strangle him the moment he appeared on screen. And his constant protests to save Gamera because he is good and a friend to children everywhere is particularly stupid given Germa rampage through downtown Tokyo. Some friend, huh?
Another big weakness is the use of miniatures in Gamera. Toho was particularly adept at solid miniature work. Even when they looked like miniatures it didn't matter because they looked so cool. Sadly, based on this movie, I can't say the same thing about Daiei's work. The miniatures in Gamera look more like toys than anything else. Fisher Price makes more authentic looking boats. It's difficult to take anything seriously when the special effects are so weak.
Finally, the plot in Gamera is neither very good nor original. The parts that work seem to have been lifted from Godzilla and similar Toho movies. The parts that don't work are just plain old ridiculous. Take the final scenes and Gamera's fate – I sat with my mouth open in amazement at what the movie was asking me to swallow.
So in the end, while I can appreciate the importance of Gamera and its place in history, that doesn't mean I have to like it.
4/10
Outlaw of Gor (1989)
"Get out of here, you disgusting 'worm'!", 13 November 2007
Outlaw's plot comes straight out of the Sword and Sorcerer Handbook – an evil queen kills her husband and blames it on the innocent hero, Tarl Cabot (Urbano Barberini), so she might take control of the thrown. Cabot spends the rest of the movie trying to clear his name, undo the queen's evils, and return to his true love.
Overall, Outlaw is one of the poorer examples of the Conan "inspired" rip-off I've seen recently. While the movie has a number of weaknesses, the most glaring is Barberini in the lead role. He makes for one of the most nondescript, unexciting heroes I've seen. He's completely unconvincing. And what's the point in announcing quite proudly in the movie that our hero is a vegetarian? Was Outlaw funded by PETA? What's the point in adding that to the movie? It takes what is an otherwise namby-pamby hero and makes him even more so. Between the emasculated Tarl Cabot, scene after scene of a midget's hinder, an annoying side-kick named Watney, and an embarrassed looking Jack Palance wearing one of the goofiest looking hats imaginable, you've got the recipe for one bad movie.
Yet I haven't rated Outlaw as low as I could have. Why? Well, I have a weakness for this kind of movie. I tend to enjoy most sword and sorcerer type movies, even the bad ones. That, plus some of the outfits worn by Donna Denton, seems to be enough to warrant a point or two.
4/10
Outlaw's plot comes straight out of the Sword and Sorcerer Handbook – an evil queen kills her husband and blames it on the innocent hero, Tarl Cabot (Urbano Barberini), so she might take control of the thrown. Cabot spends the rest of the movie trying to clear his name, undo the queen's evils, and return to his true love.Overall, Outlaw is one of the poorer examples of the Conan "inspired" rip-off I've seen recently. While the movie has a number of weaknesses, the most glaring is Barberini in the lead role. He makes for one of the most nondescript, unexciting heroes I've seen. He's completely unconvincing. And what's the point in announcing quite proudly in the movie that our hero is a vegetarian? Was Outlaw funded by PETA? What's the point in adding that to the movie? It takes what is an otherwise namby-pamby hero and makes him even more so. Between the emasculated Tarl Cabot, scene after scene of a midget's hinder, an annoying side-kick named Watney, and an embarrassed looking Jack Palance wearing one of the goofiest looking hats imaginable, you've got the recipe for one bad movie.
Yet I haven't rated Outlaw as low as I could have. Why? Well, I have a weakness for this kind of movie. I tend to enjoy most sword and sorcerer type movies, even the bad ones. That, plus some of the outfits worn by Donna Denton, seems to be enough to warrant a point or two.
4/10
Warrior of the Lost World (1983)
"Are the meek inheriting the earth?", 13 November 2007
If the 80s were anything as far as movies goes, it was a decade of imitation. How many imitators did movies like Halloween and Conan "inspire" in the 80s? Another influential movie that would see a number of imitators was The Road Warrior. From Escape from the Bronx to 2019: After the Fall of New York, there were scores of mainly Italian post-apocalyptic rip-offs. Some good, some bad, but Warrior of the Lost World is easily one of the worst of the bunch. Plainly put, it's a dreadful movie. Forget about a plot – the movie doesn't have one. Characters we don't know (much less care to know) drive around on ridiculously modified motorcycles, cars, and trucks shooting at each other while dressed like some sort of Cyndi Lauper/New Wave wannabes. It's pathetic.
Warrior of the Lost World "stars" Robert Ginty, Donald Pleasence, and Fred Williamson. Ginty is The Rider – a character with marbles in his mouth who spends most of the movie with his nausea-inducing, talking motorcycle. One of the lone highlights of the movie is when the motorcycle gets crushed by a rather large truck (not to fear – much to my dismay, the motorcycle reappears later in the movie). Pleasence is obviously in it for a paycheck. By the looks of things, his scenes were filmed separately and probably shot in a day at the most. Williamson does what he always seems to do – make goofy faces at the camera. His character, like the rest of the movie, is utterly pointless.
There's really only one way to stomach something as bad as Warrior of the Lost World – catch the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version of the movie. It's not the best episode, but it sure beats watching the movie on its own. While I've rated the movie a 1/10, I'll give this episode a 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
1/10
Warrior of the Lost World "stars" Robert Ginty, Donald Pleasence, and Fred Williamson. Ginty is The Rider – a character with marbles in his mouth who spends most of the movie with his nausea-inducing, talking motorcycle. One of the lone highlights of the movie is when the motorcycle gets crushed by a rather large truck (not to fear – much to my dismay, the motorcycle reappears later in the movie). Pleasence is obviously in it for a paycheck. By the looks of things, his scenes were filmed separately and probably shot in a day at the most. Williamson does what he always seems to do – make goofy faces at the camera. His character, like the rest of the movie, is utterly pointless.
There's really only one way to stomach something as bad as Warrior of the Lost World – catch the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version of the movie. It's not the best episode, but it sure beats watching the movie on its own. While I've rated the movie a 1/10, I'll give this episode a 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
1/10
Zombie Nightmare (1986)
"It's cool, we just killed somebody. No big deal.", 9 November 2007
After writing back-to-back negative reviews for Werewolf (1996) and Track of the Moon Beast (1976), I almost hate to make it three in a row with Zombie Nightmare. I've thought about raising one of the ratings because I really hate to seem so negative. But if you've seen this trifecta of cinematic crap, you'll understand that I really have no choice. Zombie Nightmare deserves the 1/10 – just like Werewolf and Track of the Moon Beast. It's pretty much bad in every way a movie can be. It's got it all – bad acting, poor special effects, ridiculous plot, weak technical aspects, and unlikable characters. I've used this expression several times recently, but Gawd awful also applies to Zombie Nightmare.
Actually, I do have one positive thing to write about the movie. Somehow, the makers of this garbage were able to secure the rights to (or possibly just had the good sense to use) Motörhead's "Ace of Spades" for the opening credits. Lemmy rocks!
1/10
Actually, I do have one positive thing to write about the movie. Somehow, the makers of this garbage were able to secure the rights to (or possibly just had the good sense to use) Motörhead's "Ace of Spades" for the opening credits. Lemmy rocks!
1/10
Track of the Moon Beast (1976)
"Chicken. Corn. Green peppers. Chili. Onions. ...", 6 November 2007
For whatever reason, I have now seen Track of the Moon Beast on two different occasions – once with the Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary and once without. Should I decide to waste another 90 or so minutes for a third viewing, there's really only one viewing option – watch the MST3K version. Track of the Moon Beast is painful. The idiocy on display can actually start to hurt without the MST3K commentary to take the edge off. From Native American anthropologist Johnny Longbow and his stew recipe to the terry-cloth hot-pants worn by Donna Leigh Drake, Track of the Moon Beast is filled with a nonsensical plot, uninteresting characters, bad acting, poor special effects, brainless dialogue, and bottom of the barrel sound, cinematography, and lighting. You don't get much worse than this.
One of my "favorite" moments occurs when old Johnny Longbone is relating the Native American legend of the Lizard-Man to the sheriff. He has an overhead projector with a number of transparencies he uses to illustrate his story. Well, Longbritches' drawings look about like something you would see drawn in my son's Pre-K class. They're so ridiculous looking! It cracks me up every time I see it.
1/10
One of my "favorite" moments occurs when old Johnny Longbone is relating the Native American legend of the Lizard-Man to the sheriff. He has an overhead projector with a number of transparencies he uses to illustrate his story. Well, Longbritches' drawings look about like something you would see drawn in my son's Pre-K class. They're so ridiculous looking! It cracks me up every time I see it.
1/10
Werewolf (1996)
"Wuur-wilf? You mean Joel thinks this thing is a wuur-wilf?", 6 November 2007
When I write one of these little reviews, there are certain words I try to avoid when describing a movie. Some words just don't seem appropriate. But when it comes to Werewolf, I'm going to break this rule. Werewolf has to be one of the stupidest movies I've ever seen. While watching Werewolf, it's difficult to fathom that an upright walking human with opposable thumbs and an I.Q. above that of a water sprinkler could have made something so inept. Werewolf's plot is an absolute unadulterated mess. You could give cameras to a band of poo throwing monkeys and end up with a more coherent movie. The actors are given some of the most inane dialogue ever recorded. And it doesn't help matters that three of the main characters (Adrianna Miles being the worst offender) sound more like they need to be in an ESL class than shooting a movie. If Joe Estevez emoting like there's no tomorrow is the highlight of the movie, you know you're in deep trouble. In short, Werewolf is a disaster.
But, as bad as Werewolf admittedly is, coming up with a rating has proved more difficult that I imagined. Much of the movie is so unintentionally hilarious that I was entertained despite the multitude of problems. Take the film's continuity (or lack thereof) as an example. Watching actor Jorge Rivero's hair go from almost black and slicked back to slightly graying with less of a greasy look to brown with blond highlights and a feathered appearance all in a matter of 15 minutes is too funny. Or take the scenes where the werewolf transforms from an actor in makeup to a stuffed animal being shaken at the camera to someone in a bear suit all within 45 seconds – it's laugh-out-loud, hold your sides so they don't split hysterical. But in the end, it's still a pathetic movie and a rating of 2/10 seems somehow generous.
2/10
But, as bad as Werewolf admittedly is, coming up with a rating has proved more difficult that I imagined. Much of the movie is so unintentionally hilarious that I was entertained despite the multitude of problems. Take the film's continuity (or lack thereof) as an example. Watching actor Jorge Rivero's hair go from almost black and slicked back to slightly graying with less of a greasy look to brown with blond highlights and a feathered appearance all in a matter of 15 minutes is too funny. Or take the scenes where the werewolf transforms from an actor in makeup to a stuffed animal being shaken at the camera to someone in a bear suit all within 45 seconds – it's laugh-out-loud, hold your sides so they don't split hysterical. But in the end, it's still a pathetic movie and a rating of 2/10 seems somehow generous.
2/10
Last of the Wild Horses (1948)
Butterfingers of the Old West, 4 November 2007
There are a handful of generally unknown actors that I enjoy seeing in just about anything. One of those people is Douglass Dumbrille. From A Day at the Races with the Marx Brothers to Castle in the Desert with Charlie Chan, I always look forward to Dumbrille's performances. In Last of the Wild Horses, he plays the wheelchair-bound owner of the Double C ranch. His performance is by far the best thing this movie has going for it. Now that I think about it, Douglass Dumbrille is probably the only thing Last of the Wild Horses has going for it. The movie is one of those utterly dull, white-bread kind of Westerns where no one gets dirty and the good guys always win. It's the kind of Western that always seemed to feature an annoying comic relief character that you just wanted to see someone put a bullet through. All it lacks is a cowboy with a guitar to make my stomach really turn.
But the most unforgivable part of Last of the Wild Horses is the way director Robert Lippert continually cheats to keep the plot moving. On three different occasions, people conveniently drop evidence that is later found and used to advance the story. From a branding iron to a letter to a bandana – Last of the Wild Horses would have us believe that the cowboys of the Old West were a bunch of butterfingers.
2/10
But the most unforgivable part of Last of the Wild Horses is the way director Robert Lippert continually cheats to keep the plot moving. On three different occasions, people conveniently drop evidence that is later found and used to advance the story. From a branding iron to a letter to a bandana – Last of the Wild Horses would have us believe that the cowboys of the Old West were a bunch of butterfingers.
2/10
Danger!! Death Ray (1967)
- Il raggio infernale
Bart Fargo!, 4 November 2007
Oh, those Italians and their James Bond rip-offs! While they sometimes have a bit of charm or interest to them, usually they're dull and lifeless. That's certainly the case with Danger! Death Ray. The muddled plot centers on a group of baddies kidnapping a scientist who has developed a "death ray". It's up to secret agent Bart Fargo to rescue the scientist, bust-up the group of bad guys, and, presumably, save mankind.
The problem with most of the James Bond rip-offs is a lack of money. The locations and sets in Danger! Death Ray cannot compete with the extravagant places visited by James Bond. You need money to film in those locations. The special effects are laughable. The submarine and helicopter scene was obviously filmed in a bathtub. Again, you need money for special effects. Add to that an incoherent plot, bad acting, poor dubbing, unimaginative cinematography, and uninteresting characters and you've got one bad movie. Finally, what kind of name is Bart Fargo! You can't take someone with a name like Bart Fargo very seriously. Say the name five times and see what happens.
I should point out that it's not all terrible. Danger! Death Ray does feature quite a snappy musical score. Even though it was endlessly repeated throughout the movie, the title theme is pure 60s fun. And, despite the film's many flaws, it's still a reasonably entertaining experience. And as I continually repeat, isn't entertainment what it's all about? A very enthusiastic 5/10.
5/10
Bart Fargo!, 4 November 2007
The problem with most of the James Bond rip-offs is a lack of money. The locations and sets in Danger! Death Ray cannot compete with the extravagant places visited by James Bond. You need money to film in those locations. The special effects are laughable. The submarine and helicopter scene was obviously filmed in a bathtub. Again, you need money for special effects. Add to that an incoherent plot, bad acting, poor dubbing, unimaginative cinematography, and uninteresting characters and you've got one bad movie. Finally, what kind of name is Bart Fargo! You can't take someone with a name like Bart Fargo very seriously. Say the name five times and see what happens.
I should point out that it's not all terrible. Danger! Death Ray does feature quite a snappy musical score. Even though it was endlessly repeated throughout the movie, the title theme is pure 60s fun. And, despite the film's many flaws, it's still a reasonably entertaining experience. And as I continually repeat, isn't entertainment what it's all about? A very enthusiastic 5/10.
5/10
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Code Name: Diamond Head (1977) (TV)
Another Gawd awful TV pilot, 2 November 2007
It doesn't take long to see why Code Name: Diamond Head didn't make it onto the network schedules. The TV pilot movie doesn't get past the credits before it's obvious just how bad it's going to be. Maybe I missed something, because the plot didn't make a whole lot of sense. Based on what I got out of the muddled mess, a terrorist or thief or something named "Tree" (Ian McShane) goes to Hawaii to steal something to do with a secret weapon. The world's dullest secret agent, Johnny Paul (Roy Thinnes), is out to stop him. There might have been more, but trust me – it really doesn't matter anyway.
Action movies should have action. Suspenseful moments should have suspense. And dramatic moments should have drama. There's none of that in Code Name: Diamond Head. I've seen others use the word "turgid" to describe this made for TV snoozer – and it's better than any one word description I can come up with. None of the characters is in the least bit exciting or worth caring about. And Roy Thinnes makes for the worst leads imaginable. His charisma is just slightly north of a slug. Ian McShane is easily the best thing the movie has going for it, but unfortunately for everyone else involved, it doesn't appear he was going to be back as a regular cast member. Now if McShane had been cast in the series lead, well then you might have had something.
I'm quickly discovering that these Gawd awful 70s made-for-TV movies make great Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes. And that goes double if Quinn Martin was involved. Very funny stuff from Mike and the Bots. So while I may only give the movie a 3/10, I rate Episode #608 a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
3/10
Action movies should have action. Suspenseful moments should have suspense. And dramatic moments should have drama. There's none of that in Code Name: Diamond Head. I've seen others use the word "turgid" to describe this made for TV snoozer – and it's better than any one word description I can come up with. None of the characters is in the least bit exciting or worth caring about. And Roy Thinnes makes for the worst leads imaginable. His charisma is just slightly north of a slug. Ian McShane is easily the best thing the movie has going for it, but unfortunately for everyone else involved, it doesn't appear he was going to be back as a regular cast member. Now if McShane had been cast in the series lead, well then you might have had something.
I'm quickly discovering that these Gawd awful 70s made-for-TV movies make great Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes. And that goes double if Quinn Martin was involved. Very funny stuff from Mike and the Bots. So while I may only give the movie a 3/10, I rate Episode #608 a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
3/10
Woman Haters (1934)
A nice start for the Stooges at Columbia, 1 November 2007
Woman Haters is far from the best of the Three Stooges, but it is a nice start to the Columbia shorts and does offer a unique and interesting thing or two. The plot sees the boys joining the Woman Haters Club – a club that prohibits its members from carrying on with women. But no sooner than they become members, Larry (they actually have character names, but they don't really matter) finds himself at the altar. He does his best to keep Moe and Curly from finding out he's secretly gotten married and he does his best to keep his new wife from finding out about the Woman Haters club. As expected, a great deal of eye poking and head knocking ensues.
The two best things Woman Haters has going for it (beyond its curiosity value) is the rhyming scheme of the dialogue and Marjorie White as Larry's wife. While I've seen some complaints about the rhyming dialogue, it worked for me. I thought it was very clever. Now, it might not have worked for a full feature, but for a two-reeler, it's okay. As for Marjorie White, she more than capable of holding her own with Moe, Larry, and Curly – more so than most women I can think of off the top of my head who appeared in other Three Stooges shorts. It's too bad she didn't live long enough to see where her career might have taken her.
6/10
The two best things Woman Haters has going for it (beyond its curiosity value) is the rhyming scheme of the dialogue and Marjorie White as Larry's wife. While I've seen some complaints about the rhyming dialogue, it worked for me. I thought it was very clever. Now, it might not have worked for a full feature, but for a two-reeler, it's okay. As for Marjorie White, she more than capable of holding her own with Moe, Larry, and Curly – more so than most women I can think of off the top of my head who appeared in other Three Stooges shorts. It's too bad she didn't live long enough to see where her career might have taken her.
6/10
Witchfinder General (1968)
"I will find out the truth for you, have no fear.", 30 October 2007
With civil war raging across England, a man like Matthew Hopkins (Vincent Price) finds it easy to take advantage of the situation for his own personal gain. He plays on the fears, superstitions, and jealousies of the locals as they take turns accusing each other of being witches. And if they don't confess, Hopkins gives them to his sadistic enforcer, John Steame (Robert Russell), to beat it out of them. When Hopkins sets his sights on a priest named John Lowes (Rupert Davies) and his niece (Hilary Heath), he unwittingly seals his fate. The girl's fiancé, Richard Marshall (Ian Ogilvy), will stop at nothing to get his revenge.
Vincent Price gave many nice performances during his career, but his portrayal of Matthew Hopkins in Witchfinder General may have been his finest. Price's Hopkins is a very interesting, multi-layered character. While he has absolutely no qualms about unnecessarily punishing and torturing people, he doesn't do the dirty work himself. (I love the bit where he has the suspected witches thrown into the river with their hands and feet bound. If they float, it must be the devil protecting them. They will be taken from the water and burned. If they sink and die, oh well, sorry – they must have been innocent. It's certainly a callous view of life that was so wonderfully lampooned in Monty Python and the Holy Grail). Hopkins doesn't care about rooting out evil. His objective is the silver he receives when it's all over. He is a cowardly man, selling out those closest to him to save his own skin. And he is quite at ease with granting favors and requests in exchange for sex. One has to wonder if Matthew Hopkins ever believed in God and Satan and witchcraft. Or, as I suspect, did he see it all as an opportunity to line his pockets. Price brings all this to the role. It's an outstanding performance of a multi-faceted character. As I said, it might just be Price's best.
The supporting cast is just as good. Russell, Heath, Ogilvy, and Davis are all magnificent. I was especially impressed with Russell. It's easy to forget you're watching an actor and start to believe you're watching a man who enjoys torturing people. The beating he gives Davies is particular nasty. It would be difficult to play a sadistic bastard any better than Russell does in Witchfinder General.
It's a real shame the Michael Reeves didn't live longer than he did. After watching Witchfinder General last night, I read the Reeves would have helmed The Oblong Box as his next project. Man, would that have been interesting! Reeves brought the necessary realism to Witchfinder General. His film has atmosphere and is rough and brutal. The locations are obviously authentic and the set are appropriately sparse. And the film has a gritty look appropriate for the time period. Slick looking digital effects like we see today just wouldn't work in a movie like this. It's obvious that he was working with a very small budget, yet I cannot imagine the film looking much better (well, the blood might not have been such a bright coral color) had he had three time the money.
My only real complaint with the movie is with the main female character, Sarah Lowes. I realize that she faces unspeakable torture at the hands of Matthew Hopkins' cronies, but she bends to his will just a bit too easily. She seems more anxious than Hopkins to jump into the sack if it means saving her own skin. I would have liked to have seen her at least make an attempt to stay true to her fiancé. It just didn't fit what I would have expected from the character.
Overall, Witchfinder General is a real classic of the horror genre. Any self-respecting fan owes it to himself to check it out. I'm so happy to finally have this on DVD. It's one I'll revisit time after time for years to come.
8/10
Vincent Price gave many nice performances during his career, but his portrayal of Matthew Hopkins in Witchfinder General may have been his finest. Price's Hopkins is a very interesting, multi-layered character. While he has absolutely no qualms about unnecessarily punishing and torturing people, he doesn't do the dirty work himself. (I love the bit where he has the suspected witches thrown into the river with their hands and feet bound. If they float, it must be the devil protecting them. They will be taken from the water and burned. If they sink and die, oh well, sorry – they must have been innocent. It's certainly a callous view of life that was so wonderfully lampooned in Monty Python and the Holy Grail). Hopkins doesn't care about rooting out evil. His objective is the silver he receives when it's all over. He is a cowardly man, selling out those closest to him to save his own skin. And he is quite at ease with granting favors and requests in exchange for sex. One has to wonder if Matthew Hopkins ever believed in God and Satan and witchcraft. Or, as I suspect, did he see it all as an opportunity to line his pockets. Price brings all this to the role. It's an outstanding performance of a multi-faceted character. As I said, it might just be Price's best.
The supporting cast is just as good. Russell, Heath, Ogilvy, and Davis are all magnificent. I was especially impressed with Russell. It's easy to forget you're watching an actor and start to believe you're watching a man who enjoys torturing people. The beating he gives Davies is particular nasty. It would be difficult to play a sadistic bastard any better than Russell does in Witchfinder General.
It's a real shame the Michael Reeves didn't live longer than he did. After watching Witchfinder General last night, I read the Reeves would have helmed The Oblong Box as his next project. Man, would that have been interesting! Reeves brought the necessary realism to Witchfinder General. His film has atmosphere and is rough and brutal. The locations are obviously authentic and the set are appropriately sparse. And the film has a gritty look appropriate for the time period. Slick looking digital effects like we see today just wouldn't work in a movie like this. It's obvious that he was working with a very small budget, yet I cannot imagine the film looking much better (well, the blood might not have been such a bright coral color) had he had three time the money.
My only real complaint with the movie is with the main female character, Sarah Lowes. I realize that she faces unspeakable torture at the hands of Matthew Hopkins' cronies, but she bends to his will just a bit too easily. She seems more anxious than Hopkins to jump into the sack if it means saving her own skin. I would have liked to have seen her at least make an attempt to stay true to her fiancé. It just didn't fit what I would have expected from the character.
Overall, Witchfinder General is a real classic of the horror genre. Any self-respecting fan owes it to himself to check it out. I'm so happy to finally have this on DVD. It's one I'll revisit time after time for years to come.
8/10
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
The Giant Claw (1957)
"A bird as big as a Battleship!", 29 October 2007
While doing a test flight to help with the calibration of a new radar installation, pilot and engineer Mitch MacAfee (Jeff Morrow) is buzzed by something that shouldn't be in the area. The radar didn't pick it up so no one in the military brass believes his story. They change their tune when airplanes start getting knocked out of the air by some sort of UFO that doesn't show up on radar. MacAfee, with the help of mathematician Sally Caldwell (Mara Corday), comes up with a crazy idea and goes in search of his UFO. What he finds is a giant, strange looking bird-like creature from another galaxy.
It had been years (decades even) since I last watched this movie. While I may not have remembered much about the plot or anything else, there's no way I or anyone else could forget the bird-like creature in The Giant Claw. It's hard to forget something like that. If you don't believe me, google an image and see for yourself. It's got to be one of the silliest looking creatures ever put on film. What's even more amazing is the time and effort someone put into this thing. With flaring nostrils and moving eyes, it's evident that some technician put a lot of energy into building it.
Other than the creature, as goofy as it is, there's not much to see here. The plot is standard (or slightly below) 1950s stuff. The scientific mumbo-jumbo is thick and heavy by the movie's end. I'm no scientist myself, but The Giant Claw's "science" sounded particularly ridiculous. And the standard 1950s romance is all but nauseating in this one. I just don't see how anyone bought the relationship between Morrow and Corday. With his Bryle Cream infused hair, he looks (and was) old enough to be her father.
5/10
It had been years (decades even) since I last watched this movie. While I may not have remembered much about the plot or anything else, there's no way I or anyone else could forget the bird-like creature in The Giant Claw. It's hard to forget something like that. If you don't believe me, google an image and see for yourself. It's got to be one of the silliest looking creatures ever put on film. What's even more amazing is the time and effort someone put into this thing. With flaring nostrils and moving eyes, it's evident that some technician put a lot of energy into building it.
Other than the creature, as goofy as it is, there's not much to see here. The plot is standard (or slightly below) 1950s stuff. The scientific mumbo-jumbo is thick and heavy by the movie's end. I'm no scientist myself, but The Giant Claw's "science" sounded particularly ridiculous. And the standard 1950s romance is all but nauseating in this one. I just don't see how anyone bought the relationship between Morrow and Corday. With his Bryle Cream infused hair, he looks (and was) old enough to be her father.
5/10
Daughter of Dr. Jekyll (1957)
So Mr. Hyde was some sort of werewolf/vampire combo monster?, 28 October 2007
On her 21st birthday, Janet Smith (Gloria Talbott) discovers she has inherited an estate and a large sum of money. She's suddenly a wealthy woman about to be wed to the man of her dreams, George Hastings (John Agar). But she learns something else. She learns her father's secret. She discovers she is the daughter of the infamous Dr. Jekyll. And she begins having vivid nightmares of killing people in the most horrible of ways. She wakes to find herself covered in blood, her clothes torn, and her shoes muddy. Has she somehow inherited a dark, split-personality from her father that turns her into a snarling maniac?
For anyone who has seen both Daughter of Dr. Jekyll and Universal's She-Wolf of London, am I alone in comparing the two? I hate to give too much away about either movie, but there's no denying the similarities – two women about to be married, both under the impression that they turn into killers when the moon is full, slowly being driven mad, yet neither is responsible for the acts they are accused. It's too much of a coincidence to be just dumb luck. Oddly enough, though, I prefer Daughter of Dr. Jekyll to She-Wolf of London. It's not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it is slightly more enjoyable to me than the earlier movie. Chief among the reasons that I prefer this movie is the female lead. June Lockhart is one of my biggest complaints with She-Wolf of London. Gloria Talbott is far more believable in the similar role.
My biggest complaint with Daughter of Dr. Jekyll is the changes it makes to the Jekyll/Hyde storyline. Hyde is now referred to as a werewolf that had to be staked through the heart to kill him. Huh? So now he's some sort of werewolf/vampire creature? News to me! And I never quite understood how his daughter was supposed to have inherited his "curse". Wasn't Dr. Jekyll's "curse" self-induced? It doesn't seem that something that could be passed from one generation to the next.
5/10
For anyone who has seen both Daughter of Dr. Jekyll and Universal's She-Wolf of London, am I alone in comparing the two? I hate to give too much away about either movie, but there's no denying the similarities – two women about to be married, both under the impression that they turn into killers when the moon is full, slowly being driven mad, yet neither is responsible for the acts they are accused. It's too much of a coincidence to be just dumb luck. Oddly enough, though, I prefer Daughter of Dr. Jekyll to She-Wolf of London. It's not a great movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it is slightly more enjoyable to me than the earlier movie. Chief among the reasons that I prefer this movie is the female lead. June Lockhart is one of my biggest complaints with She-Wolf of London. Gloria Talbott is far more believable in the similar role.
My biggest complaint with Daughter of Dr. Jekyll is the changes it makes to the Jekyll/Hyde storyline. Hyde is now referred to as a werewolf that had to be staked through the heart to kill him. Huh? So now he's some sort of werewolf/vampire creature? News to me! And I never quite understood how his daughter was supposed to have inherited his "curse". Wasn't Dr. Jekyll's "curse" self-induced? It doesn't seem that something that could be passed from one generation to the next.
5/10
Night of the Blood Beast (1958)
"A wounded animal that large isn't good!", 26 October 2007
I've been trying to write a plot summary for several minutes now and can't seem to do it. But with a movie as bad as Night of the Blood Beast the plot hardly matters. An astronaut crash lands and is believed dead. His body later reanimates, but is found to be carrying the embryos of some strange alien life-form. But how did they get there? And where's the alien that implanted the strange creatures in Maj. John Corcoran's body?
IMDb lists the runtime for Night of the Blood Beast at 62 minutes. Is that right? 62 minutes? It had to be longer than that. It felt interminable to me. Even with the MST3K commentary (which was very funny by the way), the actual movie felt much, much longer. And it's pretty much a snoozer from beginning to end. I like a lot of these alien invasion type movies of the 50s, but not this one. It failed to grab my interest on any level. The baby aliens were too silly looking to be taken seriously, the titular blood beast was pathetic, and none of the characters did anything for me. Add to that the usual low-budget Roger Corman trappings and you've got a real loser of a movie.
3/10
IMDb lists the runtime for Night of the Blood Beast at 62 minutes. Is that right? 62 minutes? It had to be longer than that. It felt interminable to me. Even with the MST3K commentary (which was very funny by the way), the actual movie felt much, much longer. And it's pretty much a snoozer from beginning to end. I like a lot of these alien invasion type movies of the 50s, but not this one. It failed to grab my interest on any level. The baby aliens were too silly looking to be taken seriously, the titular blood beast was pathetic, and none of the characters did anything for me. Add to that the usual low-budget Roger Corman trappings and you've got a real loser of a movie.
3/10
The Amazing Transparent Man (1960)
"You're too old-fashioned to be a genius.", 26 October 2007
Paul Krenner, a would-be criminal kingpin, hooks up with a safe-cracker named Joey Faust. Through extortion and force, Krenner has coerced a scientist to develop a process of making animals and people transparent. Krenner's idea is to use this discovery to create and army of invisible men to do his bidding. His more immediate plan, though, is to make Faust invisible so he might steal the radium needed to continue the experiments. But Faust has different ideas about how to use his invisibility – most of which involve bank robbery.
First I'll mention the relatively small list of positives I found in The Amazing Transparent Man. I think the basic idea behind the movie is interesting. The notion of an invisible master criminal who could literally rob a bank in broad daylight presents some interesting possibilities. The other positive element of the movie is the film's score. The central musical theme that gets repeated throughout The Amazing Transparent Man is successful in creating the desired ominous atmosphere.
Unfortunately, however, the list of negatives is huge. While the movie may present some interesting plot ideas, the execution leaves a lot to be desired. In general, director Edgar G. Ulmer was as good as any director at working with a low budget to make interesting and entertaining movies. That's not the case here. The Amazing Transparent Man never overcomes the limitations of its low budget. Bad acting, a poor script, ridiculous dialogue, ambiguous character motivation, and uninteresting sets are just he beginning of the many problems readily apparent in the movie. Honestly, I could go on and on, but what's the point? This is low-rent film-making at its worst.
3/10
First I'll mention the relatively small list of positives I found in The Amazing Transparent Man. I think the basic idea behind the movie is interesting. The notion of an invisible master criminal who could literally rob a bank in broad daylight presents some interesting possibilities. The other positive element of the movie is the film's score. The central musical theme that gets repeated throughout The Amazing Transparent Man is successful in creating the desired ominous atmosphere.
Unfortunately, however, the list of negatives is huge. While the movie may present some interesting plot ideas, the execution leaves a lot to be desired. In general, director Edgar G. Ulmer was as good as any director at working with a low budget to make interesting and entertaining movies. That's not the case here. The Amazing Transparent Man never overcomes the limitations of its low budget. Bad acting, a poor script, ridiculous dialogue, ambiguous character motivation, and uninteresting sets are just he beginning of the many problems readily apparent in the movie. Honestly, I could go on and on, but what's the point? This is low-rent film-making at its worst.
3/10
X: The Unknown (1956)
"How do you kill mud?", 19 October 2007
While doing exercises on the using a Geiger counter and locating radiation, a group of British soldiers runs across "something" that leaves two of their members severely burned as if they had been exposed to high levels of radiation. In no time at all, citizens nearby begin suffering the same fate. What's behind these "attacks"? Based on the available evidence, Dr. Adam Royston (Dean Jagger) puts forth a theory that some kind of energy based creature from the depths of the earth has come to the surface in search of radiation that it uses as food. But how is he gong to stop something that seems so unstoppable?
Compared with some of the more cheesy sci-fi movies of the 50s or some of the big budget modern sci-fi spectacles, X: The Unknown seems like a very quaint little movie. It may not be quite as fun or exciting as those other movies, but it is an enjoyable, low-key experience. In the lead role, Dean Jagger gives what I would describe as a solid, but understated performance (much like the rest of the movie). I appreciate that for a change he plays a scientist who admits he doesn't have all the answers. My biggest problem with Jagger (and it really has nothing to do with him) is that I've seen White Christmas so many times that he will forever be General Waverly in my mind. I joked with a friend that throughout X: The Unknown, I kept waiting for Rosemary Clooney to come out and sing "Sisters". The rest of the cast gives similarly strong but mostly unmemorable performances. This being Hammer, Michael Ripper is quite naturally on board. There's something very comfortable about seeing Ripper in a movie. It's like knowing that for an hour and a half, you're in good hands.
Technically, the movie is very strong. The direction is what I would call very deliberate – nothing flashy, just telling a story. The cinematography is quite nice. Unlike some of Hammer's more famous films, X: The Unknown was filmed in beautiful black and white. And the B&W images look good to my untrained eye. James Bernard, who would go on to compose some wonderful scores for Hammer, created a very fitting musical track for the movie. Finally, the special effects are a real highlight for me. Sure, you could probably do more with CGI, but as I've said any number of times, there's something about the miniatures and other process shots like those in X: The Unknown that shows a real craftsmanship missing from today's movies.
6/10
Compared with some of the more cheesy sci-fi movies of the 50s or some of the big budget modern sci-fi spectacles, X: The Unknown seems like a very quaint little movie. It may not be quite as fun or exciting as those other movies, but it is an enjoyable, low-key experience. In the lead role, Dean Jagger gives what I would describe as a solid, but understated performance (much like the rest of the movie). I appreciate that for a change he plays a scientist who admits he doesn't have all the answers. My biggest problem with Jagger (and it really has nothing to do with him) is that I've seen White Christmas so many times that he will forever be General Waverly in my mind. I joked with a friend that throughout X: The Unknown, I kept waiting for Rosemary Clooney to come out and sing "Sisters". The rest of the cast gives similarly strong but mostly unmemorable performances. This being Hammer, Michael Ripper is quite naturally on board. There's something very comfortable about seeing Ripper in a movie. It's like knowing that for an hour and a half, you're in good hands.
Technically, the movie is very strong. The direction is what I would call very deliberate – nothing flashy, just telling a story. The cinematography is quite nice. Unlike some of Hammer's more famous films, X: The Unknown was filmed in beautiful black and white. And the B&W images look good to my untrained eye. James Bernard, who would go on to compose some wonderful scores for Hammer, created a very fitting musical track for the movie. Finally, the special effects are a real highlight for me. Sure, you could probably do more with CGI, but as I've said any number of times, there's something about the miniatures and other process shots like those in X: The Unknown that shows a real craftsmanship missing from today's movies.
6/10
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Witchcraft (1964)
Freaky Stuff!, 18 October 2007
What a wonderfully creepy and atmospheric film about a witch getting her revenge from beyond the grave. Several centuries ago, Vanessa Whitlock was accused of being a witch and put to death by the ancestors of the Lanier family. Since then, the two families have feuded. As fate would have it, during one of Bill Lanier's building projects, the grave of the accused witch, Vanessa Whitlock, is disturbed. She is set free to finally get back at those she holds responsible for burying her alive.
With its recent release on DVD, I've been excited about the opportunity to see Witchcraft. And while I had hoped I would enjoy it, I never expected it to be this good. In short, I loved it. I mentioned it was creepy and atmospheric – quite honestly, that doesn't begin to describe the sense of unease, the feeling of foreboding, and the numerous frights found in Witchcraft. I admit it – the first time that Vanessa Whitlock pops up in a room where she shouldn't be, I just about jumped out of my seat. I don't know when I last found a character in a movie that actually frightened me like she did. Actress Yvette Rees doesn't do much other than stand about looking menacing, but does she ever do it well. Freaky stuff!
The credits would have you believe that Lon Chaney, Jr. is the "star" of the movie. While he's the big name in the cast, he's hardly the focal point of the story. As much as I hate to admit this, Chaney actually represents one of the few problems I have with the movie. It's not that he wasn't capable of giving a good performance in a horror movie in 1964 (because he's not bad in his limited screen time), but he's horribly miscast. This is a British movie. It feels British, it looks British, and it sounds British. So just what is the decidedly American Chaney doing in the movie? It's just silly.
8/10
With its recent release on DVD, I've been excited about the opportunity to see Witchcraft. And while I had hoped I would enjoy it, I never expected it to be this good. In short, I loved it. I mentioned it was creepy and atmospheric – quite honestly, that doesn't begin to describe the sense of unease, the feeling of foreboding, and the numerous frights found in Witchcraft. I admit it – the first time that Vanessa Whitlock pops up in a room where she shouldn't be, I just about jumped out of my seat. I don't know when I last found a character in a movie that actually frightened me like she did. Actress Yvette Rees doesn't do much other than stand about looking menacing, but does she ever do it well. Freaky stuff!
The credits would have you believe that Lon Chaney, Jr. is the "star" of the movie. While he's the big name in the cast, he's hardly the focal point of the story. As much as I hate to admit this, Chaney actually represents one of the few problems I have with the movie. It's not that he wasn't capable of giving a good performance in a horror movie in 1964 (because he's not bad in his limited screen time), but he's horribly miscast. This is a British movie. It feels British, it looks British, and it sounds British. So just what is the decidedly American Chaney doing in the movie? It's just silly.
8/10
The Beast of Yucca Flats (1961)
"Feed soda pop to the thirsty pigs.", 18 October 2007
Yucca – the perfect word to describe the experience that is The Beast of Yucca Flats. As I sit writing this, I cannot think of a single instance where The Beast of Yucca Flats is either entertaining or interesting and I cannot think of a single frame of film that looks as if someone with a shred of movie-making talent filmed it. I cannot understand how Coleman Francis found the funding to make these monstrosities he churned out in the 60s. As far as I'm concerned, Francis has to be in the conversation of worst directors of all-time. His movies are junk. Actually, calling The Beast of Yucca Flats a movie does a disservice to the definition. It's little more than a series of seemingly ugly, random shots of random people with the thinnest of plot threads imaginable holding it all together. The movie's too cheap to include on-screen dialogue. Everything is done either off-screen or through a voice over narration. And what narration it is! It's as random as the images on screen.
"Flag on the moon. How did it get there?"
"Nothing bothers some people, not even flying saucers."
"Twenty hours without rest and still no enemy."
Huh? Did I miss something? What's that gibberish got to do with anything? As bad as Francis was as a director, he may have been even more offensive as a writer.
Call me a masochist, but I have now seen The Beast of Yucca Flats three times. Fortunately for me, I watched the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version this time. Whether it's The Beast of Yucca Flats, Red Zone Cuba, or The Skydivers, the guys and gals on MST3K did some of their best and funniest work with the Coleman Francis directed movies. Hysterical stuff and worth a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
1/10
Yucca – the perfect word to describe the experience that is The Beast of Yucca Flats. As I sit writing this, I cannot think of a single instance where The Beast of Yucca Flats is either entertaining or interesting and I cannot think of a single frame of film that looks as if someone with a shred of movie-making talent filmed it. I cannot understand how Coleman Francis found the funding to make these monstrosities he churned out in the 60s. As far as I'm concerned, Francis has to be in the conversation of worst directors of all-time. His movies are junk. Actually, calling The Beast of Yucca Flats a movie does a disservice to the definition. It's little more than a series of seemingly ugly, random shots of random people with the thinnest of plot threads imaginable holding it all together. The movie's too cheap to include on-screen dialogue. Everything is done either off-screen or through a voice over narration. And what narration it is! It's as random as the images on screen."Flag on the moon. How did it get there?"
"Nothing bothers some people, not even flying saucers."
"Twenty hours without rest and still no enemy."
Huh? Did I miss something? What's that gibberish got to do with anything? As bad as Francis was as a director, he may have been even more offensive as a writer.
Call me a masochist, but I have now seen The Beast of Yucca Flats three times. Fortunately for me, I watched the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version this time. Whether it's The Beast of Yucca Flats, Red Zone Cuba, or The Skydivers, the guys and gals on MST3K did some of their best and funniest work with the Coleman Francis directed movies. Hysterical stuff and worth a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
1/10
The Projected Man (1966)
It's like a bad British version of The Fly, 16 October 2007
Professor Paul Steiner is doing research in matter transference. He has developed a machine that he can use to make an object like a wrist watch or rodent disappear, only to have that object re-materialize in a different location. But there are those at his research facility that do not like or approve of his experiments and will do whatever it takes to see that he doesn't succeed. After a failed demonstration that might have saved his funding, Professor Steiner decides to test his machine on himself. As expected, things go horribly wrong and he is transformed into a heavily scared madman whose mere touch will kill.
In hindsight, maybe it wasn't such a good idea to re-watch The Projected Man in the same week I watched The Fly, Return of the Fly, and Curse of the Fly. There seems to be only so many movies about matter transference and the potentially horrendous effects it can have on the human body that one person should be made to endure in a three or four day period. I'm not sure what those responsible for the movie list as their source material for The Projected Man, but much of it is so similar to the Fly movies that it cannot be mere coincidence. However, The Projected Man isn't even nearly as good as the worst of the Fly trilogy.
Besides being terribly unoriginal, The Projected Man has several other problems that really hurt the enjoyment of the movie. A big issue I have is with Bryant Haliday in the lead. He's such a horse's ass that, not only do I not care about his suffering, I actually root for it. Supporting cast members Mary Peach and Ronald Allen are almost as bad. They're so bland and dull they hardly matter. In fact, there's very little to get excited about while watching The Projected Man. The soundtrack – not very memorable. The "look" – I would describe much of it as "muddy". The plot – predictable. The action – there isn't any. Overall, this is one to avoid.
Fortunately, I watched The Projected Man via a copy of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode. Funny stuff! While not an absolute, very often, the poorer the movie – the better the MST3K riffs. The guys hit almost all of their marks with The Projected Man. I'll give it a very enthusiastic 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
4/10
In hindsight, maybe it wasn't such a good idea to re-watch The Projected Man in the same week I watched The Fly, Return of the Fly, and Curse of the Fly. There seems to be only so many movies about matter transference and the potentially horrendous effects it can have on the human body that one person should be made to endure in a three or four day period. I'm not sure what those responsible for the movie list as their source material for The Projected Man, but much of it is so similar to the Fly movies that it cannot be mere coincidence. However, The Projected Man isn't even nearly as good as the worst of the Fly trilogy.
Besides being terribly unoriginal, The Projected Man has several other problems that really hurt the enjoyment of the movie. A big issue I have is with Bryant Haliday in the lead. He's such a horse's ass that, not only do I not care about his suffering, I actually root for it. Supporting cast members Mary Peach and Ronald Allen are almost as bad. They're so bland and dull they hardly matter. In fact, there's very little to get excited about while watching The Projected Man. The soundtrack – not very memorable. The "look" – I would describe much of it as "muddy". The plot – predictable. The action – there isn't any. Overall, this is one to avoid.
Fortunately, I watched The Projected Man via a copy of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode. Funny stuff! While not an absolute, very often, the poorer the movie – the better the MST3K riffs. The guys hit almost all of their marks with The Projected Man. I'll give it a very enthusiastic 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
4/10
Weird Woman (1944)
Lon Chaney, Jr. - The Love God, 15 October 2007
While doing field research, Professor Norman Reed (Lon Chaney, Jr.) meets and falls in love with a beautiful, exotic woman. He marries her and brings her home. Things couldn't be any better for the Professor. That is, until he discovers his wife is still practicing the voodoo type ceremonies of her homeland. He forbids her from carrying on with the superstitious mumbo-jumbo. But at what price? Professor Reed's life is suddenly turned upside-down and he faces the ultimate – a charge of murder. Is it the voodoo or something more close to home but equally sinister that threatens Professor Reed's future?
Of the six Inner Sanctum mysteries, Weird Woman is one of my favorites (Pillow of Death being the other). I suppose some who've seen the movie might think I've overrated it, but these kinds of movies work for me. Weird Woman is a quick-paced mystery that, at just over 60 minutes, never outstays its welcome. The "mystery" isn't really hard to figure out, but the all the back-stabbing and other trickery is a lot of fun. The cast is a blast. Besides Chaney, Weird Woman features some of the best females working in B-films of the 40s – Anne Gwynne, Evelyn Ankers, Lois Collier, and Elizabeth Russell. Overall, I've go very few complaints.
One thing that really puzzles me every time I've seen Weird Woman is the way the script has almost every female in the cast react to Chaney. Watching beautiful women like Gwynne, Ankers, and Collier swoon after Chaney is a hoot!
7/10
Of the six Inner Sanctum mysteries, Weird Woman is one of my favorites (Pillow of Death being the other). I suppose some who've seen the movie might think I've overrated it, but these kinds of movies work for me. Weird Woman is a quick-paced mystery that, at just over 60 minutes, never outstays its welcome. The "mystery" isn't really hard to figure out, but the all the back-stabbing and other trickery is a lot of fun. The cast is a blast. Besides Chaney, Weird Woman features some of the best females working in B-films of the 40s – Anne Gwynne, Evelyn Ankers, Lois Collier, and Elizabeth Russell. Overall, I've go very few complaints.
One thing that really puzzles me every time I've seen Weird Woman is the way the script has almost every female in the cast react to Chaney. Watching beautiful women like Gwynne, Ankers, and Collier swoon after Chaney is a hoot!
7/10
The Fly (1958)
"It'd be funny if life wasn't so sacred.", 14 October 2007
To begin with, I'm going to skip the normal plot summary. Most people probably know it anyway - a scientist has a horrific accident and turns himself into half man, half fly. And please don't misunderstand what I'm writing – I like and enjoy The Fly. My rating should be proof of that. But am I alone in thinking that The Fly may be a bit overrated? Actually, the term "overrated" is probably the wrong word as I'm not talking about the movie's rating per se. What I mean, is there anyone who cares that is not familiar with the movie or some of the more iconic images from The Fly whether they've seen the movie or not? Sure the movie is great once the creature makes an appearance, but for 2/3 of the film, it's pure melodrama of the worst kind.
Another question I have regarding The Fly, why is this seemingly one of Vincent Price's most beloved movies? He's neither villain nor hero – he's just there. So why all the acclaim for Vincent Price when it come to The Fly? I don't get it.
But what I do understand about The Fly is that regardless of my problems and questions, it's a fun movie that never fails to entertain. The acting is solid and the movie looks great. The Fly actually features some real atmosphere. And I find the unmasking scene second only to the one in The Phantom of the Opera (1925) as far as iconic scenes of this type go. Finally, I'm a huge fan of the special effects. Whether it's the fly's head on the human body or the human head on the fly's body, the special effects are a blast.
7/10
Another question I have regarding The Fly, why is this seemingly one of Vincent Price's most beloved movies? He's neither villain nor hero – he's just there. So why all the acclaim for Vincent Price when it come to The Fly? I don't get it.
But what I do understand about The Fly is that regardless of my problems and questions, it's a fun movie that never fails to entertain. The acting is solid and the movie looks great. The Fly actually features some real atmosphere. And I find the unmasking scene second only to the one in The Phantom of the Opera (1925) as far as iconic scenes of this type go. Finally, I'm a huge fan of the special effects. Whether it's the fly's head on the human body or the human head on the fly's body, the special effects are a blast.
7/10
Monday, August 23, 2010
Return of the Fly (1959)
"I know something terrible happened, something even more terrible than suicide or murder", 13 October 2007
Following the death of his mother, Philippe Delambre (Brett Halsey) decides to continue the work his father began 15 years previous. His father's experiments in matter transference ended disastrously. Philippe promises his uncle, Francois Delambre (Vincent Price), he'll be more careful and not make the same mistake that took his father's life. But as luck would have it, Philippe is destined to the same horrible fate. Through a one in a million accident, he's turned into a half fly, half human. Though he wasn't able to help Philippe's father, maybe this time Uncle Francois can find the fly and save Philippe.
Return of the Fly is a quick and cheap follow-up to The Fly. Though there are things to enjoy, it's something of a disappointment given the original. The sequel lacks the mystery of the first movie. In this one, we are expected to just accept the whole transference process and that a man can be turned into a fly. No suspense, no atmosphere – nothing. And what about the son Philippe meeting the same fate as his father? I called it a million to one accident – well it's probably more like a trillion to one. Can't the Delambre family get some pest strips or hire an exterminator or something? The notion of a fly getting in the transference machine twice is ridiculous. There are other problems (the fly special effects and the theft subplot for example), but these are the two things that bothered me the most.
Oh, but it's not all bad. The acting is okay. I've never been much of a fan of Brett Halsey, but here he's actually good. Vincent Price is always enjoyable even when, as here, he doesn't have much of anything to do. Also, the scenes of the fly stalking his prey in the funeral home are effective. I'll admit that I jumped every time he popped out of the shadows. Finally, despite the movie's problems and shortcomings, it's still fairly fun. As I've written any number of times now, entertainment is the most important thing when it comes to a movie for me. And while I wasn't bowled over or anything by Return of the Fly, I still had a decent time with it.
5/10
Return of the Fly is a quick and cheap follow-up to The Fly. Though there are things to enjoy, it's something of a disappointment given the original. The sequel lacks the mystery of the first movie. In this one, we are expected to just accept the whole transference process and that a man can be turned into a fly. No suspense, no atmosphere – nothing. And what about the son Philippe meeting the same fate as his father? I called it a million to one accident – well it's probably more like a trillion to one. Can't the Delambre family get some pest strips or hire an exterminator or something? The notion of a fly getting in the transference machine twice is ridiculous. There are other problems (the fly special effects and the theft subplot for example), but these are the two things that bothered me the most.
Oh, but it's not all bad. The acting is okay. I've never been much of a fan of Brett Halsey, but here he's actually good. Vincent Price is always enjoyable even when, as here, he doesn't have much of anything to do. Also, the scenes of the fly stalking his prey in the funeral home are effective. I'll admit that I jumped every time he popped out of the shadows. Finally, despite the movie's problems and shortcomings, it's still fairly fun. As I've written any number of times now, entertainment is the most important thing when it comes to a movie for me. And while I wasn't bowled over or anything by Return of the Fly, I still had a decent time with it.
5/10
Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1953)
Almost as much fun as I remembered, 13 October 2007
Slim and Tubby (Bud Abbott and Lou Costello) are two bumbling American policemen studying the techniques of the British police. They get into a bit of trouble and are kicked off the force. Tracking down the monster that has been terrorizing London would seem to be a way to get them back in the good graces of the police force. Along the way, Slim and Tubby are befriended by a seemingly kindly doctor named Jekyll. But Jekyll is not what or who he seems. He's actually the killer our "heroes" are hunting.
Another childhood favorite, I hadn't seen Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in literally two or more decades. I was worried that it would never live up to the fond memories I've built up over the years. Overall, I enjoyed it. Considering it's one of A&C's later films, it's a solid effort. Part of the reason may be that the boys didn't revisit their classic routines as I've noticed in some of the other movies from this period. And the fact that the boys work within the framework of the plot helps. Whatever, it's just fun. The chase scenes are the highlight for me. I found myself laughing at the same things I found funny 35 years ago. And it's always nice to see Karloff. His scenes with the boys are quite good. If it weren't for the scenes where Costello is turned into a mouse that I find utterly ridiculous (even in the framework of an A&C movie) and that put a drag on the flow of the movie, I might have rated Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde even higher.
6/10
Another childhood favorite, I hadn't seen Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde in literally two or more decades. I was worried that it would never live up to the fond memories I've built up over the years. Overall, I enjoyed it. Considering it's one of A&C's later films, it's a solid effort. Part of the reason may be that the boys didn't revisit their classic routines as I've noticed in some of the other movies from this period. And the fact that the boys work within the framework of the plot helps. Whatever, it's just fun. The chase scenes are the highlight for me. I found myself laughing at the same things I found funny 35 years ago. And it's always nice to see Karloff. His scenes with the boys are quite good. If it weren't for the scenes where Costello is turned into a mouse that I find utterly ridiculous (even in the framework of an A&C movie) and that put a drag on the flow of the movie, I might have rated Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde even higher.
6/10
The Undying Monster (1942)
After a terrific start, the movie kind of fizzles, 12 October 2007
A curse hangs over the Hammond family. For years, the family has been haunted by a creature that's believed to be responsible for several deaths. When Oliver Hammond doesn't return home when his sister, Helga, thinks he should have, she becomes increasingly worried. Her fears are compounded by a strange sound coming from the cliffs not far away. It's the sound of a wolf, only deeper and richer. And, it's the sound she fears the most – the sound of death.
What a disappointment! While my rating isn't all that low, after the first ten minutes, I had high hopes for this one. The Undying Monster begins like it might just be one of the best horror movies ever made. A creepy rambling house, a dark night, a spooked Great Dane, a race along a narrow mountainside road, and the howl of a wolf – what a start! But then the plot begins to kick in and things really start to drop off. The movie almost seems to lose its way as it limps to its less than satisfactory conclusion. For example, Scotland Yard is called in and their investigation takes up at least 2/3 of the movie. And what does it lead to? Nothing. At least nothing that has much of a bearing the film's finale. What a waste!
Technically, the film is amazing. The highlights include excellent lighting, wonderful cinematography, terrifically rich sets, and nice special effects. Likewise, the acting is also strong point of the movie. With one exception, everyone involved does a fantastic job, none more so than Halliwell Hobbs as the butler Walton and Heather Angel as Helga. The exception is James Ellison. I'm not even sure what he's doing in a very British movie like The Undying Monster. His manner, not to mention his American accent, do not "fit" a Scotland Yard inspector.
5/10
What a disappointment! While my rating isn't all that low, after the first ten minutes, I had high hopes for this one. The Undying Monster begins like it might just be one of the best horror movies ever made. A creepy rambling house, a dark night, a spooked Great Dane, a race along a narrow mountainside road, and the howl of a wolf – what a start! But then the plot begins to kick in and things really start to drop off. The movie almost seems to lose its way as it limps to its less than satisfactory conclusion. For example, Scotland Yard is called in and their investigation takes up at least 2/3 of the movie. And what does it lead to? Nothing. At least nothing that has much of a bearing the film's finale. What a waste!
Technically, the film is amazing. The highlights include excellent lighting, wonderful cinematography, terrifically rich sets, and nice special effects. Likewise, the acting is also strong point of the movie. With one exception, everyone involved does a fantastic job, none more so than Halliwell Hobbs as the butler Walton and Heather Angel as Helga. The exception is James Ellison. I'm not even sure what he's doing in a very British movie like The Undying Monster. His manner, not to mention his American accent, do not "fit" a Scotland Yard inspector.
5/10
The Mad Monster (1942)
Move along - nothing to see here, 12 October 2007
For reasons I cannot begin to fathom, Dr. Lorenzo Cameron (George Zucco) begins injecting wolf's blood into his dim-witted handyman, Petro (Glenn Strange). The result – Petro is transformed into a hideous (as hideous as someone with a bad wig and pointy teeth can be) killer beast. Dr. Cameron uses Petro to get his revenge against those in the scientific community who scoffed at and ridiculed his ideas (and why wouldn't they, Dr. Cameron's nuttier than a fruitcake).
Overall, The Mad Monster is one dull and poorly made Poverty Row thriller. There's really only one positive I can come up with to write about in The Mad Monster. George Zucco can be fun to watch as he plays the mad scientist about as well as anyone. His Dr. Cameron is a regular loony. He has no qualms about killing; he has entire conversations with people who aren't there; and, as with most mad scientists, he messes in "God's domain" (actually, I'm not sure anyone accuses him of this, but it fits). But beyond Zucco, there's nothing here to recommend. Everything else from the monster effects to the supporting cast to the music is plain old bad. There are far better examples of Poverty Row horror from the 1940s than The Mad Monster.
3/10
Overall, The Mad Monster is one dull and poorly made Poverty Row thriller. There's really only one positive I can come up with to write about in The Mad Monster. George Zucco can be fun to watch as he plays the mad scientist about as well as anyone. His Dr. Cameron is a regular loony. He has no qualms about killing; he has entire conversations with people who aren't there; and, as with most mad scientists, he messes in "God's domain" (actually, I'm not sure anyone accuses him of this, but it fits). But beyond Zucco, there's nothing here to recommend. Everything else from the monster effects to the supporting cast to the music is plain old bad. There are far better examples of Poverty Row horror from the 1940s than The Mad Monster.
3/10
The Earth Dies Screaming (1964)
A very nice piece of 1960s low-budget British sci-fi/horror, 11 October 2007
What fun! I hope the over-abundance of negative reviews found around the internet don't dissuade anyone from checking out this very nice piece of 1960s low-budget British sci-fi/horror. The Earth Dies Screaming deserves to be seen. The plot is not dissimilar to that found in both The Last Man on Earth and The Omega Man except that here we have a band of survivors and not a solitary individual. With the rest of humanity seemingly wiped out by an alien gas attack, a handful of varied individuals come together to seek safety in numbers. To make some sense of their situation and to better their condition, our heroes will have to avoid the alien robots and their zombie slaves – not to mention quarrels within their own ranks.
The Earth Dies Screaming has a lot going for it and at the top of the list is Terence Fisher. The man who directed some of the best that British horror has to offer was more than capable of adding atmosphere, tension, and a sense of isolation necessary for the success of this movie. Unlike some of his vividly colorful Hammer films, The Earth Dies Screaming was shot in stark but beautiful B&W. I suppose it's fitting given the nature of the movie's plot. The music by Elisabeth Lutyens is likewise stark but beautiful and compliments the images on the screen perfectly. The acting is solid. The cast may not be filled with A-list British horror stars, but everyone involved gives a good accounting of themselves. Dennis Price gives a particularly good performance as the selfish, self-centered character out for only himself. Finally, I love the ending. Some may argue that The Earth Dies Screaming doesn't really have an ending, but I would disagree. Sure, it's ambiguous, but that's as it should be. The characters' futures are just that – ambiguous.
8/10
The Earth Dies Screaming has a lot going for it and at the top of the list is Terence Fisher. The man who directed some of the best that British horror has to offer was more than capable of adding atmosphere, tension, and a sense of isolation necessary for the success of this movie. Unlike some of his vividly colorful Hammer films, The Earth Dies Screaming was shot in stark but beautiful B&W. I suppose it's fitting given the nature of the movie's plot. The music by Elisabeth Lutyens is likewise stark but beautiful and compliments the images on the screen perfectly. The acting is solid. The cast may not be filled with A-list British horror stars, but everyone involved gives a good accounting of themselves. Dennis Price gives a particularly good performance as the selfish, self-centered character out for only himself. Finally, I love the ending. Some may argue that The Earth Dies Screaming doesn't really have an ending, but I would disagree. Sure, it's ambiguous, but that's as it should be. The characters' futures are just that – ambiguous.
8/10
One Body Too Many (1944)
Fairly standard 1940s comedy/horror/mystery/thriller, 9 October 2007
One Body Too Many is a fairly enjoyable The Cat and the Canary style film. It's not great, but it's certainly not the worst piece of trash to come down the pike. As I alluded, those familiar with The Cat and the Canary aren't going to find the plot groundbreaking with its originality – an old dark house with secret passages, greedy family members gathered for the reading of the will of an eccentric and rich patriarch, the will includes all sorts of unusual stipulations, and at least one person in the party proves to be a killer and begins bumping off other family members. It's nothing new. This basic plot structure was fairly common in the 40s and One Body Too Many is a typical example.
As I've learned to expect from a comedy/horror/mystery/thriller from the 40s, some of the movie will work and some won't. Going in, I always hope that what works is more than what doesn't work. One of the things that worked well for me in One Body Too Many was Bela Lugosi. Playing what is essentially the supporting role of butler, Lugosi steals scene after scene. The running gag involving Lugosi and the coffee is very nearly laugh-out-loud funny. Jack Haley (who generally gets on my nerves) also has his moments that really work. He has at least one scene where he ends up naked in a clothes hamper that I found hysterical. But even with these great moments, overall the good and the bad in One Body Too Many pretty much balanced out, resulting in what I'll call an average way to spend 75 minutes.
5/10
As I've learned to expect from a comedy/horror/mystery/thriller from the 40s, some of the movie will work and some won't. Going in, I always hope that what works is more than what doesn't work. One of the things that worked well for me in One Body Too Many was Bela Lugosi. Playing what is essentially the supporting role of butler, Lugosi steals scene after scene. The running gag involving Lugosi and the coffee is very nearly laugh-out-loud funny. Jack Haley (who generally gets on my nerves) also has his moments that really work. He has at least one scene where he ends up naked in a clothes hamper that I found hysterical. But even with these great moments, overall the good and the bad in One Body Too Many pretty much balanced out, resulting in what I'll call an average way to spend 75 minutes.
5/10
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Son of Dracula (1943)
"D - r - a - c ... ", 8 October 2007
Even though I consider myself a classic horror fan (and a fan of the classic Universal horror movies in particular), I readily admit that Dracula (1931) is not among my favorites. In fact, I prefer almost all of the Dracula sequels to the original. And, I consider Son of Dracula the best of the bunch. Why? I'm prepared to write about three areas in Son of Dracula that work almost perfectly for me: the atmosphere, the mix of genres/styles, and the cast.
- Atmosphere – Son of Dracula positively drips with atmosphere. The misty swamps, the expertly lit interiors, the luscious sets, the eerie music, and Robert Siodmak's direction all contribute to the richness and underlying sense of taboo and dread. One scene that perfectly demonstrates the film's atmosphere is the rise of Dracula from the swamps. The coffin rises from the swamp floor, a vaporous mist comes forth eventually changing into Dracula's solid form, he glides effortlessly across the swamp to meet his mortal love and future wife – man, you could bath in the atmosphere.
- Mix of genres/styles – Throughout its history, horror has often been combined with other genres or styles of movies. Most obvious are the great number of horror/comedies or horror/sci-fi films you can find. Sometimes, horror is mixed in more unusual ways. For example, there are horror/Westerns and even horror/romance films. Son of Dracula is one of the very few movies that I would call a horror/film noir (I know that film noir isn't necessarily a genre, but humor me here). All the film noir trappings are here. To begin with, Son of Dracula has that look generally associated with film noir. Just take a look at the use of shadows and you'll see what I mean. But a better example is Kay Caldwell as the femme fatal and Dracula, of all people, as her dupe. The way Kay uses Dracula to do what she wants would have made even Phyllis Dietrichson proud. Kay uses Dracula to kill her father so she can get the estate and then tricks him into marriage to gain immortality. Finished with Dracula, he becomes disposable. She turns to old flame Frank Stanley to help her destroy Dracula. In the end, all three – Kay, Dracula, and Frank – are either dead or damaged beyond repair. Take away the supernatural elements of the story and you've got a typical 1940s film noir.
- The cast – A lot of people tend to focus on Lon Chaney, Jr., suitability for the role of Dracula. The criticism is almost always related to Chaney's physical appearance. I'm convinced that some of these people can't get past his size long enough to take a look at his performance. And I've always thought of it as a rock solid performance. Equally mysterious is Louise Allbritton in role of the manipulative Kay. She's fantastic as she winds both Dracula and Frank around her finger. As for Robert Paige as the doomed Frank, he's perfect. He plays the tragic figure so well. Beyond these three, the film also features solid supporting performances from Evelyn Ankers, J. Edward Bromberg, and Frank Craven. All are terrific. Everyone involved in the cast really comes out of Son of Dracula looking good.
In the end, I do not hesitate to rate Son of Dracula a 9/10. Other than some minor quibbles I have with how quickly Dr. Brewster comes to believe in and accept that Dracula is in their presence, the film is near flawless to me. And it gets better with each successive viewing. Watching tonight, I realized I was enjoying it even more now than ever before. It's a great movie!
9/10
- Atmosphere – Son of Dracula positively drips with atmosphere. The misty swamps, the expertly lit interiors, the luscious sets, the eerie music, and Robert Siodmak's direction all contribute to the richness and underlying sense of taboo and dread. One scene that perfectly demonstrates the film's atmosphere is the rise of Dracula from the swamps. The coffin rises from the swamp floor, a vaporous mist comes forth eventually changing into Dracula's solid form, he glides effortlessly across the swamp to meet his mortal love and future wife – man, you could bath in the atmosphere.
- Mix of genres/styles – Throughout its history, horror has often been combined with other genres or styles of movies. Most obvious are the great number of horror/comedies or horror/sci-fi films you can find. Sometimes, horror is mixed in more unusual ways. For example, there are horror/Westerns and even horror/romance films. Son of Dracula is one of the very few movies that I would call a horror/film noir (I know that film noir isn't necessarily a genre, but humor me here). All the film noir trappings are here. To begin with, Son of Dracula has that look generally associated with film noir. Just take a look at the use of shadows and you'll see what I mean. But a better example is Kay Caldwell as the femme fatal and Dracula, of all people, as her dupe. The way Kay uses Dracula to do what she wants would have made even Phyllis Dietrichson proud. Kay uses Dracula to kill her father so she can get the estate and then tricks him into marriage to gain immortality. Finished with Dracula, he becomes disposable. She turns to old flame Frank Stanley to help her destroy Dracula. In the end, all three – Kay, Dracula, and Frank – are either dead or damaged beyond repair. Take away the supernatural elements of the story and you've got a typical 1940s film noir.
- The cast – A lot of people tend to focus on Lon Chaney, Jr., suitability for the role of Dracula. The criticism is almost always related to Chaney's physical appearance. I'm convinced that some of these people can't get past his size long enough to take a look at his performance. And I've always thought of it as a rock solid performance. Equally mysterious is Louise Allbritton in role of the manipulative Kay. She's fantastic as she winds both Dracula and Frank around her finger. As for Robert Paige as the doomed Frank, he's perfect. He plays the tragic figure so well. Beyond these three, the film also features solid supporting performances from Evelyn Ankers, J. Edward Bromberg, and Frank Craven. All are terrific. Everyone involved in the cast really comes out of Son of Dracula looking good.
In the end, I do not hesitate to rate Son of Dracula a 9/10. Other than some minor quibbles I have with how quickly Dr. Brewster comes to believe in and accept that Dracula is in their presence, the film is near flawless to me. And it gets better with each successive viewing. Watching tonight, I realized I was enjoying it even more now than ever before. It's a great movie!
9/10
Beginning of the End (1957)
"Where do I get off asking the Regular Army for help with a bunch of oversize grasshoppers?", 8 October 2007
Bert I. Gordon really missed with this one. For a movie that features a band of giant, mutant grasshoppers terrorizing the Midwest, Beginning of the End is very dull. So dull in fact that I had to wake myself three or four times, reverse the movie, and start over again. With droopy eyes, I finally finished the 76 minute movie in 2.5 hours.
It's disappointing really because I've really come to enjoy B.I.G.'s low-budget brand of movie-making. Even when his movies aren't very good in the traditional sense, they're still usually good for a laugh or two. Not here. Likewise, I've come to really enjoy the giant bug movies of the 50s. Whether it's an ant, a spider, or a mantis, these movies are a fun watch. I wish B.I.G. could have done the same with grasshoppers.
3/10
It's disappointing really because I've really come to enjoy B.I.G.'s low-budget brand of movie-making. Even when his movies aren't very good in the traditional sense, they're still usually good for a laugh or two. Not here. Likewise, I've come to really enjoy the giant bug movies of the 50s. Whether it's an ant, a spider, or a mantis, these movies are a fun watch. I wish B.I.G. could have done the same with grasshoppers.
3/10
I Was a Teenage Werewolf (1957)
"I'm going to TRANSFORM him, and unleash the savage instincts that lie hidden within", 8 October 2007
Tony Rivers (Michael Landon) is a troubled teen. His quick temper has way of getting him in trouble. At the insistence of teachers and his girlfriend, he agrees to see a psychiatrist. Unfortunately for Tony, his doctor isn't interested in helping him as much as he is in using Tony as part of his experiments. He sees Tony as the perfect specimen to test his theories on hypnotic regression. But his experiments have a dramatic and horrific effect on Tony, turning him into a snarling werewolf.
Despite what I consider to be a ridiculous name, I Was a Teenage Werewolf is quite an enjoyable movie. In fact, it's much better than I ever expected for a Teen Angst / Horror movie starring Michael Landon. While a lot of the film is terribly predictable with some very obvious foreshadowing, it's still a lot of fun – much more fun than its 3.9 IMDb rating would indicate. There are some surprisingly effective scenes in the woods once the werewolf makes his appearance, including one vicious attack on a dog. And, I Was a Teenage Werewolf is easily my favorite thing I've seen Michael Landon appear in. I've never been much of a fan, but he gives a nice performance. In fact, everyone involved gives a good accounting of themselves. So despite the incredibly awful song "Eeny Meenie Minie Moe" (someone should be flogged for that abomination), I'm giving I Was a Teenage Werewolf a slightly better than average rating of 6/10.
6/10
Despite what I consider to be a ridiculous name, I Was a Teenage Werewolf is quite an enjoyable movie. In fact, it's much better than I ever expected for a Teen Angst / Horror movie starring Michael Landon. While a lot of the film is terribly predictable with some very obvious foreshadowing, it's still a lot of fun – much more fun than its 3.9 IMDb rating would indicate. There are some surprisingly effective scenes in the woods once the werewolf makes his appearance, including one vicious attack on a dog. And, I Was a Teenage Werewolf is easily my favorite thing I've seen Michael Landon appear in. I've never been much of a fan, but he gives a nice performance. In fact, everyone involved gives a good accounting of themselves. So despite the incredibly awful song "Eeny Meenie Minie Moe" (someone should be flogged for that abomination), I'm giving I Was a Teenage Werewolf a slightly better than average rating of 6/10.
6/10
The Vampire (1957)
A very satisfying film, 6 October 2007
Dr. Campbell is a sick man. Just before he dies, he gives a bottle of tablets to Dr. Paul Beecher (Paul Beal). Quite by accident, Paul takes one of the pills thinking it's his migraine medication. The pills were part of Dr. Campbell's work on mind regression to a more primitive state and were made from the blood of the vampire bat. Paul immediately becomes addicted to the pills and begins taking one each night. Coinciding with Paul addiction, people in town begin dying mystery deaths. Each has strange bite marks on their necks. Paul begins to suspect himself, but surely Paul's suspicions can't be true. Are the pills turning him into some kind of vampire?
While I don't think it's quite as good as his later film The Return of Dracula, Paul Landres' The Vampire is still a solid little horror film that takes much of the existing vampire mythology and stands it on its head. For example, the creature in The Vampire isn't the suave, cape-wearing, seducer that we've all become familiar with over the years. Here, the creature is a primitive being that seeks blood for survival. It is more bat-like in appearance and action. I'm not saying that one interpretation is better than the other, I just appreciate the difference.
There's a lot to like about The Vampire. I love the way the film introduces an element of horror into an otherwise safe and comfortable Leave It to Beaver type setting. The contrast is interesting. And I for one appreciate the make-up effects. I realize they were done "on the cheap", but I found them very eerie. Landres direction is solid. He keeps things interesting without a lapse during the movies runtime. But the area I find the most enjoyable in The Vampire is the acting. Everyone involved gives a performance far better than you would expect from a film of this type. As others have noted, Paul Beal gives real outstanding first-rate performance.
Overall, The Vampire is a very satisfying film. I look forward to revisiting it for years to come.
7/10
While I don't think it's quite as good as his later film The Return of Dracula, Paul Landres' The Vampire is still a solid little horror film that takes much of the existing vampire mythology and stands it on its head. For example, the creature in The Vampire isn't the suave, cape-wearing, seducer that we've all become familiar with over the years. Here, the creature is a primitive being that seeks blood for survival. It is more bat-like in appearance and action. I'm not saying that one interpretation is better than the other, I just appreciate the difference.
There's a lot to like about The Vampire. I love the way the film introduces an element of horror into an otherwise safe and comfortable Leave It to Beaver type setting. The contrast is interesting. And I for one appreciate the make-up effects. I realize they were done "on the cheap", but I found them very eerie. Landres direction is solid. He keeps things interesting without a lapse during the movies runtime. But the area I find the most enjoyable in The Vampire is the acting. Everyone involved gives a performance far better than you would expect from a film of this type. As others have noted, Paul Beal gives real outstanding first-rate performance.
Overall, The Vampire is a very satisfying film. I look forward to revisiting it for years to come.
7/10
Man Made Monster (1941)
"Terrible? Is it terrible that I gave him life?", 6 October 2007
After surviving an accidental electrocution, Dan McCormick (Lon Chaney, Jr.) comes to the attention of a couple of scientists doing work with the effects of electricity on the human body. While Dr. Lawrence's intentions are very noble and above reproach, Dr. Rigas (Lionel Atwill) has other, more "sinister" applications in mind for their experiments. His idea is create, through repeated exposure to extreme levels of electricity, an army of supermen to do his bidding. And Dan McCormick represents the ideal test subject.
Man Made Monster might be considered a "lesser" Universal horror film, but it's a good one. I haven't seen it in literally decades and I'm happy to report that it held up rather well. It's not as good as some of Universal's better known films, but it's a solid, entertaining effort. Director George Waggner (who would go on to direct Chaney in The Wolf Man) does a marvelous job of keeping things moving at a nice pace. None of the relatively short 59 minutes is wasted. Chaney, always good at playing the sympathetic figure, does so here as well as ever. Atwill has always been underrated in my eyes and he gives one of his most demented performances as Dr. Rigas in Man Made Monster. The special effects are "cool" for the lack of a better word. The glowing Chaney works. Overall, this is one that deserves a much wider audience, especially among horror fans. Even though it's a limited release, hopefully the new R1 DVD release will put Man Made Monster into the hands of more fans.
7/10
Man Made Monster might be considered a "lesser" Universal horror film, but it's a good one. I haven't seen it in literally decades and I'm happy to report that it held up rather well. It's not as good as some of Universal's better known films, but it's a solid, entertaining effort. Director George Waggner (who would go on to direct Chaney in The Wolf Man) does a marvelous job of keeping things moving at a nice pace. None of the relatively short 59 minutes is wasted. Chaney, always good at playing the sympathetic figure, does so here as well as ever. Atwill has always been underrated in my eyes and he gives one of his most demented performances as Dr. Rigas in Man Made Monster. The special effects are "cool" for the lack of a better word. The glowing Chaney works. Overall, this is one that deserves a much wider audience, especially among horror fans. Even though it's a limited release, hopefully the new R1 DVD release will put Man Made Monster into the hands of more fans.
7/10
Bride of the Monster (1955)
"He tampered in God's domain!", 6 October 2007
Dr. Varnoff (Bela Lugosi) is trying to build an army of atomic supermen. He uses a trained octopus to gather his test subjects. When the latest two men go missing, the newspapers are filled with stories of monsters. But the police have been through the swamp numerous times and have so far turned up nothing. Intrepid newspaperwoman Janet Lawton goes to investigate and quickly finds herself in Dr. Varnoff's clutches. Can her boyfriend, Lt. Dick Craig, save her before she becomes Dr. Varnoff's latest experiment?
Ever since he was awarded a Golden Turkey in the early 1980s as the Worst Director of All Time, it seems fashionable to lump all of Ed Wood's films together and dismiss them as garbage. Bride of the Monster is proof that all of Mr. Wood's work was not created equal. It's probably one of his best cinematic achievements. I'll go so far as to describe it as an entertaining little horror movie that can be fun once you get past its inherent limitations. By "limitations", I'm referring to things like the rubber octopus, flimsy sets, and bad acting (to give just three examples). But if you know that going in and don't let it bother you, you might find a worthwhile low-budget thriller. Bride of the Monster actually has a couple of things going for it. One is Bela Lugosi. This is Bela late in his career. Years of drug abuse have taken their toll. But he's able to pull himself together and give one last really nice performance. His speech about "going home" is one of the movie's highlights and should be a favorite of Lugosi's fans. The other positive I'll mention from Bride of the Monster is Ed Wood himself. Sure, he might have lacked the talent, skill, and expertise of more accomplished directors, but there's a real love of cinema in Ed Wood's movies. It's easy to tell he enjoyed what he was doing. And to me, that's worth something.
5/10
Ever since he was awarded a Golden Turkey in the early 1980s as the Worst Director of All Time, it seems fashionable to lump all of Ed Wood's films together and dismiss them as garbage. Bride of the Monster is proof that all of Mr. Wood's work was not created equal. It's probably one of his best cinematic achievements. I'll go so far as to describe it as an entertaining little horror movie that can be fun once you get past its inherent limitations. By "limitations", I'm referring to things like the rubber octopus, flimsy sets, and bad acting (to give just three examples). But if you know that going in and don't let it bother you, you might find a worthwhile low-budget thriller. Bride of the Monster actually has a couple of things going for it. One is Bela Lugosi. This is Bela late in his career. Years of drug abuse have taken their toll. But he's able to pull himself together and give one last really nice performance. His speech about "going home" is one of the movie's highlights and should be a favorite of Lugosi's fans. The other positive I'll mention from Bride of the Monster is Ed Wood himself. Sure, he might have lacked the talent, skill, and expertise of more accomplished directors, but there's a real love of cinema in Ed Wood's movies. It's easy to tell he enjoyed what he was doing. And to me, that's worth something.
5/10
The Slime People (1963)
"I don't even want to think about slime people!", 5 October 2007
The Slime People is the story of a band of creatures from the Earth's interior, driven to the surface by underground nuclear testing. The creatures set up a fog dome around Los Angeles and attempt to conquer the city for their new home. With almost everyone else either dead or driven out of city, it's up to an ill-prepared band of survivors to defeat the creatures.
While there are a couple of enjoyable aspects of The Slime People, the movie represents some of the worst aspects of low-budget film-making. Spotty acting, inane dialogue, uninteresting characters, poor editing, bad lighting, poor location and set choices, and amateurish direction – The Slime People has it all. Top it off with no pacing and you've got one very bad and dull movie. And even during those moments when the movie should be exciting, director Robert Hutton (who has double duty as the film's unappealing hero) finds a way to muck it up. The final fight scenes are unfortunately fought in the dark with way too much fog so that you can't tell what's going on.
But as I said, there are some things about The Slime People that I actually found myself enjoying. Chief among them is the creature special effects. They're not great by any stretch of the imagination, but they are better than what I expected. There are a couple of shots where a creature is shown back-lit, holding a spear that are amazingly well done given everything else that's so bad about the movie.
2/10
While there are a couple of enjoyable aspects of The Slime People, the movie represents some of the worst aspects of low-budget film-making. Spotty acting, inane dialogue, uninteresting characters, poor editing, bad lighting, poor location and set choices, and amateurish direction – The Slime People has it all. Top it off with no pacing and you've got one very bad and dull movie. And even during those moments when the movie should be exciting, director Robert Hutton (who has double duty as the film's unappealing hero) finds a way to muck it up. The final fight scenes are unfortunately fought in the dark with way too much fog so that you can't tell what's going on.
But as I said, there are some things about The Slime People that I actually found myself enjoying. Chief among them is the creature special effects. They're not great by any stretch of the imagination, but they are better than what I expected. There are a couple of shots where a creature is shown back-lit, holding a spear that are amazingly well done given everything else that's so bad about the movie.
2/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)