World Without End (1956)

"We are a peaceful people. We are sick of weapons and war.", 4 January 2009

I've been struggling to write a plot synopsis of World Without End and finally decided to take a look at what was posted on IMDb. The posted synopsis from D.A. Kellough is much better than anything I've been able to come up with – "Four astronauts returning from mankind's first mission to Mars enter a time warp and crash on a 26th Century Earth devastated by atomic war. Our heroes meet with hideous mutant cavemen, giant spiders, love-struck beauties in short dresses, and jealous old geezers in sparkly skullcaps as they struggle to save humanity and build a new world." That sums it all up rather nicely.

At first glance, World Without End might seem like any number of the mass produced sci-fi clones that came out in the 50s. And in some ways, you'd be right. The poorly done rocket shots, the bizarre notion of having guns and hatchets on board a spacecraft, and the giant spider attacks are straight out of the 1950s Sci-Fi How To Guide. But for whatever reason, World Without End is more enjoyable than many of its brethren. The cast that features Hugh Marlowe and Rod Taylor is more than capable. The interesting script and the snappy direction of Edward Bernds help to create a nicely paced film with few dead spots. Even the more romantic, schmaltzy scenes don't drag the film down like in other sci-fi movies of the period. All of the "creatures" from Earth's future are adequately explained and (mostly) believable. And the film has a sense of fun about it that I enjoyed. I've got no problem recommending World Without End to fans of 50s sci-fi cinema.

I said that things were adequately explained. Well, for the most part that's true. One thing that's not is the difference between the men and women of Earth's future. The men are pasty, old, bloodless (that's what one of the characters from Earth's past call them) beings without a spark for life. The women, in contrast, are young and beautiful creatures with a need to live and to be loved. Why the difference? It's not really a weakness of the film, just something that nagged at me as I watched the movie.

7/10

Where Is Jane Doe? (1956)

The evils of make-up, 14 March 2008

I'm not an expert when it comes to these RKO-Pathe Screenliner shorts, but Where is Jane Doe? is one of the worst I've seen. I'm not even sure what message the film is trying to convey. Is it intended to be a warning about the problem of teen runaways or is it a congratulatory pat on the back of the police? You would think that with only 8 minutes to work with, director Larry O'Reilly and writer Francis Dinsmoor would be more direct in their purpose and get right to the point. It's an odd narrative that doesn't work.

One thing you can usually count on when watching one of these old shorts is an unintended laugh or two. I got a real chuckle out of Where is Jane Doe? when the police discover the missing girl kept a secret make-up kit at a friend's house. Oh the horror! Not make-up!

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

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

The She-Creature (1956)

Not much to recommend here, 3 October 2007

With the assistance of hypnotist Dr. Carlo Lambardi (Chester Morris), Andrea Talbott (Marla English) is capable of regressing through a series of past lives. Some, like English maiden Elizabeth Wetherby, are quite innocuous. But Dr. Lambardi takes Andrea even further back – back to a time before humans existed. He takes her back to an amphibious creature that would someday become Andrea. But there are consequences. When Andrea regresses to this She-Creature, somehow it's capable of making the journey back to the present with her. A series of murders up and down the coast are proof. Andrea wants to escape from Lambardi and his powerful control over her. But is his control as powerful as the She-Creature?

What an uneventful way to spend 77 minutes. The She-Creature is dull all the way through. I can't think of anything much duller than watching someone being hypnotized over and over and over. The cast doesn't help much. Chester Morris isn't much of a threat as the baddie. Lance Fuller makes for the most "do nothing" lead I've seen – unless you call staring blankly into space doing something. Finally, while I've always enjoyed Tom Conway's work, The She-Creature gives him little to do and Conway makes the most of it, sleepwalking his way to a paycheck. The only two positives worth noting are the creature special effects (very nicely done and far better than anything you would expect to find in a movie like The She-Creature) and the sight of Marla English in a sweater.

Unless you're able to catch the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version of The She-Creature, my advice would be steer clear of this one.

2/10

Indestructible Man (1956)

Chaney could play the menacing brute as well as anyone, 5 August 2007

After the criminal known as Charles "Butcher" Benton (Lon Chaney, Jr.) is put to death in the gas chamber, his body finds its way to the laboratory of a Professor Bradshaw. Bradshaw is doing some cancer experiments with electricity and can always use a fresh corpse. But his experiment has a side effect he is not prepared for – the electricity brings The Butcher back to life. In his rejuvenated state, The Butcher cannot be harmed – seemingly, he is impervious to all attacks. After getting rid of Bradshaw and his assistant, The Butcher heads for San Francisco. He's looking for the three men that set him up and sent him to death row. Of course the police are looking for The Butcher, but how do you stop an Indestructible Man?

I'm not going to go overboard and call Indestructible Man a great movie or anything. There are too many problems to do that. But for a B-movie from the 50s, it's got a lot going for it. First, and most obvious, is Lon Chaney, Jr. By 1956, Chaney was already past his prime and headed toward self-destruction, but he still had a definite presence. He could play the menacing brute as well as anyone. Director Jack Pollexfen's decision to repeatedly use close-ups of Chaney's twitching eyes, though, gets a bit old (if not pathetic) after a while. For the most part, the rest of the acting is good. The exception to me is Max Showalter. He was just too annoying and unsuited for the part of the male lead. The plot in Indestructible Man is a lot of fun. Watching Chaney throw bad guys down flights of stairs is a hoot. Unlike some other B-movies of the period, Indestructible Man moves at a good pace with only a drive-in dinner scene slowing things down. Finally, I really enjoy some of the period photography found in the movie of San Francisco in the mid-50s. There are some very interesting outdoor shots of the city.

I've actually seen Indestructible Man a number of times, but this latest viewing was the first with the Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary. This MST3K episode isn't bad, but it's not all that memorable either. I'll give it a 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.

5/10

The Sword and the Dragon (1956)

- Ilya Muromets
Interesting as a relic, but that's as far as I can go, 29 July 2007

Reading through the various user comments on IMDb for The Sword and the Dragon (the title I saw the film under) I notice words like surreal, bizarre, goofy, ridiculous, wacky, and weird. I can understand how someone might use each of these adjectives to describe the movie. As I watched, I might have been tempted to use any one of these words at various times. But unfortunately, one word you won't see me use is "entertaining". The style of the movie did not appeal to me in the least. The Sword and the Dragon seemed to be filled with such broad overacting that it became absurd. I realize that the movie was made over 50 years ago in the Soviet Union. I understand that the movie is filled with messages and other pro-worker propaganda. And I appreciate the importance of the film as a relic of the communist system. But none of that means I have to actually like the movie.

So overall, while I appreciate the opportunity to see something as different and unique as The Sword and the Dragon, I'm not in any hurry to rush out and create a fan club. Interesting? – Yes. Entertaining? - No.

I saw The Sword and the Dragon courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. I've heard such good things about all of the Russo-Finnish films that I was excited to give this one a chance. Sadly, it didn't live-up to the hype. The comedy too often is directed at the obvious - making fun of a different culture. In the end, I'll rate this episode a 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.

3/10

Fire Maidens of Outer Space (1956)

I didn't think it was possible to make a movie entirely out of padding, 1 June 2007

What a cheap, lazy, and completely dull movie. I didn't think it was possible to make a movie entirely out of padding, but Cy Roth seems to have given it the old college try with Fire Maidens from Outer Space. It's got more padding than Joan Crawford's shoulders. What few moments of plot that actually manage to peak through the filler involve a group of astronauts on their way to the 13th moon of Jupiter. Once there, they run into the last of the descendants of Atlantis (don't ask!), fall in love, and try to get off the planet. Will they succeed? It hardly matters as you most likely won't be awake to find out the answer.

Early on, it's pretty easy to see just how miserable Fire Maidens from Outer Space is going to be. There are a lot of examples I could cite, but there's one moment that I'm particularly fond of (fond is probably too strong of a word when discussing anything related to this movie). The captain (And we know he's the captain because (a) he's the one controlling the two shifter things that fly the ship and (b) he's wearing the same old ratty captain's hat that seems to have been standard issue in movies from the 1940s and 1950s. A hat like that is fine if you're taking a group of scientists up the Nile in search of some strange creature, but it's out of place on an interplanetary journey.) lands the painfully unexciting set that doubles as the interior of the rocket and the crew celebrates this achievement by whipping out large quantities of cigarettes. Once this merry band of misfits has finished off a carton of butts, they're ready to make their way out of the ship to explore this new, unknown world. But the movie is far too cheap for anything that remotely looks like space gear. The 13th moon conveniently has an atmosphere similar to earth. Therefore, the only thing our group of explorers need do is remove their white cotton coveralls . . . errr spacesuits . . . to reveal freshly pressed khaki outfits complete with matching holsters. Yes, that's right, the only equipment our "scientists" see fit to take with them (and the only equipment this low-rent movie could afford) on their explorations are five, rather large, revolvers. At this point I actually had to stop the movie and laugh for a few seconds at the absurdity of what I'd just witnessed. Call me crazy but I just can't envision Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin touching down on the moon and firing up a few Chesterfield's while strapping on their six-shooters.

From here on out, things only get worse. The rest of Fire Maidens from Outer Space is made up of smoking, standing around, mind-numbingly dull interpretive dances, and more smoking. Like I said – it's cheap, lazy, and completely dull.

2/10

It Conquered the World (1956)

"There is hope, but it has to come from inside, from Man himself.", 29 April 2007

While It Conquered the World can't compare with some of the best sci-fi from the 50s, it's still a fun movie if you can get past the special effects. The plot is straight out of the 1950s Guide to Sci-Fi/Monster Movies. An alien comes to earth with the intention of taking over the place. The alien uses some sort of bat looking things to help him gather "volunteers" to his cause (they hit them in the back of the neck and inject them with some mind-control device). The biggest difference between the plot of It Conquered the World and other similar movies is that one character, Dr. Tom Anderson (Lee Van Cleef), is in communication with the alien and willingly tries to help him. This brings the whole Red Scare subtext found in a lot of these movies to the front as Dr. Anderson's friend and colleague Dr. Paul Nelson (Peter Graves) calls him a traitor. Being called a traitor (i.e. a commie) was about as bad as you could get in the 50s.

One thing that elevates It Conquered the World is the cast. You don't expect (at least I don't expect) to see names like Peter Graves, Lee Van Cleef, Beverly Garland, and Dick Miller in the same low budget Roger Corman film. I can't think of many movies shot on this kind of budget with four names I'm so familiar with. Corman really had a knack for spotting young talent.

The less said about the special effect the better. The monster is not as bad or poorly thought out as something like Ro-Man from Robot Monster, but it comes close to being just as silly. It Conquered the World might have benefited from not showing the monster. I recently watched The Space Children and noted that Jack Arnold was wise to limit his monster's screen time. What I wrote for that film applies here too – "Too often, low-budget sci-fi films from this period look ridiculous because of the desire for elaborate special effects (i.e. monster and aliens) that outstripped the funding it would require."

In the end, while you can certainly find better sci-fi from the 1950s than It Conquered the World, you can just as easily find much worse. This one is about average but worth at least one look if you're into this kind of thing. You might want to check it out just to hear Peter Graves closing speech – "Man is a feeling creature, and because of it the greatest in the universe. He learned too late for himself that men have to find their own way, to make their own mistakes. There can't be any gift of perfection from outside ourselves. When men seek such perfection they find only death, fire, loss, disillusionment and the end of everything that's gone forward. Men have always sought an end to our misery but it can't be given, it has to be achieved. There is hope, but it has to come from inside, from Man himself." It's worth the price of admission if you ask me!

5/10

Attack (1956)

"I'll come back and take this grenade and shove it down your throat and pull the pin!", 9 August 2006

What an amazing movie! I honestly had no idea what to expect going into Attack. With a name like that, I expected wall-to-wall combat action (albeit Hollywood style combat action). What I wasn't expecting was a deep, meaningful morality play with some of the best acting I've seen in a while. That's not to say there aren't action sequences in Attack, but they are not the focus. The action set-pieces merely exist to set up the drama. And what drama it is! Attack features a well-written, intelligent script, interesting characters, and a little insight into the effects of war.

Jack Palance is quite simply brilliant as Lt. Joe Costa, the battle hardened soldier who's seen more than his share of combat. He's protective of the men he commands and, in return, they respect him for that. I don't think I've ever seen Palance in a more convincing, believable role. Lt. Costa is the very image of the American G.I. in WWII. Eddie Albert is surprisingly just as good as Palance as the weak Capt. Erskine Cooney. He epitomizes everything that Lt. Costa hates. He's indecisive, puts his men into harms way, and worst of all, he's yellow. Albert's plays Capt. Cooney as a man one step away from a nervous breakdown. The entire supporting cast is excellent with standout performances from the entire cast.

I may not have known much about Attack going in, but it's a new favorite I look forward to revisiting from time-to-time.

8/10

The Killing (1956)

Almost ruined by the final 5 minutes, 5 June 2005

Kubrick's The Killing is very nearly a perfect movie. The story centers around the daylight robbery of $2 million from a racetrack. A varied group of five men are brought together to plan and execute the hold-up. Kubrick's decision to tell the story in a non-linear fashion was a good one. The viewers attention is focused on each part of the hold-up and how each part relates to the whole. The detail is amazing. Through different eyes and ears, we see and hear the 7th race begin at least four different times.

The heist itself is a thing of beauty. Every part fits perfectly into place. There are very few lucky coincidences (which always angers me in a heist movie) necessary for the hold-up to work. The plan goes like clockwork. My favorite part had to be the bar fight scene between wrestler Kola Kwarini and fifteen police officers. It might seem like a silly thing, but it was absolutely necessary to divert the attention of track security.

The acting is great. Sterling Hayden is outstanding as the schedule obsessed head of the group. Elisha Cook plays Elisha Cook. If you're a fan of Cook from other films, you'll like him here. Marie Windsor is especially conniving as the cheating wife who is out for herself. And I always enjoy seeing Jay C. Flippin.

I started by saying that The Killing is nearly a perfect movie. But it's not perfect. I was ready to rate The Killing a 9/10 until the final five minutes. The ending is a cliché ridden disaster. Surely Kubrick could have come up with something better than having a poodle running onto the runway. It's hard to believe that a simple moment like that almost ruined the movie for me.

8/10

Gunslinger (1956)

Interesting but Flawed, 21 February 2005

When the local sheriff is killed, his wife takes over until and is determined to clean-up the town. Not everyone in town, however, is happy with what she's doing. When the sheriff orders a curfew in town, the local saloon owner (also a woman) hires a killer to take care of the sheriff. There's no way the saloon owner could know that the sheriff and the killer would fall in love.

Gunslinger is an example of what happens when you have a fairly interesting concept and combine it with poor execution. There's a good movie here somewhere trying to get out. In more capable hands or with a larger budget, Gunslinger might have been an entertaining look at the role of women in the Old West. As it is, Gunslinger is a sloppy mess of a movie.

There are just so many things wrong with the movie: a supporting cast with no acting ability, stilted and unnatural dialogue, and sets that look like sets. But the biggest offender is the editing. I was amazed at how many times a scene would begin with the actors (and horses for that matter) obviously waiting for Corman to yell "Action". The best is the scene of two riders on horseback just standing beside a building. All of a sudden, they take off and come racing around the corner like they had been riding hard for several miles. Or, take the example of people who can seemingly transport themselves across town. We see a man enter a building and a second later emerge across town to mount his horse.

It's not as if Corman didn't have a few decent actors to work with. While none were great stars, Beverly Garland, John Ireland, and Allison Hayes were all capable of turning in a good performance. But, in Gunslinger, they're not given much to work with.

I have now seen both the MST3K and non-MST3K versions of the movie. I would strongly recommend going the MST3K route.

4/10