Very enjoyable B&W Hammer effort, 22 April 2017
Paul Decker (Peter Van Eyck) has come up with a unique way to murder his wife. He drugs her drink, seals the room she's in from the inside, and turns on the gas. Decker then puts on a snorkel connected to fresh air and hides in a crawlspace under the floor. Once his wife's body is found and the police complete their investigation, he climbs from his hiding spot and goes on as if nothing happened. Everything seems to be going perfectly for Decker until his stepdaughter, Candy Brown (Mandy Miller), starts to question Decker's role in her mother's death. Everyone tells Candy she's imagining things, but she's certain Decker is a killer. Can she prove it in time?
Hammer is known for their vibrant color films, but when they did black and white (Paranoiac, Scream of Fear, and Nightmare for example), the results were just as solid. The Snorkel is an excellent little thriller. While there's no question as to whether or not Decker killed his wife, the fun comes in watching Candy try to prove it before Decker does her in. van Eyck is amazing. He does more with a look than most actors can with a page of dialogue. You can just see how bad he wants to kill Candy without ever having to say a word. I also enjoyed the supporting performance of Betta St. John. I'm really surprised to see she didn't do more with her career. Technically, the film is also rock solid. The cinematography is stunning. Guy Green's direction is what I'd call professional. He keeps the film moving at a nice pace. And the locations are beautiful. Most Hammer films seem so much more stage-bound than The Snorkel. Finally, I love the film's finale. I won't spoil it, but it's brilliant. Overall, it's a terrific film.
My biggest complaint comes from the lack of thoroughness displayed by the police. Had the police spent more than five minutes at the crime scene, they absolutely would have found Decker hiding under the floor. It's a real lack of logic that hurts the overall movie. Still, a solid 7/10 from me.
7/10
Pathetic, 21 April 2017
Standard disclosure: I watched Wizards of the Lost Kingdom courtesy of the new MST3K. I've always prided myself in my ability to separate the movie from the show to give my honest opinion. A movie isn't necessarily bad just because it appeared on MST3K. With all that being said, however, I can honestly say the Wizards of the Lost Kingdom is one steaming pile of monkey poo. The movie tells the story of Simon – a sort of wizard-in-training. Simon's father was killed by the evil Shurka when he took over the kingdom. Simon was sent away for his own protection. Now, Simon, a creature that resembles a commode rug, a garden gnome, and an uninterested, out- of-shape Bo Svenson set off to right the wrongs of Shurka.
I could write so much about Wizards of the Lost Kingdom, but really, what's the point. The movie is so juvenile, so inept, and so plain old bad that it's not worth the trouble. I suppose if you were under 8 years-old, you might find a little to enjoy. Everything about the movie – acting, special effects, costuming, stunts, humor, lighting, plot, direction, sets, locations – is bottom of the barrel. For the most part, I really didn't care about anyone on screen and whether they lived or died. It's all just so pathetic. I haven't rated the movie a "1" for two reasons. First, I have a soft spot for Bo Svenson. He's not the best, most charismatic actor you'll see, but he's made some movies I really enjoy (Inglorious Bastards, for example). And two, there's something about the way Thom Christopher plays a bad guy – or more accurately, overplays a bad guy – that I can't help but enjoy. While he's not as over-the- top as Shurka he was as Troxartes in Deathstalker and the Warriors from Hell, he comes close. I'm not going to say it's a "good" performance, just fun to watch.
2/10
South Korea does Kaiju, 20 April 2017
As with a lot of the movies I've written about lately, until last night, I hadn't seen Yongary in what seems like a million years. Thanks to the new MST3k, I watched it once again. I remembered it being a cheap, poor, Godzilla knockoff – and that's exactly what it is. Other than the horn on the nose, the creature designs are almost identical. Even the plots are similar with Yongary going on a rampage through Seoul, similar to Godzilla's rampage through Tokyo.
But that's where the similarities between Yondary and Godzilla end. First, compared with Yongary, Godzilla looks incredible. It may be a man in a rubber suit, but the Godzilla design is so much better than Yongary. Yongary looks exactly like what it is – a man in a rubber suit. The Godzilla design is much fuller and more interesting to look at. The eyes, though always a weakness with Godzilla, are a million times better and more expressive than Yongary. And Godzilla's roar destroys what little noise Yongary makes. Other aspects of the films where Yongary fails: tone, music, plot, action, miniatures, acting, interesting characters, and on and on. In fact I cannot think of a single area where Yongary beats Godzilla. To make matters worse, it's boring. There is absolutely no tension. At no time is the menace that's so palpable in other monster movies present in Yongary. If all that weren't bad enough, the dance scene with the annoying kid and Yongary should be enough to put anyone off Yongary. In the end, not only do I find Yongary a poor example of a kaiju, it's a poor film regardless of how you classify it.
4/10
"Is plesiosaurus a common dish in the British Navy, Mr. Olson?", 18 April 2017
I've always enjoyed all three of the Doug McClure / AIP adventure films. I think that At the Earth's Core might be favorite of the bunch, but this one is also very enjoyable. Is it good? Probably not by most modern standards. But I first watched it in the late 70s and loved it. It still provides a lot of entertainment for me today.
McClure plays Bowen Tyler. Unfortunately for Tyler and the rest of his fellow shipmates, it's WWI and a German U-Boat sinks their ship. Only Tyler and a handful of others survive. They float aimlessly on the ocean until, as luck would have it, the very same U-Boat surfaces and Tyler and Co are able to take control of the submarine. The Germans and non-Germans are in a constant struggle to control the ship. Running out of fuel, they all agree to head to an unchartered island – known as Caprona. Caprona is full of vegetation, desperately needed oil, primitive people, and vicious dinosaurs. Everyone agrees to work together if they're going to survive. But how long will this truce hold and how long before the many dinosaurs and bloodthirsty tribes get the upper-hand on our heroes?
By today's standards, the special effects in The Land That Time Forgot are pretty primitive. My kids would no doubt laugh at them. But that's part of what makes it so enjoyable to me – there is a real artistry to the whole thing. These are practical effects that someone put their heart and soul into. Sure, they're puppets, but they do an amazing job of bringing them to life. The battle between the Allosaurus and the Triceratops (I think) is especially cool and bloody. I loved the effects 40 or so years ago and I still get a kick out of them today. I also appreciate the fact that the one primitive the group meets never learns to speak English. Too often in this kind of movie, a primitive caveman is taught, unrealistically, to speak some sort of broken English in a few scenes. The acting is good. McClure gives a solid performance. He's especially good in his fight scenes. The rest of the cast, including John McEnery, Susan Penhaligon, and Bobby Parr, give workman like performances. I suppose my biggest complaint is how long it takes to really get things going. It seems that just as soon as they finally get to the island and run into the dinosaurs, it's time to wrap things up.
6/10
What a hat!, 18 April 2017
And I thought Valley of the Gwangi was the only Cowboy/Dinosaur movie out there - WRONG! Thanks to the new MST3K, I was able to catch The Beast of Hollow Mountain – a first time viewing for me. In this one, American rancher Jimmy Ryan (Guy Madison) and partner Felipe Sanchez (Carlos Rivas) are working cattle on their ranch in Mexico. When their cattle begin disappearing, Jimmy and Felipe suspect that either (a) the cattle are disappearing in the nearby swamp surrounding Hollow Mountain or (b) the cattle are being taken by Jimmy's nemesis, Enrique Rios (Eduardo Noriega). Rios is jealous because Jimmy has eyes for his fiancé, Sarita (Patricia Medina). As it turns out, neither is the true answer of what is happening to the cattle. Instead, Hollow Mountain has more than a dangerous swamp to fear. There's also the titular Beast – a giant Allosaurus.
It's not great, but as my rating indicates, The Beast of Hollow Mountain isn't all that bad either. It's hard not to compare the movie with Valley of the Gwangi. Both have cowboys, horses, and dinosaurs. I may need to revisit Gwangi because, despite the rating I gave it, I remember enjoying it a bit more than this movie. As for what I like about The Beast of Hollow Mountain, it's a great looking movie. The widescreen shots are often stunning. The cinematography really shines. The acting, while not Academy Award level, is more than competent. The actors give what I would call very earnest performances. I especially enjoyed the work of Carlos Rivas. He was also a standout in The Black Scorpion. The stop motion dinosaur work is also competent for this kind of movie, especially when you consider the budgetary limitations they were working with. It's not seamless and wouldn't stand up to today's CGI, but I enjoyed it. Finally, there's that sombrero worn by Felipe. What a hat! They needed a widescreen format just to get it completely in frame. I want that hat!
On the negative side, I'll just mention two things. First, the film takes an eternity to get to the dinosaur. The movie is at least 2/3 over before there's even a hint that there might be something else going on with the cattle. Second, while I enjoyed the stop motion Allosaurus, the close up of the feet was ridiculous. The dinosaur feet looked more like some house shoes my son might wear. Totally unbelievable.
5/10
A disaster of a disaster movie, 17 April 2017
My standard disclosure, even though I've watched Avalanche what seems like a million years ago, I rewatched it this week courtesy of the new MST3K. I've always prided myself in my ability to separate MST3K from the movie being presented and not let the jokes cloud my judgment of the movie. In this instance, it hardly matters because Avalanche is just plain old bad regardless of what format you're watching it in.
Why is Avalanche so bad? For a movie that is supposed to be about a ski resort buried under (as they tagline puts it) "Six Million Tons of Icy Terror", it's really more about the failed relationship of the ski resort's owner and his wife. Rock Hudson and Mia Farrow play the troubled couple. The problem is they have zero in the way of on- screen chemistry. I'm not sure of a married couple in the history of film that has less chemistry than these two. Their whole relationship feels fake and phony. And it doesn't help anything that three quarters of the film centers around Hudson trying to reignite his relationship with Farrow. It's just pathetic. Beyond the problems with the big name leads, the movie has other issues. Chief among them is a string of nameless, faceless characters that are presented in rapid fashion style that I didn't know or care about. Though I didn't know them, most seemed so annoying I was rooting for them to die. This most likely wasn't the filmmakers were going for. Add to that some poor special effects, ridiculous dialogue, and alcoholism as the punch line to most of the film's jokes and you've got a stinker.
I know Producer Roger Corman was trying to cash-in on the 1970s era disaster movie craze. But the budgetary limitations put on the movie by Corman's New World Pictures proved to be the real disaster. Well, that and the Hudson/Farrow relationship debacle.
3/10
"Well, it's deep enough. What do you want - a lovely liver?", 17 April 2017
Four scientists use a device they've created to view future events to actually travel into the future. They visit an almost barren Earth in the year 2071. Escaping mutants on the surface, The Time Travelers find themselves in a cave where they meet a small group of survivors working on a spacecraft to take them to a new world. They're running short on time, so our heroes agree to help. Before the ship can take off, however, there is growing resentment between the future humans and The Time Travelers. The mutants eventually break through and destroy everything. Our heroes, with a small band of future humans, try to escape back through the time portal.
Let me begin with what is quickly becoming a standard disclosure – I watched The Time Travelers courtesy of the new MST3K. This was a first time viewing for me. I've always prided myself in my ability to separate MST3K from the movie being presented and not let the jokes cloud my judgment of the movie. In this case, I really enjoyed The Time Travelers. It seemed smarter than your average early 1960s era B Sci-Fi film. I liked the idea of the time viewer and they manner it was used to travel in to the future. It's a little different from the standard spaceship that goes off course and ends up years in the future. The special effects, though cheap, were more than adequate. Director Ib Melchior keeps things moving at a brisk pace. The acting in The Time Travelers is especially strong given the film's budgetary limitations. The cast, featuring Preston Foster, Merry Anders, Dennis Patrick, John Hoyt, and Joan Woodbury, is good. Even the comic relief, Steve Franken, isn't as annoying as you'll find in a lot of these films.
A lot of the film, however, felt familiar to me. Whether it's Queen of Outer Space, Missile to the Moon, Phantom Planet, or a half dozen other movies I can think of, the notion of an advanced civilization living and sometimes working on an escape plan from beneath the surface while constantly being attacked by monsters or mutants was a common theme in 50s/60s Sci-Fi. I suppose that part of the reason was budgetary, but it does give these movies a tight, confined feeling that usually works. Some of these movies are better than others and The Time Travelers is on the positive side of this scale. A strong 6/10 from me.
6/10
The definition of disjointed, 16 April 2017
Upfront, I feel I need to say that I had never seen Cry Wilderness until it appeared in one of episodes of new MST3K. Regardless, I will be as objective as possible. I'm not one of those who thinks a movie is necessarily bad for appearing on MST3K. Some of the films on the show are actually very good and enjoyable on their own. Unfortunately, Cry Wilderness isn't one of them.
In short, Cry Wilderness is a mess of a movie. What little plot there is concerns an annoying little boy who receives a warning from Bigfoot that his father is in danger. This thin thread of a plot doesn't really hold the film together, however. The movie consists of a series of unrelated scenes haphazardly put together. The acting ranges from bad to downright atrocious. Continuity is non- existent. Characters go from one location to a completely different location in seconds. The mystical hokum of the old Native American and his band of animals is ridiculously presented. And Bigfoot is a disaster. The costume isn't even complete. On the positive side, there are some nice animal-in- nature type shots, but that's about it. Overall, a lowly 2/10 from me.
2/10
