Terror from the Year 5000 (1958)

Inept, dull, monotonous, laughable, clumsy, horrible, etc., 26 April 2007

I admit it – if it wasn't for a copy of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version of Terror from the Year 5000, I doubt I would have ever had the intestinal fortitude to sit through this thing. It's bad in every way a movie can be bad. I've often seen (and even occasionally used) the expression, "So bad it's good". Well that doesn't ring true with Terror from the Year 5000. It's so bad it's bad. If I were asked to do a one word review, "inept" comes to mind and satisfactorily describes the movie. Other fitting one word reviews would include: dull, monotonous, laughable, clumsy, horrible, etc. Skip it at all costs.

The MST3K commentary was actually quite funny. Two of my favorite running gags throughout the episode were the continuous riffing on the male lead each time he found himself shirtless and Servo's announcements and explanations regarding "Terror" being delayed from making an appearance in the movie. Both are laugh out loud funny. Good stuff!

2/10

His Kind of Woman (1951)

"When I'm broke, I press my pants.", 26 April 2007

In the world of the film noir, His Kind of Woman is something completely different from what I've become accustomed to. Some would argue that it's not even noir, but some sort of crime/adventure/comedy amalgamation. To me, it's definitely noir . . . with a twist. His Kind of Woman features three distinct acts. The first is the hard-boiled, loner with issues, dark noir you might expect. We meet Robert Mitchum, see him drink milk (that's right – milk) at a shady looking bar, and watch as he gets his brains beat in after returning home. End of Act 1. Things start to lighten up as soon as soon as Jane Russell enters the picture. Not really a comedy, the 2nd act instead reminds me of some sort of perverse Ten Little Indians where a diverse group of people seem to have been summoned together for reasons unknown. And it's quite the collection of characters – Mitchum as the tough as nails gambler, Russell the wannabe gold-digger, Vincent Price as the self-congratulatory actor, Jim Backus the gambler looking to take advantage of a young woman, and the assorted hoods, federal agents, and innocents. Act 3 is something different altogether. It features a bizarre contrast between Mitchum taking the beating of a lifetime and Price hamming it up complete with a cape and lines from Shakespeare. Watching Price take charge of a Mexican police force is absolutely hysterical. Even odder is the fact that the movie's leading lady spends most of this time locked in a closet. This unusual mix of film styles and genres may put off some, but the whole thing works for me.

7/10

Bell Book and Candle (1958)

"I may sound like a lunatic, but I'm not crazy!", 24 April 2007

Gillian Holroyd (Kim Novak) is a witch. Secretly, she's attracted to her quite normal neighbor Shep Henderson (James Stewart). She casts a spell on Shep that forces him to dump his fiancé and fall for her. Things are going along quite nicely until Gillian discovers she really cares for this mortal man. She decides to tell him her secret. But how will Shep react when he finds out that he was "tricked" into falling in love with Gillian?

As far as light-hearted 1950s comedies go, Bell Book and Candle is good, but nothing spectacular. It's an enjoyable enough watch and should appeal to almost anyone who sits down with it. Just don't go into the movie expecting the greatest thing since sliced bread. The movie's cute, funny at times, and touching in the end. Kim Novak and James Stewart do their best and have some real chemistry. Novak (as others have pointed out) looks quite incredible in an understated sort of way. The supporting cast with Jack Lemmon, Hermione Gingold, and Elsa Lanchester is often laugh-out-loud funny and steals a lot of the spotlight from Novak and Stewart. The biggest problem I see is that Bell Book and Candle can't quite decide what kind of movie it wants to be. Is it a screwball comedy? Is it a romantic comedy? Is it a supernatural comedy? Had director Richard Quine stuck with just one approach, the movie might have been even better and more memorable.

7/10

Night and the City (1950)

"If you ain't got socks you can't pull 'em up, can you?", 24 April 2007

Harry Fabian (Richard Widmark) is a small-time hustler with big-time aspirations. All he needs is that one big chance. Fate seems to be smiling his way when he meets a very famous Greek wrestler and his protégé. If he plays it just right, Fabian is convinced he can turn this chance meeting into a wad of cash and make himself the biggest wrestling promoter in England. Just as things are looking up, forces beyond his control and a series of inopportune events conspire to destroy Fabian's dreams. But at what price to Fabian and those around him?

One word often used to describe film noir is "dark". Night and the City is as dark as they come. It's as dark and black as midnight. None of the characters comes out of this one unscathed. Not Fabian, not his girl, not his business partners, not his wrestlers, not the competing promoter, not the people he once hustled for – No one! There is no "happily ever after" Hollywood-style ending to this movie. Every character with more than 30 seconds of screen-time ends up like damaged goods. But it's this nihilistic view that makes Night and the City so compelling. It's akin to watching a train wreck – impossible to turn away.

The acting in Night and the City is, for the most part, outstanding. Widmark, Herbert Lom, Hugh Marlowe, Mike Mazurki, Francis Sullivan, and Googie Withers are all tremendous. But the performance that really caught my eye was that of Stanislaus Zbyszko as the Greek wrestler Gregorius. Zbyszko was a wrestler – not an actor. And the fact that his performance is as good as the trained and noted members of the cast is no small feat. Not only does he dominate his scenes physically, he more than holds his own when it comes to conveying emotion and feeling. It's truly an awesome performance.

But as good as Night and the City is, it is not without faults. Two that standout are Gene Tierney and the film's runtime. Notice I wrote that the acting was good "for the most part". The exception is Tierney. She does absolutely nothing to distinguish herself. She's merely adequate. But, it's not like she had much to work with. I wonder why the money was spent to hire a "name" like Tierney and then so underutilize her talents? As for the runtime, the movie feels a little long. A tighter script that eliminated some of the extraneous "stuff" would have made the film even better to me. But then again, who am I to criticize the editing decisions made on a classic like Night and the City?

8/10

The Deadly Mantis (1957)

"There is no more deadly or voracious creature than the Preying Mantis.", 23 April 2007

The Deadly Mantis is another of the big bug sci-fi movies that the studios were putting out in the 1950s. While these movies have a lot in common, not all big bug movies were created equally. Even though The Deadly Mantis does have a point or two in its favor (special effects, etc.), overall it's just not as good as similar movies. One problem is the lack of originality. The Deadly Mantis comes toward the end of big bug cycle. The better movies of this type had already been made. When you consider the number of other big animal movies that were made in the 1950s, it's little wonder why The Deadly Mantis doesn't feel very original. It's the same tired plot line that was pulled out and used over and over – a giant mantis destroys a few buildings, kills a few helpless citizens, and generally terrorizes a populace. If you were to substitute the mantis for the tarantula and the Arctic for the desert, The Deadly Mantis and Tarantula become very similar movies.

Another real problem is the first 15 or so minutes of the movie. It's pure, Grade-A, unadulterated U.S. government propaganda. I've read that the U.S. wanted to make sure that the Soviets knew that the country's northern border with Canada was more than adequately protected against a surprise attack across the North Pole. So for what seems to be a good portion of the movie, we're treated to maps of Canada's northern most territory, a voice droning on about the hard work of building and maintaining the radar stations, and a variety of stock footage. While it's reasonably interesting in that 50s Red Scare sort of way, it does nothing for the movie.

So, if you really want to see a big bug movie from the 50s, check out either Them! or Tarantula. While The Deadly Mantis certainly isn't the worst movie you'll ever see, there are much better examples of this genre available to be watched.

5/10

Deathstalker and the Warriors from Hell (1988)

None of it is in the least bit interesting, 23 April 2007

There's really no need to go into plot details – with a movie this bad they hardly matter. Suffice it to say that what plot there is involves three (at least I think it was three – but it might have been two – not that anyone should give a rat's patooty) stones that, when put together, give the holder some sort of power (at least I think that's the point of the stones). Yada, yada, yada – who cares? None of it is in the least bit interesting anyway.

I don't think you could make something as bad as Deathstalker and the Warriors from Hell even if you tried. It's horrible in every conceivable way – bad acting, poor direction, nonsensical plot, lame special effects, and everything else you can think of. In all honesty, I cannot think of many movies that I would call worse than this pile of garbage. So, you may ask, "if it's so bad, why not rate it a 1/10?" My answer – while it's as bad a movie as you'll run across, Deathstalker and the Warriors from Hell features a few moments of complete unintentional humor that did bring something resembling a smile to my face. I realize that giving the movie a point based on a couple of ridiculous moments might not be the best way to rate a movie, but it's not like I gave it a 10/10. 2/10 is still bad!

I actually watched the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version of the movie. While I enjoy(ed) MST3K, I'm one of those who sincerely believe that the movies featured on the show should be judged on their own merits. You shouldn't assume that just because a movie was lampooned on television that it's a bad movie. Tastes and opinions vary. So even some of the real stinkers that appeared on MST3K like Manos or Skydivers, I've seen without the riffing. But in the case of Deathstalker and the Warriors from Hell, I cannot imagine watching it on its own. It's so bad and features so very little in the way of entertainment that MST3k appears to be the only way to go.

2/10

Violent Naples (1976)

- Napoli violenta
One of Lenzi's better Poliziotteschi, 20 April 2007

Commissioner Betti (Maurizio Merli) has been sent to Naples to help clean up the city. Armed robbery, rape, extortion, and murder are everyday occurrences in Naples. Betti soon realizes there are two crime bosses behind most of the mayhem - Capunao (John Saxon) and the Commandante (Barry Sullivan). The two are at war and Betti's caught in the middle. Betti is a no nonsense kind of cop who is perfectly comfortable using whatever tactics necessary to get the job done. But how far is Betti willing to go to get his man?

Trying to do a short summary of a movie Violent Naples is almost impossible. The movie is in reality little more than a series of action-packed set-pieces strung together with an all but invisible plot thread. Intricate plot details are hardly the point of a film like Violent Naples. Instead, it's about the action and the pacing. And Lenzi was as good at this as anyone who ever made a Poliziotteschi. Violent Naples moves from fire bombings to beatings to bank hold-ups to gunfights to rape without missing a beat. Lenzi doesn't give you time to catch your breath before your off to the next action set-piece. I was impressed and found memorable the very same moments noted in almost every other review or article written on Violent Naples – the vicious bowling scene and the amazing camera work of the motorcycle chase scene. As good a moments as I've yet run across in a Poliziotteschi.

Along the same lines as Violent Naples' paper-thin plot, if you're looking for character insight and development, look elsewhere. Merli's Betti is as two dimensional a leading character as you'll find. We know almost nothing of the man. Similarly, we know next to nothing about the baddies played by Saxon and Sullivan. In fact, sitting here writing this, I can't even remember what their disagreement was about. Like I wrote before, details like character motivation are secondary to the action. And honestly, I wouldn't want it any other way.

8/10