Month: August 2016

The Living Ghost (1942)

THE LIVING GHOST (1942)
Article #1369 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-13-2004
Posting Date: 5-12-2005
Directed by William Beaudine
Featuring James Dunn, Joan Woodbury, Paul McVey

A detective is called on to solve the mystery of a man who has disappeared. The missing man then reappears, but with his mental faculties impaired by a paralyzed brain.

Fantastic content: A bit of horror is present due to the man’s zombified state, and there is also a visit to a spooky old house.

You know, the mystery elements here are not really too bad; it does have a somewhat interesting gimmick, and some of the details here and there caught my attention. Unfortunately, the movie is also trying to be a comedy with James Dunn as a sharp-tongued detective, and though I don’t know whether it’s the script or his performance that is at fault, the end result is that I found the whole affair very unfunny. In some ways, I’m not sure why the problem exists. The movie isn’t as creaky as some others I’ve seen, and there is a certain level of energy to the proceedings. Still, every time it goes for a laugh, it falls flat, and after awhile, I just lost interest. In particular, the running joke about the detective’s frustration with the butler is ineffective, largely because the butler never does anything to really merit that sort of reaction. All in all, this one is a waste of time for any but the most patient of mystery fans.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Liliom (1930)

LILIOM (1930)
Article #1368 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-12-2004
Posting Date: 5-11-2005
Directed by Frank Borzage
Featuring Charles Farrell, Rose Hobart, Estelle Taylor

A maid falls in love with a carnival barker.

Fantastic content: Before the movie is over, one of the major characters dies and takes a train to the afterlife.

This is an adaptation of the play that would also serve as the source story for the musical CAROUSEL. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen the latter, but I suspect it works a little better in that form, This version didn’t go over well with me at all. Charles Farrell looks the title role well enough, but his voice has a nasal whine to it that is distinctly unpleasant. I was quite unhappy with Rose Hobart’s performance in the role of Julie; she comes across as distant and terminally depressed, and that has a way of undercutting the message that she’s supposed to be getting a lot of joy in her relationship with Liliom. There is a touch of eroticism to some of the scenes at the beginning of the movie, but some of the accompanying dialogue is stilted and clumsy; in fact, that problem permeates the whole movie. Far and away I prefer the sequences involving the arrival of the train of the dead right through the wall of the room where Liliom is dying, (even if it does follow one of the most protracted deathbed speeches this side of an opera), as well as the other scenes in the afterlife. This sequence also has the best line of the movie; when the red train to hell arrives to take Liliom to a land where he will learn a little discipline, the man telling him about the arrival takes a second to point out that the color of the train has “no political significance”. I do find the ending message of the movie to be more than a little offensive; the concept that when you beat the ones you love they will experience them like kisses is a romantic prevarication that only lends itself to being used as a base rationalization by wife and child abusers everywhere.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Last Performance (1929)

THE LAST PERFORMANCE (1929)
(a.k.a. THE MAGICIAN)
Article #1367 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-11-2004
Posting Date: 5-10-2005
Directed by Pal Fejos
Featuring Conrad Veidt, Mary Philbin, Leslie Fenton

A magician discovers that his female assistant is not in love with him, but rather with one of his assistants, a thief that he took pity on and took into his employment.

Fantastic content: It’s marginal. The magician and his tricks give it that touch of fantasy, and the gruesome death gives it a touch of horror.

The story is pretty familiar; I’m pretty sure I’ve seen the same plot used in several other movies, though their titles do not come to mind immediately. I had a strong idea of where the story was going to go the minute he took the thief into his employment at the urging of his female assistant, and the movie doesn’t have any real surprises. It is, however, very efficient (my print ran only forty-eight minutes), and it is anchored by an excellent performance from Conrad Veidt, whose character must remain polite and understanding in public while hiding his true feelings. It’s the type of movie I’d expect from Tod Browning with Lon Chaney in the main role, though it doesn’t quite have the grotesquerie we would expect from that combination.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

King Solomon’s Mines (1937)

KING SOLOMON’S MINES (1937)
Article #1366 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-10-2004
Posting Date: 5-9-2005
Directed by Robert Stevenson
Featuring Paul Robeson, Cedric Hardwicke, Roland Young

When a determined Irish girl shanghais his wagon in order to find her father, Allan Quatermain decides to follow her and help her in her quest.

Fantastic content: The whole story is driven by the search and discovery of the legendary mines of King Solomon, putting the movie somewhat into the realm of fantasy.

Despite the fact that “She” seems to be the more popular choice over the years for cinematic adaptations of H. Rider Haggard’s adventure novels, I would opt for this adaptation of one of his other works over any of the ones I’ve seen of “She”. Part of the reason is the efficient, well-paced production and a witty and fun script, but the real selling point of this one is its excellent cast. John Loder and Anna Lee play the likable romantic leads, and Cedric Hardwicke does a fine job as the noble but somewhat reluctant Allan Quatermain who gets drawn into the adventure despite his better judgment. However, the other two leads are the true stars of this production. Roland Young has never been funnier; every time he opened his mouth, I found myself giggling at his comment. Twice he gets caught without his pants during the movie, eventually prompting my favorite line in the movie, “Would it do any good if I whipped off my pants?” And then there’s Paul Robeson as Umbopa, who deports himself with an impressive dignity (he was one of the few black actors of the era not consigned to secondary/comic relief roles), and when he sings (which is quite often), it enhances and adds color to the story rather than bringing it to a halt. Considering just how much of the movie consists of people taking long walks from one place to another, it’s amazing how it never gets dull, thanks to sharp editing and colorful dialogue. The final scenes of the movie are also pretty spectacular, with an epic native war and a dangerous pit of lava coming into play.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

A Kid for Two Farthings (1956)

A KID FOR TWO FARTHINGS (1956)
Article #1365 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-9-2005
Posting Date: 5-8-2005
Directed by Carol Reed
Featuring Celia Johnson, Diana Dors, David Kossoff

A young boy living in the market streets of London comes by a one-horned goat who he believes to be a unicorn.

This movie is not in fact a fantasy. I don’t even think it’s really a fantasy in spirit, either. It’s more of a slice-of-life movie, with the fantasy hovering at the edges but never coming front and center. Yes, there is a certain amount of ambiguity as to whether the goat may or may not have the magic powers of a unicorn; once the child has come to the conclusion that the smallness of the horn would only yield half wishes, this is pretty much what happens throughout the rest of the movie. However, director Carol Reed does not focus on any magical happenings; in fact, he doesn’t even focus on the ambiguity of the premise. Rather, the ambiguity becomes a part of the welter of images, emotions and characters that make up this movie.

Emotionally, it doesn’t seem to have a primary feel; it covers a wide range of human feelings, from joy to grief to anger to disappointment to pride to fear, and it does so with a memorable array of characters, from the somewhat stoic tailor to the woman hoping her boyfriend will finally buy her a ring make his proposal to her to the bodybuilder who longs to become Mr. World to the veteran wrestler whose career was ruined by alcohol to the huckster hoping to make a buck off of a damaged ring. Yet, hope runs through the movie; there is always the belief that something better will appear around the corner, and this is what keeps the characters alive and moving throughout the movie. Even the character whose wishes most often fail to come true remains the most unflappable; the imagination and belief of the child of the story serves to make him very resilient in this regard.

There were two particularly striking things that caught my attention in this well-acted and excellently mounted movie. The first is the performance of David Kossoff as Kandinsky, a tailor who wishes for nothing more than a steam press to spare him from the endless ironing. The other is the sound design; all through the movie we hear a welter of noise and conversation from the people milling in the streets, and it gives the movie a texture quite unlike any other. The movie also features a prominent performance from former boxing champion Primo Carnera.

1 CommentLeave a comment

Forbidden Jungle (1950)

FORBIDDEN JUNGLE (1950)
Article #1364 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-8-2005
Posting Date: 5-7-2005
Directed by Robert Emmett Tansey
Featuring Don C. Harvey, Forrest Taylor, Alyce Lewis

A hunter is offered a great deal of money to go into the forbidden jungle and bring back a boy that is rumored to be running loose there.

Fantastic content: The jungle boy is able to read the minds of animals. He also seems to be able to read the mind of the hunter, but since the hunter has a narrator that tells you all of the hunter’s deepest darkest thoughts (usually about how money is the most important thing in his life), this is no challenge.

If you’re going to undertake this viewing project of mine, you should realize at the outset that you’re going to have to watch a lot of lousy jungle movies; yet, even I wasn’t quite prepared for the awesome ineptitude that passes for this movie. If I were into pithy putdowns, I’d point out that “forbidden” means you shouldn’t partake of it, and that it’s good advice. Instead, I’ll try to give you a taste of the experience by describing certain scenes.

It opens with the great hunter. He has a crowd of natives serving him whose sole function is to tote around a caged tiger through the African jungle. No, he didn’t just catch it; when he left for the safari, he didn’t know what else to do with the tiger, so he brought it along. I swear I’m not making this up. The opening five minutes of the movie consists of three different types of scenes: 1) the natives toting the tiger around, 2) the narrator telling you what the hunter is thinking while the latter raises his eyebrows, and 3) stock footage.

I may be paraphrasing somewhat, but the movie does contain the line, “I told you not to wake me up by jumping on my stomach.”

The best scene in the movie? The native boy jumps on the back of wildebeest and rides him to the native camp.

The gorilla (alias the man in the gorilla suit) is named Gigi. That may not be the correct spelling, but it sure sounds like it. Where’s Maurice Chevalier when you need him?

It’s nice that not all the animals are stock footage. There are even scenes with the actors interacting with lions. Fortunately, no one was in danger of being hurt because there was a big sheet of glass separating the lion from the humans. I know this because I can see the actors’ reflections in it when they talk to the lion.

I thought the scene where the hunter first meets the jungle boy (who convinces him that if he puts down his gun, clears his mind, and thinks nice thoughts, the nearby lion won’t kill him) to be the funniest scene I’d ever seen in a jungle movie. And then I saw….

…the scene where the hunter tempts the jungle boy into leaving with him for the city by telling him of the delights of Broadway (The Great White Way). There’s more sexual tension in this scene than in any of the ones with the scantily clad native girl.

I hope you like monkey antics. There is lots of footage of frolicking monkeys. LOTS of footage. I’m not kidding – we’re talking some serious frolicking monkey footage here. And if you get tired of that, they can always cut to the scene of the wildebeest shaking off flies. Does the action never stop?

The action (such as it is) comes to a climax when the tiger gets loose (thanks to the aforementioned monkey frolicking). We are then treated to the amazing fight scenes.

1. The blank panther fighting a stuffed tiger.

2. The wildebeest fighting a stuffed tiger.

3. The man in the gorilla suit fighting a stuffed tiger.

4. For a change of pace, we see the real tiger fighting a stuffed snake, and…

5….as God is my witness, the stuffed tiger takes on the stuffed snake. The fight of the century, folks.

After this, my mind turned off, and only flickered on long enough to register the moral lesson of the story. However, given the fact that the hunter’s narrator has harped on the fact that money is the most important thing in his life throughout most of the movie, it shouldn’t take a master logician to figure out what that lesson is going to be.

This movie is even worse that THE WHITE GORILLA, and that’s saying a lot.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Door With 7 Locks (1962)

THE DOOR WITH 7 LOCKS (1962)
(a.k.a. DIE TUR MIT 7 SCHLOSSERN)
Article #1363 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-7-2005
Posting Date: 5-6-2005
Directed by Alfred Vohrer
Featuring Heinz Drache, Sabine Sesselman, Hans Nielsen

Scotland Yard begins investigating a series of murders of people with two things in common; they all have connections to an heir named Selford, and they all have a key on a chain in their possession.

Fantastic content: The horror content starts flying thick and fast towards the end of the movie, but to say more would give too much away. However, the big, brutish man known as Giacco appears early enough in the proceedings to qualify as a horror element. Incidentally, he is played by Ady Berber, who also appeared in a similar role in DEAD EYES OF LONDON.

The German Edgar Wallace movies are a lot of fun, but they can be a little difficult. Usually, I feel I’ve been tossed in the middle of a story without having been properly introduced to the central characters, and it leaves my head swimming for a great deal of the running time. However, I suspect they would hold up well on rewatching and they’re filled with interesting characters and puzzling mysteries. This is a good one for horror fans, especially when we discover that one of the central characters has really gone round the bend; just wait till you see what’s behind that bookcase. It also has a sense of humor about the proceedings. This is certainly one of my favorites of the genre so far.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Witch (1966)

THE WITCH (1966)
(a.k.a. THE WITCH IN LOVE/LA STREGA IN AMORE)
Article #1362 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-6-2005
Posting Date: 5-5-2005
Directed by Damiano Damiani
Featuring Richard Johnson, Rosanna Schiaffino, Gian Maria Volonte

A womanizer becomes curious about an old woman who appears to be following him around. When he tracks her down, she offers him a job translating the erotic literature in her library. He then meets her beautiful daughter, and finds himself embroiled in strange events.

This is supposed to be one of those movies that is alluringly mysterious, that toys with the viewer’s expectations and piques his curiosity by portraying a succession of odd and puzzling events intended to leave the viewer mystified until certain startling revelations bring it all into focus. These types of movies can be a lot of fun. Unfortunately, this one isn’t, largely because it damn near talks your ears off in the process of unfolding. It also doesn’t help much that the one short plot description I read blurted out the primary plot twist; really, if you’re going to write a three line plot-description of a movie, it doesn’t take a lot of effort to avoid major revelations. Not that the revelation is much of a surprise; the movie isn’t exactly subtle in doling out its hints. On the plus side, it does have a bit of an erotic charge to it, certain individual scenes are quite effective, the dubbing is better than average, and the ending isn’t quite what I expected. Still, I found this one a chore to sit through, and it falls short of its aspirations, though it is aiming somewhat higher than your usual horror movie. It’s ambitious, but ultimately, it’s a failure.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Robinson Crusoe on Clipper Island (1936)

ROBINSON CRUSOE ON CLIPPER ISLAND (1936)
Article #1361 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-5-2005
Posting Date: 5-4-2005
Directed by Ray Taylor and Mack V. Wright
Featuring Mala, Rex, Buck

A U.S. Intelligence agent is sent out to investigate sabotage on a remote island that was serving as a refueling base for a dirigible company.

Fantastic content: Touches of horror in the native ceremonies and touches of science fiction in the technology used by the villains. All in all, pretty marginal.

There are three different types of cliffhangers, which I describe thusly;

1 – The Honest Cliffhanger. The action at the top of the following episode does not modify or amend the action at the bottom of the previous episode in any way. This type of cliffhanger is rarer than you might think.

2 – The Cheating Cliffhanger. The action at the top of the following episode inserts scenes into the footage used from the previous episode. For example, if we see the hero in a runaway car that plows into a building and explodes, a scene will be inserted where the hero sees it coming and bails out of the car in time. This is the most common type of cliffhanger.

3 – The Lying Cliffhanger – The action at the top of the following episode omits scenes from the previous episode, replacing it with new footage that contradicts the cliffhanger. For example, the end of one cliffhanger clearly shows a plane crashing into the water (you see the splash and the explosion) while the top of the next episode shows the pilot pulling out of the dive just in time, and the footage of the crash is missing completely. Fortunately, these are even rarer than honest cliffhangers.

I mention these distinctions because one problem this serial has is that it is one of the worst offenders I’ve ever seen in terms of having Lying Cliffhangers; there are at least four or five episodes in which the cliffhanger if contradicted by the action in the next episode. It has some other problems; though he has a certain amount of charisma, Mala (an eskimo actor who ended up specializing in exotic native types) isn’t much of an actor (I don’t feel that he’s mastered the basic acting technique of articulation, for one thing), and he’s unconvincing as a U.S. Intelligence agent. Still, he’s comfortable in his loincloth, athletic, and makes a decent enough serial hero.

Still, even with its problems, this is a very entertaining serial. I’m glad it’s largely set on an island; when that happens, the writers have to be more creative than to just give us a string of “bailing-out-of-the-car” cliffhangers. It also has animals (Rex is a horse and Buck is a St. Bernard) who are quite helpful to Mala, two comic relief sidekicks who are also helpful (though not quite as much), a lot of native hijinks, some dirigible action, volcanos, abandoned castles, etc. There’s plenty of great spectacle in this one; this was made before the budgets really started to be cut for serials. Recommended, but watch out for those lying cliffhangers.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Juggernaut (1936)

JUGGERNAUT (1936)
Article #1360 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-4-2005
Posting Date: 5-3-2005
Directed by Henry Edwards
Featuring Boris Karloff, Joan Wyndham, Arthur Margetson

A doctor desperate for funding to complete a project before he dies is propositioned by a scheming heiress to murder her husband.

This is one of the few of Karloff’s genre movies from the thirties that I had yet to see. It’s often overlooked and rarely discussed, and there are reasons for this. Despite the fact that the plot involves a scientist killing people so he can continue his experiments (which makes it similar to several other Karloff vehicles which are indisputably horror), it’s not a horror movie. What’s missing is the experiment itself; if they mentioned the nature of his experiments, I missed it, and it really doesn’t play any role in the proceedings. Karloff’s murders are either for the money, or to cover up evidence. So it’s not really horror; it’s more of a crime movie, and not a very good one. The script is weak, the set-up is confusing, talky and protracted, and the whole affair comes across as rather silly. Karloff does the best he can, but for some reason he hunches over during the whole movie and it’s distracting. However, Mona Goya (who plays the second wife of Sir Charles Clifford) overacts blatantly. Incidentally, Nina Boucicault is the daughter of Dion Boucicault, who was the first Irish playwright to have his work produced in England.

0 CommentsLeave a comment