FROGS (1972)
Article #548 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-14-2002
Posting date: 2-7-2003

Frogs on an island organize the animals to attack the family of a curmudgeonly tycoon.

For those of you interested in making a movie the caliber of FROGS, here are some big hints.

a) Shoot a scene of some character in the movie walking through the woods.

b) Have the camera pan away from that person to the frog (or lizard/amphibian of choice) looking hostile (or just looking, for that matter).

c) Repeat the above shot with slightly different characters and locations a hundred times.

d) If you can’t pan to a convenient animal, just edit in a shot of a frog.

e) Also, make sure to give each character at least one line of dialogue that establishes him or her. Don’t develop them much further than that; after all, they’ll be frog fodder before long, so who cares what they’re like.

f) Remember, if an idea is good once, it is good several times in a row. Therefore, if you have someone looking at a scary animal and screaming, it’s a good idea to have them do it again and again and again in quick succession.

There. Now you should be able to make a movie just like FROGS.

I remember the ads for this movie years ago with the shot of the frog with a human hand hanging out of his mouth. In its own way, this ad had a kind of witty silliness to it. If only the movie had a modicum of that wit.

And remember; a protracted death scene can be either harrowing or dull. I’m afraid the ones found here fall on the wrong side of that line.

FRANKENSTEIN – 1970 (1958)
Article #547 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-13-2002
Posting date: 2-6-2003

A descendant of the original Dr. Frankenstein is engaged in experiments of his own.

This movie starts out with a bang with a thrilling chase through a swamp, so you know the people who made it were capable of shooting an exciting film; unfortunately, it turns out the scene is from a movie being shot in the area rather than a part of the movie itself, and this rather disappointing revelation leads us into the real story, which leaves us with the feeling that we’d rather have seen the movie they were shooting. This lame variation on the Frankenstein tale makes the major mistake of keeping the monster in bandages from head to toe throughout the movie, and though this may be necessary for the final revelation, it certainly makes for a disappointing monster; the fact that his head seems to be the size and shape of a wastebasket doesn’t help, either. But I think the real disappointment here is Karloff’s performance; it’s the weakest one of his that I have seen. He seems to have been saddled with too many gimmicks, what with the big scar on his face and the exaggerated limp being more distracting than scary, and though he handles certain scenes quite well, there are others where he is overacting and seems somewhat desperate. This is a shame; a good performance from him might have lifted this dull movie immensely; as it is, it’s one of the least interesting movies with the Frankenstein name attached to it.

4D MAN (1959)
Article #546 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-12-2002
Posting date: 2-5-2003

A scientist develops the ability to pass through solid matter.

This was the second of three movies produced by Jack H. Harris and directed by Irwin S. Yeaworth, Jr., the first being THE BLOB and the third being DINOSAURUS!. They were made in an order of descending quality (IMHO), which means I think this one, though not as good as THE BLOB, is better than DINOSAURUS!. It does have definite strengths, particularly in the areas of story and character development. The character of Scott Nelson (excellently played by Robert Lansing) is so well established and the circumstances of his situation so well set forth that you understand fully why he takes to crime once he develops his abilities; these decisions don’t seem arbitrary or convenient. It’s also the most adult of the three movies, not as teen oriented as THE BLOB or child oriented as DINOSAURUS!. It does have problems, though; certain of the romance scenes early in the movie are too cutesy for words, for example. The biggest problem, though, is the soundtrack; the James Bond-style jazzy horn arrangements would be appropriate for light-hearted action fare (like James Bond) or for movies in which a kind of swank nightclub atmosphere was important, neither of which fit this movie; every time those horns come in, they’re intrusive and distracting, and draw your attention away from the seriousness of the characters and the situations. It’s still possible to appreciate the finer points of the movie, but it’s not easy, and I’d like it better if it had a more somber soundtrack.

FORBIDDEN PLANET (1956)
Article #545 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-11-2002
Posting date: 2-4-2003

A spaceship lands on a distant planet to check on the status of an expedition that went there years ago, but they discover that the only survivor is a scientist with his daughter.

Several years ago a local theatre (stage, not movie) put on a musical called “Return to the Forbidden Planet.” The interview in the newspaper about the production described it as a musical sequel to that “campy” science fiction movie of the fifties, FORBIDDEN PLANET, but they made the decision to pass up anything having directly to do with the movie in favor of just lifting their plot from “The Tempest” and taking a “Rocky Horror” approach to it. Somehow, I got the feeling from the article that they were expecting to be praised for their artistic integrity in not dirtying their hands with such low-class stuff as FORBIDDEN PLANET. Needless to say, I did not go to this production.

Campy? FORBIDDEN PLANET? There are science fiction movies from the fifties to which that epithet might apply, but in order to consider this movie as camp, you’d have to consign practically all of cinematic science fiction to that designation. This was one of the classiest, most intelligent, most well-written and most audacious science fiction movies of its time. Yes, it does lift its plot from Shakespeare’s “The Tempest”, but the movie makes it work so well in a science fiction context that it would be better to say that the story was “inspired” by “The Tempest.” When I was a kid, I was a bit disappointed by it (there wasn’t enough of the monster or the robot; I was fairly predictable back then), but I’ve liked it better and better with each viewing, and this time I watched it, I was quite surprised with how good it was. The dialogue is sharp, witty and sets a certain standard for science fiction jargon (“Star Trek” owes an enormous debt to this movie); the romance plot elements that I used to dislike rise organically and effectively from the story, the comic relief is actually funny, and even though the movie doesn’t have a big-name star from the time (unless Walter Pidgeon counts), the acting is of high quality throughout. I also know of no other science fiction movie up to that time that took us both so far into the future and so far from the Earth.

It took a few viewings for me to appreciate how great this movie is, and I’m glad I took the time to give the movie that attention. It has now won a place in my list of the top ten science fiction movies of all time.

THE FACE OF MARBLE (1946)
Article #544 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-10-2002
Posting date: 2-3-2003

Scientists experiment with techniques to bring people back to life, but the subjects exhibit strange powers.

I’ve ragged on some of Monogram’s horror movies on occasion, but seeing this one in close proximity with REVENGE OF THE ZOMBIES has given me a respect for movies like THE CORPSE VANISHES, RETURN OF THE APE MAN and VOODOO MAN. These movies were silly, but I’ve come to realize they risked silliness in the attempt to be interesting to watch. I can also appreciate Bela Lugosi, especially in the care he would show to make practically every line he delivered sound important and interesting. This one, however, doesn’t court silliness at all; it is serious, somber and humorless. Don’t let the presence of Willie Best in the cast fool you; outside of a couple of very tepid lines near the beginning, he doesn’t serve as comic relief but instead is merely used to advance the plot at a point late in the movie when none of the other characters can do so. And though I think John Carradine gives a good performance (he is much better here than he was in REVENGE OF THE ZOMBIES), it is a very serious performance in a movie that badly needs a little silly comic spice to liven things up. It’s a bit of a shame; there are some very interesting ideas in this movie, but the plot spends way too much time on uninteresting romantic triangle subplot which, though it sets up some of the events later in the movie, is in itself very tedious. This is one movie where I wish at least one of the scientists was really MAD rather than both being fairly reasonable.