Month: October 2014

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925)
Article #110 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 7-4-2001
Posting date: 11-17-2001

An opera house is terrorized by a deformed man known as the Phantom, who tries to force the owners to put a specific singer in lead roles in their productions.

This is probably the most famous of Lon Chaney’s films. He was both a consummate actor and an inspired makeup artist, and this movie was certainly a triumph for him in the latter capacity; the make up for Eric is as famous as that of Jack Pierce’s for the Frankenstein Monster. Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s one of his best performances, largely because the Phantom as a character doesn’t really have a great deal of dimension; it’s not that I think Chaney was weak in any way in the role, it’s just that compared to his roles in WEST OF ZANZIBAR or THE UNKNOWN, for example, there’s simply not a whole lot to it. In fact, the whole movie is a bit of a disappointment to me; it’s too long for my taste, and there’s too much time spent with the side characters and not enough with the Phantom himself. And though its horror aspects are quite obvious, it plays more like a melodrama than a horror movie. Still, it has some wonderful moments; one of my favorites is…SPOILER COMING…

…towards the end when the Phantom is cornered, and he reaches into his coat, and everyone stops in their tracks, terrified of what he’s going to do, and then. . . well, if you’ve seen it, you know what happens; if not, I’m not going to spoil the surprise, other than to say it is indeed a bravura acting moment from Chaney.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Peeping Tom (1960)

PEEPING TOM (1960)
Article #109 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 7-3-2001
Posting date: 11-16-2001

A strange man finds himself compelled to murder women and photograph them at the time of their deaths to capture the look of fear in their eyes.

One of the benefits of trying to do a comprehensive review of fantastic cinema is that it causes me to finally get around to seeing certain films that up to now had been on my “I’ll watch it when I get around to it someday” list, and discovering a real gem. I’d read quite a bit about the film, but nothing I’d read prepared me for it. This is one amazing film, at least fifteen years ahead of its time. I’ve heard it described as a British PSYCHO, and even though it delves into a lot of Hitchcockian themes, I don’t think the description does it justice; the movie is playing an entirely different game than the one PSYCHO plays.

What is audacious about this movie is that it goes out of its way to make you really understand what this man is like as a human being, and why he does what he does. The movie is not exploitative; if it contains some elements of exploitation, it is only because these elements were essential in painting a portrait of the character. There is something deeply unnerving about getting this intimate with a character of this nature, and I think it was this intensity of experience which more than anything else contributed to the reception that the movie received upon its release, and its subsequent effect on the collapse of Michael Powell’s career; I don’t think people could handle the movie emotionally, and hated it for that reason.

I think this movie is a masterpiece, and I’m not surprised it had a real influence on the work of Martin Scorsese, whose work it most resembles. It will also, by its very nature, never be a popular favorite like PSYCHO.

1 CommentLeave a comment

One Million B.C. (1940)

ONE MILLION B.C. (1940)
Article #108 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 7-2-2001
Posting date: 11-15-2001

A member of the rock people is banished from his tribe when he tries to stand up to their dictatorial leader, and ends up meeting and staying with the more civilized shell people.

I’m not quite sure what to say about this movie, or about caveman movies in general. I could describe it as “Romeo and Juliet” with dinosaurs, but I wouldn’t be able to take myself seriously from that point on. I could draw comparisons between the rock people and the shell people in order to demonstrate the mechanics of a dysfunctional family, but I don’t see this movie becoming a favorite of therapists any time soon. instead, I’ve decided to put forth my suspicions concerning the motivations of people who want to see caveman movies; 1) They want to see dinosaurs, and 2) They want to see members of the opposite sex dressed in animal skins. As for the latter reason, yes, there are people dressed in animal skins here, but the skins may not be quite as skimpy as to suit the tastes of the viewer, though the presence of Victor Mature may satisfy the tastes of some. As for dinosaurs, don’t strain your eyes looking for the name of O’Brien in the credits under special effects; instead, prepare yourself for slurpasaurs (that is, lizards with fins). In fact, this may be the definitive slurpasaur movie; after all, it introduced us to those great slurpasaur superstars, Ignatz and Rumsford, whose immortal wrestling sequence would grace the footage of many a grade-Z flick to come. Oh, and Lon Chaney Jr. is in it, too.

I know as well as the next person that cavemen and dinosaurs didn’t exist in the same period of time, but I have to admit that I prefer my caveman epics with dinosaurs (or even with slurpasaurs) to those without. Why? They’re generally a lot more fun than the caveman movies without dinosaurs.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Old Dark House (1932)

THE OLD DARK HOUSE (1932)
Article #107 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 7-1-2001
Posting date: 11-14-2001

Five travellers get trapped by a landslide and are forced to spend the night at a strange mansion peopled by eccentric (and possibly dangerous) characters.

Though I’ve done a lot of talking about “old dark house” movies lately, this hard-to-find classic doesn’t quite qualify; there are no mysterious murders, no secret passages, and no red herrings. If anything, it’s like an early, subtle ancestor to “The Addams Family”; the Femm family is one of the oddest set of characters you’ll find in any movie. Boris Karloff is wasted in the least interesting role, the mute scarred butler Morgan, but that hardly matters as the rest of the characters are fascinating and so much fun, especially Ernest Thesiger’s fussy and cowardly Horace Femm, and Eva Moore’s religious zealot Rebecca Femm. It also has an impressive cast: Melvyn Douglas, Charles Laughton, Gloria Stuart and Raymond Massey are all on hand, as well as Elspeth Dudgeon as the old-beyond-belief Sir Roderick Femm. I’ve seen the movie three times now, but I’m confident I could watch it several more times and continue to find new and interesting things about it. This is another feather in the hat for James Whale, who remains my favorite horror director to this day.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Nosferatu (1922)

NOSFERATU (1922)
Article #106 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 6-30-2001
Posting date: 11-13-2001

A city is invaded by a vampire called Count Orlok, who brings the plague and terrorizes the inhabitants.

This is my favorite silent horror film. Everyone here probably knows that it was a plagiarized version of “Dracula” and all copies were supposed to be destroyed; it’s quite amazing that any survived, considering how much of silent cinema is lost to us forever. I certainly prefer it to the Universal DRACULA: I’ve never fallen asleep to it, even though my VHS copy had no musical soundtrack at all (I recently picked it up on DVD, so I no longer have that problem). It’s a much more interesting movie, scene for scene. I don’t even miss Lugosi, as the mysterious Max Schreck has such a commanding, unforgettable presence. I’m looking forward to seeing some of the other movies of F. W. Murnau, though I’ve heard that much of his earlier material is quite disappointing.

1 CommentLeave a comment

Night Tide (1961)

NIGHT TIDE (1961)
Article #105 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 6-29-2001
Posting date: 11-12-2001

A sailor finds himself falling in love with a woman who portrays a mermaid in a local sideshow. He discovers that she believes herself to be a real mermaid who leads men to their deaths.

Whenever I hear this movie mentioned, I hear it compared to Val Lewton’s work. The comparison is quite apt; there is a lot of the ambiguity and mystery of a Lewton movie at work in this one, and the story, which bears several aspects in common with THE CAT PEOPLE, is very much in the spirit of the Lewton movies. However, I have to admit that I don’t enjoy it; I never really get involved with the story or the characters the way I will in a Lewton movie. Part of the problem may be Dennis Hopper’s performance; though I can admire some of what he’s doing, some of it is just distracting, and I end up not really caring about the character he plays. The music is another part of the problem; in certain scenes where it should be generating tension and suspense, it just sits there. I particular notice this when the sailor is following a strange woman. As it is, the movie is just one of those I wish I liked more than I do.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Night of the Ghouls (1959)

NIGHT OF THE GHOULS (1959)
Article #104 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 6-28-2001
Posting date: 11-11-2001

A policeman who specializes in strange occurrences is sent out to investigate sightings of ghosts near an old house in the swamp. There he meets Dr. Acula, a phony spirtualist trying to bilk people out of their money.

Here we go, Ed Wood fans; the first Ed Wood movie to make it to the Musings and Ramblings. The movie is a sequel to BRIDE OF THE MONSTER and a semi-sequel to PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, with only the character of Kelton (Paul Marco) as the link between all three movies. At this point, Tor Johnson was the closest to a star that Ed Wood had to work with, but he is poorly used in this movie as all that is left of Lobo, the character he played in BRIDE.

I don’t think Ed Wood was talentless; occasionally, glimpses of cleverness and imagination shine through in his movies. I think what he lacked was either the desire, the ability, or the time to look critically at what he was doing in his capacity of either a writer or a director. The speed with which he worked certainly didn’t help matters either.

I do like certain touches in this movie; the early scenes in the police office (check out the wanted poster) are interestingly staged, in that some characters actually leave the scene through an exit just to the side of the camera, which I find rather novel. And the seance that takes up a good middle of the movie is either one of the most outrageous parodies of this type of sequence I’ve ever seen, or one of the most incompetent seances in cinematic record; when you see the trumpet mute floating around or the ghost that floats by to the tune of a slide whistle, you may wonder just what Ed Wood was trying to do in this sequence.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Night Must Fall (1937)

NIGHT MUST FALL (1937)
Article #103 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 6-27-2001
Posting date: 11-10-2001
After a strange murder takes place in the vicinity, a young man becomes a companion to an elderly wheelchair-bound woman, much to the chagrin of her repressed niece. Is the man responsible for the murder?

This movie has fine performances in the three central roles; Robert Montgomery (in a change of pace from his usual roles) as the murderer, Rosalind Russell as the niece, and Dame May Whitty as the old woman. Still, I always get a little impatient as I watch this movie, and I start feeling antsy. I think it’s overlong, for one thing. It’s also a little too much of a photographed stage play; the action takes place largely on one set (and the scenes that take us off the set feel unnecessary), and the characters talk your ears off. I don’t care for some of the arty self-conscious poetry the niece spouts on occasion, and as a whole, the movie is way too genteel, as if afraid to offend; considering that a good deal of the plot revolves around a mysterious box that may contain a severed head, I really wish the movie were somewhat less proper. What this movie needs is a good strong dose of Hitchcockian black humor.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933)

MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM (1933)
Article #102 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 6-26-2001
Posting date: 11-9-2001

Several years after his first wax museum was destroyed in an arsonous fire, a sculptor prepares to open his new museum. However, a series of strange deaths occur, and the bodies disappear from the morgues. And some of the new wax figures look quite a bit like the missing people…

This movie was missing for years, and during that time it came to be believed that the movie was a classic far superior to the 3D remake HOUSE OF WAX. When the movie was found and screened, many were disappointed. I too was disappointed when I first saw the movie, but on rewatching it this last time, I quite enjoyed it. I think what made the movie work for me is that I put myself in the right frame of mind when I watched it. I observed a few rules.

1) Tolerate the wise-cracking girl reporter. I have now seen enough movies from the thirties that I’ve gotten to the point where this type of character no longer annoys me; in fact, this character was so ubiquitous during the period that I’m surprised at how many movies from that time don’t have a wise-cracking reporter. She is the main character of the story, so the sooner you get used to the idea, the easier it will be for you.

2) Watch the movie as a mystery rather than a horror movie. Despite the horror elements, it plays like a mystery and is best enjoyed that way.

3) Pretend you don’t know who the killer is. The denouement of this movie is quite well known, but knowing whodunit really does interfere with your enjoyment of the movie, as it makes it look as if the movie is constantly veering off the track. If you can set aside that foreknowledge and allow yourself to suspect several people, the movie makes a lot more sense and feels more focused.

It may seem unusual to adopt a strategy to watch a movie, but in this case, it worked for me.

Also worth mentioning is the fact that the movie features Fay Wray, Lionel Atwill, and Glenda Farell (as the wise-cracking reporter). The use of early two-strip Technicolor also gives this movie a unique look that it shares with DOCTOR X.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Mummy (1932)

THE MUMMY (1932)
Article #101 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 6-25-2001
Posting date: 11-8-2001

When the Scroll of Thoth is read by a curious archaeologist, the mummy of Im-Ho-Tep revives, steals the scroll, and vanishes. Years later a curious character named Ardeth Bay leads archaelogists to the undiscovered tomb of a woman.

This fine movie did not establish the basic mummy mythology that survives; credit for that goes to THE MUMMY’S HAND, which, though it borrows footage from this movie, is not a sequel. In this movie, the mummy is only seen as such at the very beginning (in a great scene); it contains the classic line, “He went for a little walk!” The rest of the movie is quieter and more poetic. In many ways, it is similar to DRACULA, a movie on which Karl Freund (the director of THE MUMMY) served as cinematographer.

I love Boris Karloff’s performance in this movie; his stiff, often motionless stance and his obvious distaste at being touched gives him a sense of great age and extreme delicacy, as if he’s ready to crumble to dust at any moment.

Incidentally, when I started watching movies on my local Creature Feature, this was the first one I encountered; unfortunately, I found myself bored after the first scene and found myself wondering where the mummy had gone to, and I failed to watch the movie in its entirety. As an adult, that problem has vanished, and though the movie does require a little patience, Karloff’s performance and the quiet but steady accumulation of detail that drives the movie keep me interested throughout (unlike DRACULA, which never fails to cast its irresistible spell of sleep on me).

0 CommentsLeave a comment