Month: November 2016

The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T. (1953)

THE 5,000 FINGERS OF DR. T. (1953)
Article #1515 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-8-2005
Posting Date: 10-5-2005
Directed by Roy Rowland
Featuring Tommy Rettig, Hans Conried, Mary Healy

A young boy dreams that he is a prisoner in Dr. Terwilliker’s Academy where he is forced to play piano.

I haven’t seen the recent big-screen versions of THE CAT AND THE HAT or THE GRINCH THAT STOLE CHRISTMAS, but I think I’m pretty safe in saying that this may be the finest big-screen adaptation of Dr. Seuss. Actually, that may not be quite true; I don’t really know if this is definitely an adaptation or not. I know Dr. Seuss wrote the story, but I think the story may have been intended for the big screen. Dr. Seuss also took part in the screenplay as well as writing the lyrics for the songs. I’m willing to bet that he was on hand for many other aspects of the production, because his fingerprints are all over the place in this movie.

I am simply blown away by the degree of Seussian style in this movie. Here is a quick list of my favorite touches.

– The name of the adult friend to Bartholomew Collins is August Zabladowski.

– The two roller-skating henchman who pursue Bart throughout the movie are siamese twins connected at the beard.

– The happy finger beanies that all the children must wear.

– The ladder that goes nowhere.

– The entrances to the executive offices are not through doors, but holes in the floor.

– The dress that Heloise Collins wears to the Terwilliker Institute that is half business suit, half backless nightgown.

-The huge double-decker piano that can be played by 500 boys with their 5,000 fingers, etc. etc.

In fact, one can go on and on. My only problem with the movie is that some of the songs aren’t very memorable and slow down the story. The two best ones are towards the end; one features a thuggish barbershop quartet singing about the ivy on the walls of the Terwilliker Academy, and the other is sung by the elevator operator to the dungeon. Still, even if some of the songs fall flat, the other musical numbers are magnificent. For me, the finest moment of the movie occurs when Bart finds himself in the dungeon where Terwilliker has imprisoned all musicians who play instruments other than the piano. This big production number makes an astounding use of music, choreography, set design, prop design (the musical instruments are a scream), color photography and acting. This may be my all-time favorite musical number in a movie. There are also great jokes about sink inspections, pickle juice, and the use of the word “atomic”. And Hans Conried makes for a great Seussian villain.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Fearless Frank (1967)

FEARLESS FRANK (1967)
Article #1514 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-7-2005
Posting Date: 10-4-2005
Directed by Philip Kaufman
Featuring Jon Voight, Monique van Vooren, Severn Darden

A hick comes to the big city, and is shot by gangsters when he hooks up with a woman. He is then revived from the dead and given superpowers by a doctor intent on fighting evil.

There are different levels of bad. This movie starts out as a bad parody of superhero movies; it’s not totally worthless at this point as it has the occasional funny moment (Best Line: “I can count!”), but for the most part it just falls flat. However, as the story progresses, it starts dealing with some complex moral and metaphyhsical issues having to do with the Doctor’s dictatorial control of Frank as well as the character of an evil version of Frank (known as False Frank or Frankie, a variation on the Frankenstein monster whose scar not only runs down his face but across his suit as well). These are potentially interesting ideas, but they’re so out of tune with the cheesy parodistic approach of the movie that the whole thing turns into an utter disaster that fails to work on any level. It’s hard to believe that this was written and directed by Philip Kaufman, who had already won a prize at Cannes for his movie GOLDSTEIN, and would go on to an Academy Award nomination for the screenplay of THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING, as well as having contributed to other fine movies such as THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES, THE RIGHT STUFF, and the remake of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. This was the first screen appearance of Jon Voight, who would later go on to win an Oscar himself for COMING HOME.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

King of the Wild (1931)

KING OF THE WILD (1931)
(Serial)
Article #1513 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-6-2005
Posting Date: 10-3-2005
Directed by B. Reeves Eason and Richard Thorpe
Featuring Walter Miller, Nora Lane, Tom Santschi

An American salesman who just happens to be the spitting image of the Rajah of Rampur takes on the Rajah’s role after a tiger attack fatally wounds the Rajah. This is done to give the Rajah’s brother time to receive a note that explains the situation that is intended to call the brother in to take over the reigns of the government rather than letting it fall into the hands of the scheming cousin named Dakka. However, the salesman’s associate sells the note to Dakka, not knowing that Dakka has written the agreement on the back of the note in disappearing ink, but since the brother arrives just in time, Dakka’s plans are foiled, but since the ink has disappeared, the associate fails to get paid and takes hold of the note in order to get the ink to reappear so he can collect his money. The salesman is framed for the murder of the Rajah, but escapes a year later to find his associate and recover the note which will prove his innocence, but the associate has teamed up with an Arab named Mustapha and a wild ape man in an attempt to find the location of a diamond mine discovered by a man whose sister is framed for the murder of a woman who was trying to force from the brother the location of the said diamond mine, but she escapes the shipwreck along with an old woman who is actually a secret service agent and a Swedish animal hunter with a secret mission. However, there’s also a mysterious man in dark glasses running around and….okay, the plot is just really complicated, got it?

You know, with most serials, I can sum up the plot in two lines, and in some ways, I find it refreshing to run into one with a setup this elaborate. Yes, I know that serials aren’t supposed to have plots this complicated because it gets in the way of the action sequences, but, truth be told, I’m not a big action fan. In short, I like this one, not so much for its complicated plot, but more for its assortment of well-delineated characters, each with their set of motivations and goals, and for many of them, you don’t know on which side of the struggle they’ll eventually turn out to be. The ape man makeup is also quite fun, and it’s one of Karloff’s better serial roles (he plays Mustapha), even if he doesn’t really pull off the accent he’s trying to do. You should also be able to figure out the identity of the mysterious man in the black glasses early on, so don’t pay any attention to certain deceptive scenes that lead you to believe you’re wrong. The cliffhangers are often quite good, with most episodes ending with double cliffhangers with two different people in separate perilous situations. I have a feeling I’ll be revisiting this one.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Cinderella (1950)

CINDERELLA (1950)
Article #1512 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-5-2005
Posting Date: 10-2-2005
Production Supervisor: Ben Sharpsteen
Featuring the voices of Ilene Woods, Eleanor Audley, Verna Fulton

The beautiful girl is abused by her cruel stepmother and ugly stepsisters, but is given a chance for happiness when the local king stages a ball to find a wife for the prince.

During the first twenty-five years in which he was engaged in making feature-length cartoons, Walt Disney achieved a certain level of excellence that cannot be denied; almost every one of these features is a recognized classic. However, that doesn’t mean that each feature was the equal to all the others, and though this feature is certainly a worthy addition to the list, I think it lacks the inspiration of many of the others. It certainly gets by on charm; like PINOCCHIO; the plot is at a standstill for the first quarter of the movie, but it really doesn’t matter because it so charmingly introduces us to the characters. In fact, the movie maintains that level of charm throughout. Yet, to some extent, it feels like a lesser version of SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS, with which it shares certain similarities. Like Snow White, Cinderella is at the mercy of her stepmother, but whereas the Queen in SNOW WHITE was evil and murderous, the stepmother here is merely mean, petty and selfish, and though one can’t really belittle Cinderella’s suffering, it’s obvious that the stakes are nowhere near as high as they were for Snow White. Instead of the seven dwarfs, we have an assortment of talking animals, but these are comparatively undeveloped, without even a Grumpy to win over.

Perhaps the most telling detail about his movie is that, unlike every single other Disney animated feature I’ve covered so far, there is not a single moment that blows you out of the water and makes your jaw hang open. Just to pick one at random from each, SNOW WHITE had the pursuit of the witch through the rain, PINOCCHIO had the transformation into donkeys, FANTASIA had the dancing ostriches and hippos, SLEEPING BEAUTY had the battle with the dragon, THE ADVENTURES OF ICHABOD AND MR. TOAD had the encounter with the Headless Horseman, and DUMBO had Pink Elephants on Parade. There’s simply nothing in this movie to equal any of those moments. As a result, it feels relatively minor; it’s the difference between hearing a musical genius play an extraordinarily difficult number brilliantly and hearing the same musician play an easy number very well indeed. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with the second piece, but it’s the first one that reminds you why he got to be called a genius in the first place.

Still, I won’t condemn a movie for failing to be brilliant, especially when it’s very good indeed. And let’s face it; during the sixties, seventies and eighties, it was a rarity for Disney to make an animated feature that was even this good.

1 CommentLeave a comment

Blood on Satan’s Claw (1970)

BLOOD ON SATAN’S CLAW (1970)
(a.k.a. SATAN’S SKIN)
Article #1511 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-4-2005
Posting Date: 10-1-2005
Directed by Piers Haggard
Featuring Patrick Wymark, Linda Hayden, Barry Andrews

When a farmer digs up the body of a demon in 17th Century England, it leads to a cult of witchcraft among the youngsters of the village.

When I saw this movie years ago on my local Creature Feature, I was left with three impressions. I remembered vividly a scene where something horrible was found in a field. That scene is certainly here, and it opens the movie. I also remember being creeped out by the movie, and it certainly does that. Many factors come into play to create this feeling. For one thing, the movie has a strong sense of period, with excellent costumes and effective use of archaic speech patterns. It also makes exemplary use of music, and builds on a sense of dread and uneasiness and the use of disturbing images and events. In fact, the movie is a near classic in the way it gets under your skin.

My third feeling was one of confusion; I couldn’t understand the story very well back then. It’s easy to see why; the movie was no doubt heavily cut for commercial television. However, the sense of confusion has been replaced by a sense of disappointment, and despite its many strengths, the movie falls flat. Its problem is a simple one; there’s a point where the deliberate and moody buildup needs to be set aside so that the movie can kick into high gear for a big finish, and it fails to do so; the ending falls flat badly. It’s a shame, as a strong ending would have made this one a classic rather than a misfire. Still, it is an interesting misfire, and it’s worth catching for the first two-thirds of the movie.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Deadly Ray from Mars (1966)

DEADLY RAY FROM MARS (1966)
Article #1510 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-3-2005
Posting Date: 9-30-2005
Featuring Buster Crabbe, Jean Rogers, Charles Middleton

Flash Gordon packs fifteen weeks of adventure into ninety minutes when he flies to Mars to fight Ming the Merciless.

I’ve gone on at length before on my opinion of feature versions of serials. Quite frankly, I’m as bored with rehashing this opinion as I’m sure you are with hearing me beat this dead horse. However, I still have plenty of them to watch, and my reaction remains the same. So how am I going to write about the experience of having watched yet another one? Simple; I’ll couch the experience in an extended but labored simile which I nevertheless hope will prove somewhat entertaining.

Watching an episode of a serial is like eating a candy bar. It’s sweet and tasty but full of empty calories and has no nutritional value. One is enough for any reasonable length of time, as their rich sweetness definitely calls into play the law of diminishing returns. Of course, not all candy bars are created equal; some I like quite a bit, while I have no appetite at all for others. Got that?

Watching a feature version of a serial is like wolfing down a given number (in this case, fifteen) of a specific candy bar in a compressed period of time (say, ninety-six minutes). The fact that I like this particular candy bar makes little difference; the sickening overdose of a sugar rush renders the experience aggressively unpleasant. In this context, the only positive thing about the experience is that this candy bar has almonds, which remain tasty nonetheless (i.e., I like the sets).

Personally, I’m glad it’s only a simile. I am on a diet, you know.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Man Who Could Work Miracles (1936)

THE MAN WHO COULD WORK MIRACLES (1936)
Article #1509 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-2-2005
Posting Date: 9-29-2005
Directed by Lothar Mendes
Featuring Roland Young, Ralph Richardson, Edward Chapman

A cosmic entity grants the ability to work miracles to a random individual on the planet earth.

Producer Alexander Korda had adapted H.G. Wells to the screen with THINGS TO COME, and returned to the author with this movie. Initially, these two movies couldn’t be more different; whereas the events in THINGS TO COME played themselves out in broad strokes on an epic scale, this one seems at first to be light comedy. After all, this massive power has been granted to a slightly befuddled, somewhat meek man named Fotheringay; one need only know that the part is being played by Roland Young to have an idea of what the character is like. However, the light comedy that permeates most of the movie is a bit of a deception; at heart, it’s a long-burning fuse that leads to an explosion that occurs when Fotheringay finally realizes that the power he has been granted is subservient to his will and no one elses, and it is at this point that the guidance he has been seeking from the idealistic but somewhat hypocritical crusader Mr. Maydig (Ernest Thesiger) and the conservative but selfish and brutal Colonel Winstanley (Ralph Richardson) comes to naught. It is at this point that the theme of progress in the movie starts to bear a certain resemblance to the same theme in THINGS TO COME; furthermore, there’s also the theme of the seductiveness of power which strongly recalls the similar theme in another Wells adaptation, THE INVISIBLE MAN. Roland Young is excellent in the title role, as are Thesiger and Richardson as well. The movie also features early performances from George Sanders who, as a mystical creature known as Indifference, is already displaying the arrogance that would be an acting trademark of his, and George Zucco, cast in a very unusual role for him as a manservant. The movie is full of clever touches, and the ending is great. This may be the finest adaptation of Wells to date.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Final Conflict (1981)

THE FINAL CONFLICT (1981)
Article #1508 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-1-2005
Posting Date: 9-28-2005
Directed by Graham Baker
Featuring Sam Neill, Rossano Brazzi, Don Gordon

Damien Thorn the Anti-Christ becomes an ambassador to England in order to prevent the second coming of Christ.

My system for watching movies results in my watching certain series films out of order. I saw THE OMEN many years ago, but I’ve never seen the immediate sequel; this was the third of the series. I do remember that it never made much of a splash in the theaters, and quite frankly, I’m not surprised. Granted, any movie that purports to be about the final battle between good and evil is setting itself up to disappoint, but this one doesn’t even seem to be trying to deliver; it’s uninspired and painfully bland, despite the best efforts of a melodramatic soundtrack and the presence of several biblical quotes. The mystery and the sense of drama of the original is long gone, the death scenes (the highlights of the original movie) are fairly mundane, and Damien’s prayers to his true father are more likely to elicit snickers than shivers. Oddly enough, one more movie was dredged up out of this series, and rumor has it that is even worse than this one. As apocalypses go, this one doesn’t even rank on the Richter scale.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Fat Spy (1966)

THE FAT SPY (1966)
Article #1507 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-30-2005
Posting Date: 9-27-2005
Directed by Joseph Cates
Featuring Phyllis Diller, Jack E. Leonard, Brian Donlevy

Teenagers invade a small island owned by a cosmetics magnate who believes that the fountain of youth is found there.

You know, it would be nice to go into a movie with a clean slate and no preconceptions of what you’ll be experiencing when you see it. However, when the title of your movie is THE FAT SPY and it comes from the mid-sixties, you’re going to have an opinion right off the bat. I fully expected to see a very bad parody of a James Bond movie with a running joke about the weight of our hero.

Well, I was wrong. It isn’t a James Bond parody at all. It’s an overtly comic variant on a genre that was on its last legs; namely, the beach party movie. The main difference between this and a regular beach party movie is that the teenagers are the secondary characters here and the comic subplots have taken over. However, I wasn’t wrong about one thing; it’s very bad indeed. In fact, it’s even worse than I expected. So here are my ten thoughts on this particular travesty.

1) If I haven’t mentioned it already, this movie is also a musical. The music is largely a compendium of regurgitated sixties musical motifs. I’m tempted to say there’s way too much music, but at least when they’re dancing and singing, they’re not trying to advance the plot, which, in this movie, is a good thing.

2) There are four romantic pairings in this movie. The first is a young couple with a secret. This secret doesn’t manifest itself until the last scene in the movie, and is probably the best part of it. Of course, I won’t reveal it here.

3) The second is a star-crossed romance between a young boy named Dodo and a mermaid. Given the fact that the boy is named after an extinct bird, you shouldn’t be surprised if this romance has a tragic ending. Or does it? Only his swim trunks know for sure, and they’re not talking. I hope.

4) The third is between Jack E. Leonard as Irving, a rose-loving researcher on the island, and Jayne Mansfield as Junior (in full-blown breathy dumb blonde mold). Given that Jack E. Leonard can be described physique-wise as the anti-Mickey Hargitay, I’ll leave it to you to decide on the likelihood of this romantic pairing.

5) The fourth is between Jack E. Leonard as Herman (Irving’s brother and the Fat Spy of the title) and the main rival to Herman’s boss, another cosmetics magnate named Camille (Phyllis Diller) whose real name is Rapunzel Fingernail. If there is anybody out there dying to see Jack E. Leonard and Phyllis Diller engaged in a passionate kiss, this is the movie for you. For me, the scene will linger long in my nightmares.

6) And now a competition for the most embarassing scene in the movie. The first nominee – Watching Jack E. Leonard and the teens writhing together during a musical number about the world’s slowest dance called The Turtle.

7) Second nominee – Watching Phyllis Diller beat her masochistic Sikh servant with a riding crop. Phyllis Diller as dominatrix? I bet I’m not the only one having nightmares.

8) Third nominee – Jack E. Leonard and Phyllis Diller chowing down greedily on a black rose.

9) Fourth nominee –- Watching Jack E. Leonard sing a love song to Phyllis Diller that compares her to other sex symbols such as James Cagney and Darryl F. Zanuck.

10) Fifth nominee (and my choice) – Watching Brian Donlevy (in what surely must be the cinematic low point of his career) sitting in a boat while disembodied voices doing imitations of Edward G. Robinson, James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart encourage him in his quest.

All in all, this is scarier than most horror movies of the period. Now, if it only WERE a horror movie…

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Fantastic Planet (1973)

FANTASTIC PLANET (1973)
(a.k.a. LA PLANETE SAUVAGE)
Article #1506 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-29-2005
Posting Date: 9-26-2005
Directed by Rene Laloux
Featuring the voices of Cynthia Adler, Barry Bostwick, Hubert de Lapparent

A planet is inhabited by a race of giants called Traags and a race of small people called Oms. Though the Traags domesticate some of the Oms, they generally consider them as pests and exterminate them at regular intervals. Then one of the domesticated Oms brings a Traag learning device to the aid of the Oms…

Some movies are so unusual that their flaws become a non-issue. This bizarre, offbeat and fascinating animated movie is one of them. The plot is fairly straightforward when looked at it in its entirety, and the movie has a leisurely pace which goes off on many tangents throughout its running time. Yet each tangent is visually fascinating and shows an impressive degree of imagination, and fully makes use of the possibilities of animation. At heart, no explanation can really capture this movie; it is one to be seen and appreciated. it’s rich on so many levels that it can probably support multiple viewings. I’ve just seen it for the first time, and I’m really looking forward to seeing it again in the near future. It’s a classic of animated science fiction.

1 CommentLeave a comment