Month: August 2017

Davey Jones’ Locker (1900)

DAVEY JONES’ LOCKER (1900)
Article 2102 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-17-2006
Posting Date: 5-15-2007
Director Unknown
No cast

No plot.

This very short short features a vision of a dancing skeleton superimposed on a sailing ship. Because the skeleton doesn’t remain in one piece, it ends up being an amusing enough early short for all that. And it there is anything you can say about all of these very early cinematic forays, it is that, with running lengths of about one to three minutes, they can never be accused of outstaying their welcome.

 

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Gertie the Dinosaur (1914)

GERTIE THE DINOSAUR (1914)
Article 2101 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-16-2006
Posting Date: 5-14-2007
Directed by Winsor McCay
Winsor McCay, George McManus, Thomas A. ‘Tad’ Dorgan

A cartoonist bets that he can bring a dinosaur to life and make it walk and move. He wins the bet using an animated film about a dinosaur named Gertie.

No, this wasn’t the first animated movie – it wasn’t even the first by Winsor McCay, who had earlier made one called HOW A MOSQUITO OPERATES, but it is still tremendously entertaining after all these years. I love all the little quirks McCay gives his creation; she can’t resist taking a few seconds from following her orders to snack on a tree or tussle with a woolly mammoth or ogle a bizarre sea serpent. McCay even manages to get himself into the animation at the end when he takes a ride on Gertie’s back. The beginning and end of the movie are live action, and document the story behind the making of the film; I don’t know if the story is true or not, but if it is, it’s almost as if the movie combines its own “making of” documentary with the main action. It even throws in a little slapstick comedy in the mix. At least one imitation was made of this movie, and McCay himself worked on a sequel that was not released.

 

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Lord of the Flies (1963)

LORD OF THE FLIES (1963)
Article 2100 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-15-2006
Posting Date: 5-13-2007
Directed by Peter Brook
Featuring James Aubrey, Tom Chapin, Hugh Edwards

A group of British boys are shipwrecked on an island. Despite the attempt to maintain civilization, they begin reverting to savagery.

The William Golding novel on which this is based is one of those works which practically every high school student has had to reckon with; I was one of those that missed this one somehow, so this is my first encounter with the work. Having not read the novel, I can’t say how close the movie hones to the story, but my gut reaction at this point is that it is quite faithful. If so, I seriously question as to whether it can really be appreciated by the average high school student; the power of this work is not in the story itself, but in its relevance to man, human nature, and his political world, and I think these things are best appreciated with the passage of time. I was in particular impressed with the concept of the Beast – that (possibly nonexistent) object of fear which can be used by the unscrupulous to manipulate those around them to do the bidding of the leaders. These concepts are most likely as old as man himself, and the movie taps into some quite profound insights into human nature. I also enjoyed watching the struggle between civilization and savagery, and knew that Piggy was doomed at the outset, because of all the characters, he was the most dependent on civilization for his survival; in a savage land there is no place for him. The movie itself is a bit uneven; some of the acting isn’t quite up to par, and the style is a bit off-putting at the beginning, but the allegorical power remains very strong, and the movie gets better as it goes along. It may have a little science fiction to it (there are hints of the next big war being about to occur, though that is far from explicit in this movie), and the Beast (whether it is real or not) does add a touch of horror to the proceedings; at any rate, the image of the pigs head crawling with flies is about as grotesque an image as you’ll see in any horror movie.

 

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Little Girl Who Lives Down the Lane (1976)

THE LITTLE GIRL WHO LIVES DOWN THE LANE (1976)
Article 2099 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-14-2006
Posting Date: 5-12-2007
Directed by Nicolas Gessner
Featuring Jodie Foster, Martin Sheen, Alexis Smith

A 13-year old girl virtually lives by herself in a leased cottage; nobody has seen her father for months. It is obvious she has a secret to hide, and she has to contend with a nosy landlord and her son (a child molester) who wish to find out the truth.

Jodie Foster was one of the most accomplished child actors of all time, and she was capable of playing her roles with a maturity that was far beyond her years. This is one of those roles that only she could have played, and she is memorable and convincing as a girl who has been forced by circumstance to fend for herself in a hostile world where she finds it hard to trust anybody; even the friendly local policeman can’t really be trusted because of the secrets she harbors. Though this is to some extent a horror movie, to call it such really doesn’t do it justice. Yes, someone is keeping a dead body in the cellar in this one, but that person isn’t the real monster; that description belongs to Martin Sheen’s sadistic child molester, a man who plans to use the information he gathers to force the girl to do what he desires. Sheen is also excellent, and he is one of the creepiest and most hateful characters ever to appear in the movies. There’s a moment here and there that doesn’t work, especially when an unexpected character appears on the staircase, but for the most part, it is chillingly convincing. The final scene of the movie relies on one of the oldest tricks in the book, but it has a real poignancy here. largely because we’re not so sure that it was a trick, and though we know someone is going to die in the last scene, it doesn’t really matter who, if you think about it.

 

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Li’l Abner (1959)

LI’L ABNER (1959)
Article 2098 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-13-2006
Posting Date: 5-11-2007
Directed by Melvin Frank
Featuring Peter Palmer, Leslie Parrish, Stubby Kaye

When Dogpatch is selected as a site for the next A-Bomb test, the Dogpatchians try to find something that will make their home necessary to the government so they won’t bomb. It’s discovered that Mammy Yokum’s elixir turns weaklings into strong men, Li’l Abner is sent to Washington to negotiate the saving of Dogpatch.

Quite frankly, the biggest laughs I got from this movie were seeing the character’s names in the opening credits. It’s not that I found the movie to be bad; it’s certainly energetic and colorful, and it has a few amusing moments. However, I didn’t really enjoy it that much, the lead was rather dull, it goes on too long, and I didn’t hear any songs worth remembering. I did find some of the cameos fun; keep your eyes open for Jerry Lewis as Itchy McRabbit, and sword-and-sandal fans should spot Brad Harris and Gordon Mitchell among the line-up of hillbillies-turned-into-musclemen. I might have liked this one better had it not been a musical, but that’s just me.

 

0 CommentsLeave a comment

For Love or Murder (1970)

FOR LOVE OR MURDER (1970)
aka KEMEK
Article 2097 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-12-2006
Posting Date: 5-10-2007
Directed by Theodore Gershuny
Featuring Alexandra Stewart, David Hedison, Mary Woronov

A man and a private detective find a woman who knows the truth about the death of the man’s ex-wife. The story involves a dead scientist, a missing wristwatch, and experimental drugs.

With an IMDB rating of 3.0 at the time of this writing, it seems quite clear to me that this movie is quite disliked in certain quarters, and I can fully understand why; the story makes it sound like it should be an exciting mystery-thriller, and the presence of cult favorite Mary Woronov seems to promise something in the way of low budget exploitation fun. Instead, it feels like some sort of arthouse film; slow-moving and ponderous with a curious soundtrack mixing Motown and modern jazz. It’s not quite as indecipherable as some people make it out to be, but it is singularly uncompelling enough to give no impetus to the viewer to try to sort it out. It’s all very detached; it plays like a character piece, but none of the characters ever really come to life as people. The fantastic aspect of the movie is in the presence of the experimental drugs, and they really don’t play much into the story line when all is said and done.

 

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Hell Night (1981)

HELL NIGHT (1981)
Article 2096 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-11-2006
Posting Date: 5-9-2007
Directed by Tom DeSimone
Featuring Linda Blair, Vincent Van Patten, Peter Barton

Four fraternity pledges undergo an initiation by spending the night in a spooky old mansion. Unbeknownst to the pledges is that some of the fraternity members have rigged up the place to scare them. Unbeknownst to all of them is that the madman mentioned in legends about the place is alive and is intent on knocking all of them off one by one.

Were I ever to forget that I am now far enough into this series that movies from the eighties occasionally come creeping up on my lists, movies like this will certainly remind me. Since I’m no big fan of slasher movies, I fully expected to hate this one; however, I found it to be not near as bad as I expected. On the plus side, the characters are likable (and better developed than is usually the case for this sort of fare), it does have the occasional good twist to some of its cliches, and I do like the idea of throwing some “old dark house” action into the mix. On the minus side, it’s pretty predictable, Linda Blair’s performance is quite bad, most of the attempts at humor are abysmal (the best is a joke about quaaludes and skin condition), and the movie tries to get way too much scare mileage by having people find dead bodies. Oh, and did I mention that there are moments when people act with incredible stupidity (a flaw that seems almost de riguer in slasher films)? The best moment is an exciting chase scene in the caves below the house.

 

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Brewster McCloud (1970)

BREWSTER MCCLOUD (1970)
Article 2095 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-10-2006
Posting Date: 5-8-2007
Directed by Robert Altman
Featuring Bud Cort, Sally Kellerman, Michael Murphy

A boy lives in a fallout shelter in the Houston Astrodome and is building a flying machine with the help of a Guardian named Louise, but against the will of the rest of the world.

At the time of this viewing and the writing of this review, Robert Altman has been dead for one month. I found myself thinking about how I feel about Altman’s oeuvre; though I have an immense respect for the man and his talents, I’m not sure whether I can really call myself a “fan” of him per se. The problem is that I haven’t seen enough of his output to really come to any conclusion. Though I’m aware he had a lengthy career before MASH (I’ve already covered COUNTDOWN as part of this series), I find it convenient to begin with that one as the moment where he truly developed his style and entered the pantheon of great directors. But I only remember seeing four of his movies, and I found myself somewhat disappointed by MASH, and MCCABE AND MRS. MILLER quite frankly left me cold, and these are two of his critical favorites. I found myself much more entertained by two of his weirder experiments, 3 WOMEN and this one, BREWSTER MCCLOUD.

This is basically a bizarre but original comedy, with a touch of science fiction (that flying device) and possibly some fantasy elements, depending on how you interpret certain details and events, and maybe even a touch of horror; to the police anyway, the strangulation murders must seem like the work of a serial killer. I find the movie fascinating and quite hilarious at times; in particular, the movie’s send-up of BULLITT (and, perhaps inadvertently, the entire cop-who-doesn’t-play-by-the-rules genre) is inspired. I also love some of the ambiguities; for example, who exactly is Louise (the Sally Kellerman character) and what caused those wing-shaped scars on her back? Is she Brewster’s mother? – he never refers to her as such. Is she his guardian angel? – she does seem to be on the spot whenever Brewster is in trouble, even at times where she should have no idea that he is in trouble (at the photo lab, for instance). And who is the actual strangler – Brewster or Louise?

Another great thing about the movie is the wealth of strong actors playing interesting characters – Margaret Hamilton as a temperamental soprano, Stacy Keach as a tyrannical old man who is a third brother to Wilbur and Orville Wright, Rene Auberjonois as the bird-obsessed lecturer who serves as our guide to the story, Shelley Duvall (her debut) as an airheaded tour guide, Michael Murphy as the cop-who-doesn’t-play-by-the-rules, and John Schuck as a cop-who-does-play-by-the-rules who befriends him. And, or course, there is Bud Cort in the title role.

Quite frankly, I love this strange movie, and it is my favorite of the ones I’ve seen of Altman’s to this point. I don’t know how many others of his I’ll be seeing for this series (though QUINTET, POPEYE and 3 WOMEN are all possibilities). However, I do look forward to them.

 

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Twentieth Century Tramp; or, Happy Hooligan and his Airship (1902)

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY TRAMP; OR, HAPPY HOOLIGAN AND HIS AIRSHIP (1902)
Article 2094 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-9-2006
Posting Date: 5-7-2007
Unknown director
Featuring J. Stuart Blackton

A tramp flies over New York City until his machine explodes.

The Edison company put out a number of early shorts that featured panoramas of famous places. This combines that idea with some special effects to give us the image of a tramp in a flying machine passing over a panorama of the New York skyline. Granted, special effects were far from perfect at this time, but the split screen effect here is painfully obvious, with clearly defined lines separating the top of the screen from the bottom of the screen, and these are noticeable despite the fact that my copy of this movie is in such poor condition, it’s hard to make out any details. At the end, the flying machine explodes, but it happens so quickly (and the print is so bad), that I found myself wondering if there was just something wrong with the print. Before the explosion, nothing happens other than seeing the tramp flying around. This is a curio, but little else.

 

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Sherlock Holmes Baffled (1900)

SHERLOCK HOLMES BAFFLED (1900)
Article 2093 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-8-2006
Posting Date: 5-6-2007
Director and Cast Unknown

Sherlock Holmes encounters a thief who vanishes. This baffles him.

As the earliest cinematic incarnation of the character of Sherlock Holmes, this has a certain amount of interest value. However, as a Sherlock Holmes story, it is nearly worthless, but with a running time of thirty seconds, what do you expect? Personally, I think the thing that baffles Holmes here is what he’s doing in this subpar Melies imitation. A curio, but little else.

 

0 CommentsLeave a comment