Month: June 2015

Captain Midnight (1942)

CAPTAIN MIDNIGHT (1942)
(serial)
Article #655 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 12-30-2002
Posting date: 5-29-2003

Captain Midnight does battle with a supervillain named Ivan Shark over a new invention known as the Range-Finder.

Who is Captain Midnight? He’s the secret hero identity of Captain Albright, and is recognized by his black mask and goggles which obscure his face (and most likely his peripheral vision). Wait! Scratch that word “secret”; as far as I can tell, everyone knows who he is fairly early on in the proceedings here, so I’d hardly call it “secret.” His name strikes fear into the hearts of outlaws! Why? Uh…I’m not sure; his main talent appears to be a willingness to get into fist fights with three or four criminals at the same time—and getting soundly pummelled. On the other hand, he has dogged persistence, and seems to inspire massive waves of stupidity in his foes; they miss every easy opportunity to kill this guy. That’s because Ivan Shark keeps wanting to use his elaborate death rooms to kill him, including one of those trick rooms with steel walls that fills up with water, a rotating fire trap room, and (as God is my witness) a room with a big log and circular saw to cut it in half; I was actually disappointed he never got around to tying him to a railroad track.

Okay, I’m probably making this serial more fun than I found it to be; actually, I thought it was one of the duller ones I’ve seen lately. However, I’m probably in the minority here; it probably appeals to those who like their serials crammed with action but unhampered by troublesome details like an interesting story. Incidentally, the Range-Finder (I’m not entirely sure what it does; maybe it’s used to locate your enemy’s stoves) is the only science fiction element of the script.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Terror in the Crypt (1963)

TERROR IN THE CRYPT (1963)
Article #654 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 12-29-2002
Posting date: 5-28-2003

A witch/vampire lays a curse upon the Karnstein family upon her execution.

If there’s one thing this movie has a lot of, it’s atmosphere. It also has a lot of foreshadowing. What it doesn’t have is an interesting storyline, a sense of pace (every scene feels like the one before, and it never builds to any satisfying pitch), or characters that serve any purpose beyond being mere plot devices. This is why this one puts me to sleep; it’s really hard to care whether the Count’s daughter is the reincarnation of the witch when she doesn’t have enough dimension to make her interesting in and of herself. The only time the movie roused me out the torpor it put me in was during a scene where it is discovered why the bells are ringing, and the following scene involving a severed hand. Other than that, there’s very little of interest here, despite the presence of Christopher Lee. This is not the place to start with Italian horror movies.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Teenage Zombies (1959)

TEENAGE ZOMBIES (1959)
Article #653 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 12-28-2002
Posting date: 5-27-2003

Teenagers land on an island where an evil female scientist is making zombies.

Question and answer time, folks.

Q: Is that Jerry Warren’s name I see under the “Produced and Directed by” credit?
A: Yes, it is.

Q: Are there any teenage zombies?
A: Yes. Any teenager watching this movie will most likely have become a zombie by the time the movie is over.

Q: I mean, in the movie?
A: Despite the fact that I’ve seen several sources claim there are no teenage zombies in the movie, I would like to point out that the two girls are exposed to the zombie gas, and do indeed become zombies for a few moments, so, yes, there are teenage zombies in the movie. It might be a little hard to tell; outside of not saying anything for a couple of minutes, they don’t act any different than they did when they weren’t zombies.

Q: Are there any long, boring, talky static scenes in the movie?
A: It has Jerry Warren’s name in the credits; what do you think?

Q: Does Don Sullivan sing “Laugh, Children, Laugh” in the movie?
A. No. (See, I did have something nice to say about the movie.)

Q: Why is the sheriff’s office in an empty wood panelled room with only an uncomfortable looking window through which you can talk to one of his men?
A. Because it’s a Jerry Warren movie.

Q: Why does the movie go on for another six minutes after it’s ended?
A: See the above answer.

Q: Just how exciting is horseback riding?
A: Considering that this comment elicits more energy out of the cast than anything else in the movie, I’d say plenty; however, it could be they were just celebrating the movie being over.

Q: Why is my print three minutes short?
A: Don’t ask; just be thankful that there are forces of mercy in this world.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Tarantula (1955)

TARANTULA (1955)
Article #652 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 12-27-2002
Posting date: 5-26-2003

Scientists experimenting with a nutrient accidentally unleash a giant tarantula in the desert.

In the wake of THEM!, several big bug movies were made in the fifties, though none of them lived up to their model. They all have their good points, though. Yet, sadly, this is the one that I’m least likely to watch when I’m in the mood for a big bug movie. Despite certain elements that are quite good (the back story involving acromegaly is quite interesting), and the occasional very nice scene, I find the movie fairly dull on occasions. A lot of it has to do with the lack of interesting characters; the only two characters who capture my interest is Leo G. Carroll’s scientist and Hank Patterson’s comic-relief character role. Way too much of the running time is made up of a romance between John Agar and Mara Corday. In truth, I would have liked to see the story told from the point of view of the scientists working on the nutrient rather than from the point of view of the country doctor; they seem a much more interesting bunch. There is one absolutely great scene in this movie, though; an attack by the tarantula on a bunch of horses in a corral emphasizes the fear and the terror of the animals, and the scene is absolutely gripping. Make sure you’re not rummaging through the fridge when this moment comes.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Flesh and Fantasy (1943)

FLESH AND FANTASY (1943)
Article #651 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-26-2002
Posting Date: 5-21-2003

A man finds himself in a quandary after a fortune teller makes one prediction for him and his dreams make the opposite prediction, so a friend tries to help him by telling him three stories about precognizance.

This is the anthology from which the story that became the movie DESTINY (1944) was taken. The first story, about an ugly woman in love with a student wearing the mask of a beautiful woman during Mardi Gras is the weakest, with a fairly obvious ending and the annoying habit of pounding the viewer on the head with the meaning of the story. Thankfully, the other two stories, one of which deals with a man who is told by a palm reader that he will commit murder and the other about a tightrope walker who dreams he will have a fatal accident, are much better. I particularly like the one with about the fortune teller, as it features Edward G. Robinson, one of my favorite actors, but there are other familiar faces in these last two stories, such as Dame May Whitty, C. Aubrey Smith, Thomas Mitchell (instantly recognizable as the palm reader), Charles Boyer (as the tightrope walker) and Barbara Stanwyck. The second story has an almost dark and subtle humor to it, while the final story definitely takes some unexpected but satisfying twists. All in all, a solid anthology movie; it’s not as good as DEAD OF NIGHT, as the framing story is nowhere near as engaging as the one for that movie, but it is amusing enough and features Robert Benchley.

2 CommentsLeave a comment

Chamber of Horrors (1966)

CHAMBER OF HORRORS (1966)
Article #650 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-25-2002
Posting Date: 5-20-2003

A strangler escapes the police by cutting off his own hand, and then seeks revenge with a variety of implements that replace his missing hand.

This movie is most famous for using two gimmicks; the Fear Flasher and the Horror Horn. These devices manifest themselves at certain times during the movie to warn the audience to close their eyes so they won’t witness the horrifying scenes that subsequently appear. Well, unless there are more complete prints than the one I’ve seen, there’s precious little during those scenes from which sensitive viewers need shield their eyes; in fact, these gimmicks are particularly useless. What the movie really needs are couple of other gimmicks; the Beer Flasher will start flashing whenever there is ample time for you to run to the refrigerator to get something to drink, and the Snorer Horn will warn you whenever there is a scene that will leave you in grave danger of falling asleep. Unfortunately, these two warning signals would be going off perpetually. Apparently, this was originally made for TV, but was deemed too gruesome to broadcast. I suspect it was a pilot for a tentative series (the final moment of the movie ends with the type of cliffhanger you’d expect from “Lost in Space”) that was padded out to feature length, which is why the movie drags and contains scenes that seem redundant. It gives hints of having been more interesting in concept (proprieters of a wax museum solve real-life mysteries) than it turns out to be in practice; the only time it shows much energy is during a fight scene near the end. This one is primarily for fans of ballyhoo.

1 CommentLeave a comment

Swamp of the Lost Monster (1956)

SWAMP OF THE LOST MONSTER (1956)
Article #649 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-24-2002
Posting Date: 5-19-2003

When a body mysteriously disappears from a casket during a burial, a cowboy detective and his sidekick are called in to solve the mystery.

If you’ve ever wondered how the Mexicans would fare in making a movie that crossed THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON with a B western, here is the answer in all its awful glory. Our hero’s gimmick is that his horse does a bizarre prancing routine (a talent which proves virtually useless in helping the hero during the length of the film). The monster looks like a lanky frog, and the comic relief sidekick sings (correction: tries to sing) and says lines like “You’re wetter than tomato soup!” Conclusion: the monster is funnier than the comic relief and the comic relief is scarier than the monster. The plot (such as it is) involves a woman fooling people for several months into thinking that she’s not blind. It also asks the cinematic question; how many henchmen can you drop into a hayloft? The story is incredibly muddled. Even by Mexican standards, this is bottom of the barrel, unless you really want to see that prancing pony.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Death Takes a Holiday (1934)

DEATH TAKES A HOLIDAY (1934)
Article #648 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-23-2002
Posting Date: 5-18-2003

Death manifests himself in human form for three days to try to discover why man fears him so.

I’ve heard DRACULA was advertised with the tag line “The Weirdest Love Story ever told!” (this is probably a paraphrase), but at heart, I’ve never felt that you could honestly call that movie a love story. The tag line would be much more appropriate for this one, since it ultimately boils down to what amounts to a love story. This movie is very good indeed, particularly if you consider that it is built around a concept that could have easily been handled in a cute or facile manner. Instead, it is handled as seriously as possible, with some real thought put into how death would try to come to terms with a life and an outlook that was to that point totally unfamiliar to him; much of the credit does go to Fredric March in the title role. It’s quite scary when it needs to be, particularly during the first twenty minutes. From then on, it deals with its themes with subtlety, a quiet wit, an enduring sadness, and an everpresent tension on how Death might react if crossed. It’s not perfect; some of the dialogue is self-conscious and artificial, as if the writers knew they were dealing with weighty issues and were trying to be profound. But I am certainly glad they didn’t try to turn it into a musical comedy of sorts.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Strange Confession (1945)

STRANGE CONFESSION (1945)
Article #647 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 12-22-2002
Posting Date: 5-17-2003

A chemist explains to a lawyer the events that led up to him committing a murder.

What’s strange about it? Well, for one thing, about five minutes into the movie I started to get intense feeling of deja vu. It was more than the fact that this was an “Inner Sanctum Mystery” starring Lon Chaney Jr., or that it featured both J. Carrol Naish and Milburn Stone, both of whom had appeared in other Inner Sanctum mysteries as well. It was that the plot itself seemed extremely familiar, though not to the other movies in the series; instead, it bore a strong resemblance to THE MAN WHO RECLAIMED HIS HEAD. The similarity is more than coincidence; both movies were based on the same play; the main difference is that this one is somewhat shorter, and the profession of the main character has been changed from a writer to a chemist. Like the other movie, this isn’t really a horror movie; it’s a drama with marked horror elements during the denoument, so you shouldn’t go in expecting a horror movie throughout. The change of profession of the main character also adds a touch of science fiction not present in the original, as the plot at least partially revolves around a new drug designed to cure the flu, but the science fiction aspect of this idea may be too slight to be of any significance. It’s not really a mystery, either; there’s no search for a murderer, and everything is told in a very straightforward fashion. This is not to say the movie is weak; it may be one of the strongest of the Inner Sanctum movies, in fact. And though Lon Chaney Jr. isn’t quite as strong an actor as Claude Rains (the star of the original), he still does all right. And as this one is more readily available than the original, it might serve as a temporary substitute for those who have been frustrated in the search for the original.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Strait-Jacket (1964)

STRAIT-JACKET (1964)
Article #646 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-21-2002
Posting Date: 5-16-2003

A woman is placed in an asylum after she kills her husband and his lover with an axe. She is released twenty years later, and soon the axe murders start up again.

Much as I love William Castle’s movies, there are some of them that don’t appeal to me at all. This is one of them. Part of the reason may be that I am simply not a Joan Crawford fan. In this movie, I sense that I’m supposed to feel sympathy for her plight, but in truth, I never do; this may be because she is so vehemently unpleasant when she’s not playing for sympathy. It’s no surprise she took the part, and in some ways she’s a good choice for someone with an unhealthy mother/daughter relationship (which goes a long way to explain this movie and BERSERK!). Another part of the problem is that subtlety is not Castle’s strong suit; it doesn’t bother me that neither THE TINGLER nor HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL aren’t subtle, but here it does; the movie is way too ham-fisted in the way it constantly reminds Crawford’s character of her past murders (two passing comments about animals being slaughtered in one minute is one comment too many). The movie also features a seedy-looking George Kennedy as a hired hand.

0 CommentsLeave a comment