Very little to recommend - even for fans of classic Universal horror, 25 February 2010
Private Detective Jerry Church (Patric Knowles) is asked to investigate the strange deaths of several recently acquitted men. The only clue is the mysterious calling card found on the body of each victim of a man known only as "Doctor Rx". Soon after taking the case, Church is on hand to see a man named Zarini acquitted, only to fall dead before he can leave the courtroom. To solve the series of murders, Church is kidnapped, his wife's life is threatened, and he is strapped to a table by Doctor Rx and prepped for an operation involving organ transplantation with a gorilla. Will Church survive this ordeal and unmask the killer?
As far as the classic Universal horror (and horror is used very loosely here) films of the 30s and 40s go, The Strange Case of Doctor Rx is about as bad as you'll run across. I place it at the bottom of the heap with the unfortunate She-Wolf of London. I described The Strange Case of Doctor Rx to a friend as a Charlie Chan movie without any of the charm or interest of a Charlie Chan movie. Knowles' Church doesn't make for a very effective or interesting lead. He's just too bland. Lionel Atwill is billed second, but he has so little screen-time you'll forget he's even in the film. And when Atwill is on screen, he's reduced to playing the role of the most embarrassing red herring I've ever run across. Gwynne is okay as the love interest / wife, but she can't save the film on her on. The highlights of the cast are Shemp Howard and, especially, Mantan Moreland. They have a scene together involving shooting dice that's laugh-out-loud funny. Moreland, as usual, steals most every scene in which he appears. Other weaknesses: the films plotting is plodding, the direction is pedestrian, the mystery isn't very mysterious, and the horror is pretty much missing altogether. As most everyone who has written about The Strange Case of Doctor Rx has pointed out, the one scene of real horror feels like it was cut from another film. Other than Moreland, the one bright spot worth mentioning is the "look" of the film. Like most other Universal pictures from this period, the movie looks like a million bucks. Overall, a very disappointing affair that I'll be generous to and give it a 4/10.
4/10
Mantan Moreland is the only reason to watch this movie., 29 November 2008
I won't even bother with a plot description. The plot isn't the reason anyone today is going to watch Law of the Jungle anyway. The only reason to watch this movie and the only thing its got going for it is Mantan Moreland. As un-PC as it is in today's world, Moreland's brand of comedy is often laugh-out-loud funny. While he's not given material in Law of the Jungle that's as good as he had in some of his other movies (For example, I think he's given better, funnier lines in King of the Zombies.), I still found a laugh or two and always a smile on my face. As for the rest of the movie, it's largely forgettable. From the ridiculous night club in the middle of the jungle to the completely unrealistic man-in-a-gorilla suit to star John "Dusty" King's wooden performance, there's little besides Moreland to recommend. The rating I've given Law of the Jungle (5/10) is based almost entirely on Mantan Moreland.
One final thing, maybe I've missed something, but it seems a bit odd to me that Mantan Moreland's character's name is Jefferson "Jeff" Jones. If you go through his filmography, you'll notice that Moreland often played a character named Jefferson Jones or Jeff Jones or simply Jeff. Is this supposed to be the same person? It has no real bearing on Law of the Jungle, just something I noticed and thought was strange.
5/10
"You can't fall out of a closed window!", 15 November 2008
While I enjoyed watching Dr. Renault's Secret, the movie has one serious flaw that keeps it from being a real winner. The problem with Dr. Renault's Secret is that there really isn't much of a secret. Anyone with half a brain would be hard pressed not to guess what's going on within the first ten minutes of the movie. I have a hard time believing that even the less jaded horror fans of 1942 would have been shocked by the revelations made toward the end of the film about Dr. Renault and his assistant, Noel. The movie all but beats you over the head with its supposed "secret".
But even with this flaw, there's still a lot to enjoy here for fans of classic horror. To start with, J. Carrol Naish gives one of those wonderful performances that I'll remember long after having watched the movie. He's awesome as the strange Noel. The way he changes his body language as the movie goes on and his more animalistic tendencies start to come out is perfect. George Zucco gives his usual nice performance even though his role is limited. The film also very nicely shot. Dr. Renault's Secret features some top-notch cinematography, set design, lighting, and everything else that goes into make a movie look "good". It might have been a "B" film, but it doesn't look like it. Fox didn't make many horror films, but when they did, they did it right.
One final note – it's odd to me that the movie is supposed to be set in France. While I don't necessarily have a problem with some of the British and American actors in the movie, there's just no way Arthur Shields could have ever been a French police inspector. He's way too Irish to ever be anything but Irish.
6/10
No phone! No lights! No motor cars!, 1 August 2008
While I admit that the Chan films of Warner Oland are, as a group, superior to those of Sidney Toler, that doesn't mean that some of the Toler films aren't rock solid and as good individually as anything Oland made. Three that immediately come to mind are Charlie Chan at Treasure Island, Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum, and this film, Castle in the Desert. (By the way, why isn't the title Charlie Chan and the Castle in the Desert? It would have made sense to me.) In Castle in the Desert, Charlie is summoned to a strange, isolated castle in the middle of the Mojave Desert. But no one in the house will admit to having sent of Chan. His presence is, however, quickly needed when in no time at all Charlie finds himself up to his elbows in murder, poison, deadly arrows, red herrings, and suspects galore. What could be more fun!
I've seen someone use this phrase before to describe a Charlie Chan film and I think it fits Castle in the Desert – "It's a crackling good mystery". As I've indicated, all of the necessary ingredients for a fun outing with Chan are here. In fact, Castle in the Desert is really more like two mysteries in one. While the solution to the first is fairly obvious, it's still a lot of fun and just an appetizer for the more difficult and dangerous mystery to come. This was Toler's last Chan film for Fox and, by the time this one was made, Toler could have played the role in his sleep. He seems so at ease with the character. The rest of the cast is enjoyable with Henry Daniell and, one of my favorites, Douglass Dumbrille standing out in support. Another bonus for Castle in the Desert is that Victor Sen Yung as #2 son Jimmy Chan isn't anywhere near as annoying as he is in some of the other Chan films.
Overall, Castle in the Desert is a nice finale to the Chan films at Fox. Nothing that would come later at Monogram is anywhere close to matching it. I've got no problem rating this one a strong 7/10 verging on an 8/10.
7/10
"I've never seen a guy with more angles.", 15 March 2008
Bowery at Midnight is quite the ambitious little Poverty Row thriller. It's has enough plot threads for three movies. Bela Lugosi plays a man living a double (or should that be triple) life. As one of the characters says to Lugosi, "I've never seen a guy with more angles." By day, he's a college psychology professor. By night, he runs a soup kitchen that he uses as a base to recruit criminals into his organization. You see, he's got a thing for knocking over jewelry stores. If that weren't enough, he has an old, washed-up doctor in the basement who, unbeknownst to Lugosi, is doing experiments on reanimating dead bodies. With all of this going on, there are really very few dull moments in the movie's short runtime. I suppose that's also part of the movie's biggest problem – there are too many loose ends and too many plot threads that go nowhere. For example, why and how is the Doc creating the zombies? And how is the process seemingly reversed at the end of the movie? It's probably best not to think too much about it and just enjoy the movie for what it is. Lugosi actually looks like he's having the time of his life. The smile on his face in many of the scenes looks genuine. And why not? For a Monogram film, Bowery at Midnight is about as good as they come.
6/10
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
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
Not the best Holmes' film, but still worth a watch, 20 June 2006
I haven't seen all of Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes films, but of the ones I have been able to check-out, Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror is easily my least favorite. But the problems I have with the film have nothing to do with the modern day setting that so many seem to complain about. In fact, The Scarlet Claw , another modern day Holmes' film, is my favorite. Instead, I've got a problem with the plot. Holmes chasing Nazis around England just seems a little ridiculous. When I think of Sherlock Holmes I picture him going after clever killers or super-villains like Moriarty - not battling the Third Reich. The film gives Holmes too few opportunities to use his superior intellect or deductive reasoning other than in scenes that don't figure prominently into the outcome of the movie. Instead, he catches the bad guys in this movie the same way any old inferior detective would. There's not much special in the methods he uses to solve the case.
But as my rating (6/10) indicates, Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror isn't a total waste. Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce are as excellent and entertaining as usual. I could watch the pair do just about anything and find some degree of entertainment. The supporting cast is good with Evelyn Ankers being the highlight for me. She never looked lovelier. Even with a reduced budget, the black & white photography and direction are solid. The film has a look to it that I find pleasing. And regardless of my problems with the plot, it moves at a good pace. Finally, even though the mystery elements are weaker than I would have liked, there was enough mystery keep me at least interested in the movie's outcome.
Even though the good outweighs the bad in my mind when it comes to Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror, it's still a weak Holmes' film. And I would not recommend it to someone just getting into the series. Check out The Scarlet Claw or The Hound of the Baskervilles instead.
6/10
Despite all its shortcomings, forced patriotism, and light as air plot, I enjoyed it, 18 June 2006
To the Shores of Tripoli is the kind of movie that I generally don't care for. The title may conjure images of Marines fighting and dying on some foreign shore, but you won't find that here. Instead you'll find a flag-waving recruitment film that makes Marine basic training look like a trip to summer camp. The movie makes it seem that the entire eight week training is made up of little more than marching and doing drills in a parking lot. And when these guys aren't in the parking lot, they're pulling pranks and wooing nurses they've been told to leave alone. Abbott and Costello's Buck Privates has more in the way of military realism than To the Shores of Tripoli.
Yet despite all its shortcomings, forced patriotism, and light as air plot, I enjoyed To the Shores of Tripoli. I was somehow able to put my brain on hold and go along for the ride. It's harmless, good-natured fun. Most of my enjoyment probably comes from the three main leads. John Payne, Maureen O'Hara, and Randolph Scott do a solid job with what they're given to work with. Much of the comedy works, particularly the hospital scene where Payne fakes an injury to be near O'Hara. And, To the Shores of Tripoli has an innocence to it that you don't find in movies anymore that I find appealing.
7/10
One of my favorite A&C films, 21 February 2006
I've been an A&C fan since I was very young. Back in the early 70s, one of the local television stations featured a steady diet of their films each afternoon. I can't remember if Who Done It? was part of their rotation, but I now consider it among my two or three favorite A&C films. A&C were at the top of their game at the time this movie was made. And even though the boys were already recycling material from their other films as early as 1942, the comedy stills feels fairly fresh and innovative. Some of the comedy highlights for me in Who Done It? include the "Limburger Cheese" and "Two Dimes for a Nickel" skits. Both work really well.
In Who Done It?, the boys find themselves mixed-up in a murder at a radio station. And that is precisely why I'm such a fan of this movie – the murder mystery. I'm a real sucker for 40s murder mysteries. I might have actually enjoyed the movie even more had the comedy been cut back and the mystery been given even more of a spotlight. As it is, some of the meatier aspects of the story are given little more than lip service and keeps me from rating Who Done It? even higher than I already have.
Another key ingredient to the success of Who Done It? is the supporting cast. Anytime you see Mary Wickes name listed on a cast roster, you know she'll deliver a solid performance. She may not have been much to look at, but she was a great character actress with wonderful comedic timing. The rest of the supporting cast is above average with performances by Patric Knowles, Louise Allbritton, and William Bendix worth mentioning.
8/10
At least it has Bela in it, 4 February 2005
Bela Lugosi plays a doctor who will do anything to keep his wife looking young and beautiful. To this end, he drugs brides during their wedding ceremonies to make it look as if they are dead so he can steal their bodies. I'm not exactly sure what he does with the bodies. I don't remember it ever being fully explained. All I know is that he extracts something from them and injects it in his wife. (I'll just guess that it's spinal fluid. Spinal fluid was all the rage of mad scientists in the 40s.) You can pretty much guess the rest from here.
There are a couple (well, really more than a couple, but I'll only write about two) of problems that I have with this movie. One is the way Bela is used. Sure, he does a decent enough job in his own overacting sort of way (BTW, the rest of the cast is simply abysmal). But, to have him hiding in the back of a hearse or having him creep into the female reporter's bedroom to do nothing is just silly. Also, why have him beat and/or kill every henchman he has? Is it to make him look evil? Well, someone who is kidnapping comatose brides doesn't really need to be made to look more evil.
The second problem I have is the idea of drugging brides. Why brides? Wouldn't any female under the age of 20 do? Watching Bela go through these gyrations to get his victims, I was reminded of the idiotic Fisherman in I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. In each case, there would appear to be an easier way of reaching your objective than employing a seemingly impossible plan that depends way to much on circumstances out of your control. (BTW, an alternate title for this movie is The Case of the Missing Brides. I guess that partially explains the need for 'brides'.)
3/10
