Tarantula (1955)

"No blood! No sign of a struggle! The bones just stripped clean like peeling a banana!", 5 August 2009

A couple of well-intentioned scientists set out to solve the Earth's food shortage problems by developing a new, revolutionary growth formula. They inject the usual rats and guinea pigs to test their formula with remarkable success. But for some reason known only to the screenwriters, the scientists also test their formula on a tarantula. A fire in the lab destroys all of the animals with the exception of the tarantula that escapes unnoticed into the desert. Unnoticed, that is, until ranchers start reporting the unusual deaths of a number of their herds. But the now giant tarantula has a taste for more than just cattle. Can the arachnid be stopped before the whole town of Desert Rock is wiped out?

I'm going to echo what most others have written about Tarantula – of the many giant bug movies churned out during the 50s, Tarantula is probably only second to Them as far as the best goes. Good acting, good locations, and good cinematography are keys to the film's success. Jack Arnold is another of those keys. He was about as good as anyone working in horror/sci-fi at the time. His snappy, well-paced direction are a real asset to the film. As far as big bug special effects in films from the 50s, Tarantula is easily one of the best. The effects in this film are often compared with Burt I. Gordon's Earth vs. the Spider made a couple years later. As far as I'm concerned, there's really no comparison. Sure, there's at least one or two times where the tarantula seems to be walking on air, but overall, it's a job well done by some talented people. And I so much prefer it to any of that lifeless CGI that would be used today. For what it's worth, a very strong 7/10 seems about right to me.

7/10

The Beast with a Million Eyes (1955)

The Shiny Spinning Coffee Pot in the Desert, 17 April 2009

Not a very hard plot to describe: an alien force lands in the desert and soon begins to use animals (and a few weaker-minded humans) to do its bidding. The terror begins when the animals go berserk and start attacking the humans. In the end, the creature is discovered and defeated by something it cannot understand – love (no, I'm not making that up).

The Beast with a Million Eyes was the third movie in a three picture deal Roger Corman had worked out with the cleverly named American Releasing Corporation (later AIP). Because this was the last movie in the deal, there wasn't much money left for a budget as is painfully obvious. Corman's plan to use a mostly invisible, unseen creature that attacked people through thought waves was genius in that it could be done cheaply with little to no special effects. Unfortunately, it makes for one very dull experience. Instead of a cool creature, the movie relies on acting. And as with the special effects, there's little to no real acting taking place in the movie. Most everyone involved is horrible. The only thing of interest to be found in the cast is a very young Dick Sargent of Bewitched fame in his first credited role. The script doesn't help. Actors are forced to say the silliest, most unnatural lines imaginable. The "Million Eyes" of the title are more metaphorical than anything else. The Beast uses the million of eyes of the animals and humans it dominated to see with. Get it? Clever, huh? In fact, the whole title – The Beast with a Million Eyes – is, to say the least, misleading. But I suppose it drew a bigger crowd than a more accurate title like The Shiny Spinning Coffee Pot in the Desert would have. Finally, there's that whole beyond hokey ending where (once again) love conquers all. Oh please! Can we be just a bit more cliché?

Obviously, The Beast with a Million Eyes is far from the best sci-fi movie or the best Roger Corman related movie out there. But it does get a bonus point or two for effort and trying something different. Who knows, with a real budget, real special effects, a real Beast, a real script, and real actors, things might have turned out differently.

3/10

The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues (1955)

The Phantom from 10 Feet, 13 April 2009

The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues, huh? It's more like The Phantom from 10 Feet. The "Phantom" is as lame a creature as I've seen recently in a 50s sci-fi/horror movie. No movement to speak of, ridiculous looking, and only threatening if you get within 3 feet – we're not talking The Creature from the Black Lagoon here. And The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues commits one of the most unforgivable sins a bad sci-fi/horror movie can – it eliminates all tension and mystery by showing us a good, clear shot of the monster within the first 15 seconds of the movie. What a huge mistake! And when your monster is this bad, you really need to keep it under-wraps as long as you can. This is "Bad Movie Making 101" type stuff.

I'm a fan of 50s sci-fi/horror – even the bad ones. But when I run across one this dull, I've got to be honest and give it the rating it deserves. Actually, "dull" hardly seems strong enough. The paper thin plot is as dull as dishwater. We're promised death rays, but none are forthcoming. We're told of radiation burns, but the bodies are all conveniently face-down. And we're lead to believe that there's a large Oceanography Institute nearby, but all we see is a small office and an even smaller lab. What plot the movie does have takes a backseat to incessant conversations between characters I couldn't have cared less about. Can a movie be completely filled with padding in the form of pointless dialogue? The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues comes close. And what a group of characters! Again, about as dull as you'll run across – a misguided but dull scientist, his clueless and dull daughter, a good but dull scientist/hero, a nosey but dull secretary, a gruff and dull investigator, and an idiotic, homicidal, but ultimately dull lab assistant. I think I'm being generous with my 3/10.

Before I end this, there are a few things in The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues that I feel I must comment on:

1. The young hero/scientist comes walking out of the ocean and just happens to trip over the only person within sight – the film's female lead. What are the chances of that happening?

2. Are we really supposed to believe that the local fishermen, scientists, sightseers, the Oceanography Institute, and everyone else really share the same row boat? Were we not supposed to notice the same boat going out to sea over and over? That little boat sure gets some mileage.

3. How convenient is it that all the dead bodies and the aforementioned row boat always seems to wash up on the same spot of beach? Just a lucky coincidence I guess.

4. Did anyone else find it odd that the movie's young female lead dresses in the living room? For that matter, did anyone find it odd that the bathroom/shower was that close to the front door? And what about that scene where the hero helps the young heroine with her zipper? Can you say cliché?

5. Why the need for a subplot involving foreign spies? Granted, Helene Stanton is about the best thing The Phantom from 10,000 Leagues has going for it, but really, why is she here?

3/10

The Trouble with Harry (1955)

"I'm grateful to you for burying my body.", 28 March 2008

I've seen The Trouble with Harry described as everything from a masterpiece to Hitchcock's worst film. I think the reaction depends on how you go into the movie. If you're expecting a nail-biting suspense thriller like most of Hitchcock's other movies, you'll probably come away disappointed. But if you're more open to the idea of Hitchcock's little experiment in comedy, you just might discover a wonderfully entertaining film.

The Trouble with Harry is that Harry's dead – and some of the local townsfolk aren't sure if they're to blame for Harry's death or not. They quite naturally (or at least it seems so very natural in the movie) decide the best course of action is to bury Harry and go on as if nothing ever happened. However, no sooner do they have Harry six-feet under than one or another has a change of heart and out come the shovels and up comes Harry. But wait a minute – they can't let Harry be found. Back into the hole for Harry! Bury – Unbury – Bury – Unbury – it goes on and on.

If you've read any of the other comments I've written about movies, you'll soon discover that I'm a fan of what I call the One Word Review. For The Trouble with Harry, that word is delightful. Everything about the movie is delightful. The gorgeous fall Vermont foliage, the witty and well written script, the new-found relationships, Jerry Mathers as Arnie Rogers, Miss Gravely's blueberry muffins, Hitchcock's direction, the joke about the double bed, Bernard Hermann's absolutely perfect score, the body in the bathtub, and a very young Shirley MacLaine, John Forsythe, Mildred Natwick, and Edmund Gwenn – everything is all so . . . well, delightful.

Finally, one thing I want to specifically mention is the dialogue found in The Trouble with Harry. The more I think about certain lines, the funnier they seem to get. A few of my favorites include:

• She's a well preserved woman…yes, very well preserved, and preserves have to be opened someday!

• He looked exactly the same when he was alive, only he was vertical.

• Couldn't have had more people here if I'd sold tickets.

• I've never been to a home-made funeral before.

I'm glad people that people don't really talk like the characters in The Trouble with Harry. If they did, I would never get anything done because I would be laughing too much.

8/10

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

King Dinosaur (1955)

"What a desolate, forsaken place.", 26 August 2007

Scientists discover a new planet and decide to send an exploratory rocket with four scientists (two men and two women – how convenient) aboard. The planet closely resembles Earth with its breathable atmosphere, lush vegetation, and plethora of wildlife. The place seems simply ideal – that is, until they visit an island in the middle of a nearby lake. The island's inhabitants aren't as cute and cuddly as the lemur they've adopted and named Joe. The island is home to dinosaurs! Can our band of intrepid scientists escape the island before they become a snack?

One of the things I enjoy about 1950s sci-fi is that regardless of how bad or ridiculous a movie might be, these movies usually have a certain naive charm about them. That's not the case here. King Dinosaur has nothing that could remotely be called "charm". It's an abysmal mess. Even by Bert I. Gordon's standards it's a wretched movie (and if you're unfamiliar with Gordon's other works, those are some pretty low standards). The plot is pathetic. The acting is plain out pitiful. The depiction of the "scientists" and "science" is ludicrous. The special effects are a laugh-out-loud joke. The staged lizard/iguana/alligator fights are reprehensible. At least half the movie is composed of stock footage. And the movie is such a technical mess that I'm surprised this bunch of bozos was even able to get it on film. I'm racking my brain, but I've got absolutely nothing positive to say.

But the most ridiculous moment in King Dinosaur (and one of the most ridiculous moments in movie history) comes about 5 minutes before the movie's end. Before the four "scientists" leave the island, one of them says, "I brought the atom bomb. I think it's a good time to use it." Huh? What did he just say? You mean he's been carrying an atomic weapon around like a loaf of bread? Carrying around food, water, or . . . oh I don't know . . . scientific equipment might make sense, but an atom bomb? I could even see carrying some sort of small hand-held weapon for self defense, but a nuclear warhead? It's got to be one of the most ridiculous moments ever put on film.

1/10

Swamp Diamonds (1955)

"You dirty little dumb broad!", 2 July 2007

An undercover female police officer is sent to prison to infiltrate a gang of female convicts and help them escape. By gaining their trust, the police hope that the gang will lead them to a fortune in diamonds buried somewhere in the swamps of Louisiana. But things don't go quite as planned. Greed and lust take over as the women start fighting each other over the diamonds and their male hostage.

Call me crazy, but I enjoyed Swamp Diamonds (or Swamp Women if you prefer) more than a lot of people seem to. Don't get me wrong, I can see all of the problems with this Roger Corman effort that others have pointed out – dodgy acting, padding galore, plot holes, etc. And to find any entertainment in the movie, you've got to get past scenes that tend to drag and plod. But once you do, Swamp Diamonds is a joy of 50s exploitation. It's got it all: a crazy story, buried treasure, escaped female convicts, Beverly Garland, guns, over the top acting, short-shorts, alligators, and "Touch" Connors ("Touch"? What's up with that?) Together, these elements combine to make this one quite a bit of fun. It's not perfect, but I've got no problem rating Swamp Diamonds a 6/10.

This is another movie that I might not have discovered if it weren't for Mystery Science Theater 3000. Maybe I was just having fun with the movie, but I'll give this episode of MST3K a 4/5 – worth seeking out.

6/10

The Big Combo (1955)

"I'm gonna break him so fast he won't have time to change his pants.", 8 July 2006

I picked-up The Big Combo as a blind buy for very little money. And I couldn't be happier with my purchase. Director Joseph H. Lewis created a wonderfully good-looking and compelling film full of atmosphere and interesting characters. This incredibly dark, relatively unknown noir deserves a much wider audience. And when I say dark, I mean as dark as midnight. No one comes out of this one unscathed. All of the characters, even the supposed good ones, are flawed and dramatically affected by the events of the movie. And technically, the movie is just as good. Lewis masterfully uses light and shadows along with interesting camera angles. Most every scene is a feast for the eyes.

At the center of the plot is mobster Mr. Brown. He's an untouchable. The police have been unable to pin anything on him even though he's the mastermind behind a successful criminal organization. Richard Conte is Mr. Brown, the head bad guy in The Big Combo. It's a remarkable performance and what makes this movie so special. He oozes evil with the best of them. The only person he cares about is himself. He's the kind of guy who can turn against someone on a dime – even those who have helped him get ahead. Conte's Mr. Brown is easily one of my favorite heavies I've so far run across.

If you're a fan of noirs, The Big Combo is worth seeking out.

8/10

To Catch a Thief (1955)

"From where I sat it looked as though you were conjugating some irregular verbs.", 9 February 2006

A string of daring jewel robberies on the French Riviera leads the police to suspect one-time cat-burglar John Robie (Cary Grant). Robie claims to be reformed but the police suspect otherwise. As the police seem so intent on following him instead of looking for the real crook, Robie decides to track down the thief himself. He soon meets and begins a romance with Frances Stevens (Grace Kelly) whose mother happens to have her own collection of valuable gems. But when Frances' mother's jewels are stolen, she naturally suspects Robie. Robie must convince Frances of his innocence and, with her help, finally unmask the real cat-burglar.

To Catch a Thief may not have Hitchcock's most suspenseful or intricate plot, but it's certainly one of Hitch's best looking films. Everything is simply beautiful. The French Riviera locations are amazing. Odd, craggy points that lead to the crystal blue ocean are filmed like works of art. It looks better than any travelogue you're likely to see. The old, unique, character-filled buildings make for stunning backdrops to the unfolding story. And, has there ever been a better looking on-screen couple than Grant and Kelly? I doubt it. These two can make the most mundane of scenes look like a million dollars.

As for the plot, it's not overly difficult to figure out who the real burglar is. The movie all but slaps you in the face with the answer. But the fun comes in watching Grant and Kelly get to the final conclusion. The final showdown between the police, Robie, and the cat-burglar is great. Other highlights for me included the swimming scene, the boat scene, and the picnic scene. Unfortunately, I've always felt there were few instances where To Catch a Thief drags a bit. There are a number of scenes where cars drive back and forth along twisting mountainous roads. And while the scenery is breathtaking, a bit more intrigue might have been a plus. Grant and Kelly's charm, however, is generally enough to offset these moments.

Overall, it may not be Hitch's best, but I've always enjoyed revisiting To Catch a Thief.

7/10

Battle Cry (1955)

Solid - but not what i was expecting, 12 November 2005

My rating of Battle Cry has more to do with my disappointment with the plot than the actually quality of the movie. I knew nothing of the movie before I watched it, but with a name like Battle Cry, I was expecting a war movie along the lines of Battleground (with which it is paired in the double feature DVD I bought). Instead, Battle Cry has more in common with a soap opera than a real war movie. The movie spends over two hours of its time on relationships and love affairs. When the real battle scenes finally begin, they're over and done with in less than 10 minutes. That's not to say I didn't enjoy the stories of the Marines and their women, it's just not what I was expecting.

I am sure that on repeat viewings my enjoyment of the movie and rating I've given it will increase. Most of the movie is very well done. Like most other reviews I've read, I am especially fond of the scenes involving Pfc Andy Hookens (Aldo Ray) and Pat Rogers (Nancy Olson). I found it a very believable, heartfelt story that's played perfectly by both actors. The rest of the cast is solid and their plot lines are almost as enjoyable.

I was shocked at the frank presentation of some of the subject matter in Battle Cry. I can't think of another movie from the 50s, especially a flag-waving war movie, where sex, pregnancy, drinking, and adultery are dealt with so openly. It's a nice change-of-pace from the sanitized WWII movies I've come to expect.

6/10

Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy (1955)

A favorite as a child, 17 October 2005

Abbott and Costello get mixed-up with tomb robbers, a dead archaeologist, and a cult of mummy worshipers in this, their last of the Meet the Universal monster films. Growing-up, I thought A&C was the height of comedy gold. I couldn't wait for this movie to appear on the local television listings. Not being 7 anymore, I realize now how unoriginal and tired much of the comedy in A&C Meet the Mummy is. Most of the comedy had been done before and better. For example, the "The Shovel is My Pick" skit is an obvious and inferior rip of their "Who's On First?" bit. So even though my brain tells me the movie probably isn't as good as the 6/10 rating I've given it, there's no counting for nostalgic value in things like this.

As a 7 year old, my favorite bit in the movie (and it still is today) is the whole notion of three mummies (one real, two fake) running around the tomb. I still chuckle to myself at the scene where the three mummies back into each other.

Also, I get a real kick out of Richard Deacon (best known for playing Mel Cooley on The Dick Van Dyke Show) as the leader of the mummy cult, Semu, playing it straight instead of for laughs. I can't think of a more unlikely casting decision.

6/10

House of Bamboo (1955)

A Near Miss, 23 July 2005

I'm really not quite sure why House of Bamboo doesn't work better than it does. It's got a good cast headed by Robert Ryan and Robert Stack. It's got a very accomplished director in Samuel Fuller. As far as technical aspects go, I have no complaints. It's a beautifully shot film. It's got some wonderful locations. The streets of 1954 Tokyo make for a fascinating setting for an American movie. And, it was shot in Cinemascope.

So what keeps me from rating it any higher? The simple answer is The Writing. It's just not interesting. Far too much time is spent on one of the silliest romances I've ever seen. A woman's husband has died and she immediately falls in love with the next man she meets. It's sappy, corny, and totally unbelievable. There is far too little action. We only see the gang pull off one very quick holdup. And the dialogue doesn't resonate with me. Ryan doesn't sound like what I would expect the leader of a gang of thieves to sound. And the dialogue between Stack and Shirley Yamaguchi can be cringe inducing in places.

Still, House of Bamboo has enough going for it that I did find some enjoyment in watching it. If nothing else, it's a interesting time capsule on an era long gone. And, personally, I got a kick out of seeing cult hero Cameron Mitchell in a very early role.

5/10

Les diaboliques (1955)

Movies don't get much better than this, 13 July 2005

I've seen Les Diaboliques with its very high rating on IMDb for a few years. But I thought to myself, it can't be that good - it's French. I finally gave it a chance. How wrong was I? I've never been more happy with a blind purchase in my life.

Michel Delasalle (Paul Meurisse) is the headmaster of an all-boys school. He's an abusive person to both his wife (Vera Clouzot - the director's wife) and his mistress (Simone Signoret) - both of whom work at the school. The wife and mistress decide they can't take it anymore and hatch a plot to kill Michel. The plan is carried out and the body is placed where it can be found. The problem is no one finds the body. It's gone. Things turn from bad to worse (and more horrifying) when students begin reporting that they have seen Michel roaming through the school. Any more of the story would be far too much.

I do my best not to rate a movie 10/10 after a first viewing. But every once in a while, I stumble upon a real classic that I can't help but call perfect. The acting is very impressive, especially Vera Clouzot as the fragile wife. I felt every emotion she expressed. The plot is fantastic. Even though I figured out what was going to happen, it didn't matter. The movie is so well written that it was just a joy to watch it unfold. The sets are about the best I've seen. Everything looked just as I would expect from a French movie made so close to end of the war. Nothing was changed to make things look "pretty". It's dirty and it works. I could go on and on like this, but you get the idea.

Clouzot has been called the "French Hitchcock" and it's easy to see why. He handles a movie with Hitchcockian type themes as well as Hitchcock might have himself. His decision to allow the movie the time necessary to build atmosphere and to allow the audience to get to know the characters is something I find sorely missing in many of today's movies.

I highly recommend this one.

10/10

Revenge of the Creature (1955)

Not as bad as most say, 19 April 2005

A group of scientist go back to the Black Lagoon to capture the Creature. From there he is taken to an aquarium in Florida for research. The Creature develops a sort of "crush" on one of the female scientists, escapes, and kidnaps her. Can the Creature be stopped?

While it's the weakest of the series, I probably rate Revenge of the Creature higher than most other people who claim to be fans. It definitely didn't deserve the MST3K treatment. The love story and escape work for me. I especially enjoy the scenes of the Creature terrorizing the guests and workers at the aquarium. Good stuff.

One of the problems I have with the movie is understanding the actions of the so-called scientists. First, they head of to the Black Lagoon and proceed to dynamite the place to capture the Creature. They actually seem willing to kill every other living animal to get the Creature. Is that the way real scientists operate? And while I understand the point of the experiments they perform on the Creature once in Florida, the scientists seem a little too anxious to administer the shock treatment to the Creature. It's just not very realistic, even by 1950s horror/sci-fi movie standards.

If you've never seen Revenge of the Creature, be on the look-out for an uncredited and VERY young Clint Eastwood in his first movie role.

7/10