BRUCE GENTRY (1949)
(Serial)
(a.k.a. BRUCE GENTRY, DAREDEVIL OF THE SKIES)
Article #1680 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-20-2005
Posting Date: 3-19-2006
Directed by Spencer Gordon Bennet and Thomas Carr
Featuring Tom Neal, Judy Clark, Ralph Hodges

Bruce Gentry investigates reports of destructive flying saucers and the kidnapping of a noted scientist.

Daredevil of the skies, huh? One would think you’d get a generous supply of airplane antics in this one. No such luck, really; outside of his ability to crash airplanes into animated flying saucers (or crashing the same airplane into the same animated flying saucer several times, or so the footage tells me), he shows precious little airborne derring-do. Mostly he tools around in his car, or when that isn’t available, puttering around on one of the dinkiest motor scooters I’ve ever seen. Our hero here is just another stock serial hero type, and the villain? Well, he’s called The Recorder because he delivers all of his messages via phonographed instructions; in other words, as such, he has very little presence in the story (though he is clearly one of the other characters in the story). If I don’t sound too impressed with this one, it’s because I’m not; this was one of the most routine serials I’ve ever seen. Sure, it’s neat that it has flying saucers, but they appear so sporadically you forget they exist for long stretches of the serial, and when they do appear, it’s usually all the same footage from the first episode. It does work itself up to a couple of decent cliffhangers, and the revelation of the villain’s identity is more satisfying than I expected, but for the most part, this serial was a waste of time.

THE BRAINIAC (1962)
(a.k.a. EL BARON DEL TERROR)
Article #1672 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-12-2005
Posting Date: 3-11-2006
Directed by Chano Urueta
Featuring Abel Salazar, Ariadna Welter, David Silva

A seventeenth century sorcerer returns to earth in a comet and proceeds to seek vengeance on those who presided at his execution.

Ten thoughts on THE BRAINIAC:

1) This is perhaps my favorite Mexican horror movie. That doesn’t mean I consider it the best; it’s supremely silly and can’t really be taken seriously. But there is something in the way the various elements (both good and bad) combine to make it an unforgettable experience. It’s one I come back to again and again.

2) Probably the most memorable thing about this movie is the monster, who, I assume, is the Brainiac of the title. Baron Vitalius is able to transform himself into an ugly demon with bad hair, a pulsing head, two fingered-claws, and a long forked tongue with which he sucks out the brains of his victims. He also has the ability to phase out of this reality which allows him to pass through things and people undetected. If you remember nothing else about this movie, you won’t forget the monster.

3) The movie opens with the trial of the sorcerer by the Holy Inquisition. I’ve seen variations on this type of scene many a time, but this movie comes up with some interesting twists. During the description of the torture applied to the sorcerer to prove his use of witchcraft, we discover that the sorcerer didn’t insist on his innocence, but merely goaded the torturers to torment him to their heart’s content, laughing all the while.

4) One thing you can say about Inquisitional tribunals; they aren’t very nice or fair. When a character witness comes forth to attest that Baron Vitalius is actually a nice guy and a generous man, the Inquisition sentences him to a whipping of 200 lashes (which may be even nastier than the Baron’s execution). At least, I’m assuming it’s a whipping; the judge merely says that he will receive 200 lashes, which will be applied in the torture chamber, which could mean that he will emerge with the most alluring eyes in all of Mexico. But I doubt it.

5) Abel Salazar, who produced the movie and plays Baron Vitalius, is one of the most familiar faces in Mexican horror cinema next to that of German Robles (who appears here in a smaller role). This is perhaps his most memorable role, and he has some fun moments here. My favorites: when the Inquisition reads the charges against him, check the big grin on his face when they get to “for seducing married women”. Also, notice how he always looks around suspiciously to make sure no one is watching when he eats his favorite snack – human brains.

6) One of the charges leveled against Baron Vitalius by the Inquisition is “for practicing dogmatism”. Either someone didn’t check the dictionary, or the pot is once more calling the kettle black.

7) This is one of those movies where we have a comic relief cop and a serious cop. The problem: the serious cop is funnier. He has my favorite lines from the movie; after visiting the coroner to here the results of his examination of the dead bodies left behind by the Brainiac, he is told that the killer is an expert on anatomy, and the cop replies “I wish there was some way to control the subjects a man learns. A maniac with a lot of knowledge is a threat.” I also wonder if Mexican police regularly use flame-throwers when apprehending murders; at the very least, you’d think they’d teach the comic relief character to use his correctly.

8) When the Brainiac arrives from outer space on his comet, his first act is to suck the brains out of a passerby and magically steal his clothes. He doesn’t steal the man’s underwear, though. I hope he’s not chafing.

9) At least some of the funny moments seem intentional rather than as a result of the dubbing. For example, the moment after the trial when Baron Vitalius magically makes his chains disappear and walks away, the fact that the chains are now found on the ankles of his two guards is obviously a joke from the original movie.

10) There is at least one very effective moment in the movie. During his execution, the sorcerer calls out the names of the hooded leaders of the Inquisition, and at that point, we can see through their hoods to their real faces. This is actually quite eerie, and it sets up a nice sequence later, where the Baron invites several people to a party and as each one enters, the Baron sees in their faces the identity of the member of the Inquisition from which they are a descendant.

THE BLOOD BEAST TERROR (1968)
Article #1670 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-10-2005
Posting Date: 3-9-2006
Directed by Vernon Sewell
Featuring Peter Cushing, Robert Flemyng, Wanda Ventham

Police investigate a series of killings that may be the result of some flying monster.

If I remember correctly, I read somewhere that Peter Cushing had a very low opinion of this movie, and I can see why. Still, the movie does serve as an excellent example of how the British acting style and its practitioners can compensate for any number of problems. Cushing, for example, has one of those roles that is so cliched (the police inspector investigating the crimes) that it must have been tempting to just walk through the role, but his attention to detail fleshes out the character tremendously, he manages to remain in the moment and involved at all parts of story, and he manages to deliver with a certain authority and believability dialogue that, in other hands, might well have netted nothing but horselaughs. This does make up somewhat for the pedestrian direction, the ridiculous premise and the shoddy monsters. Cushing even manages to find the right tone in the scene in which he encounters one of those comic-relief morticians (you know, the kind that have lunch in the room where the dead bodies are kept). Nonetheless, the movie is pretty lame, with an uninspired cliche-ridden script as the primary culprit. I find the ending of this one particularly bad, despite the fact that there is a certain logic to it; in fact, if I had been writing this script (about giant killer death’s-head moths), I would probably have come up with the same idea for the method used here in destroying the monster – and then, hearing in my mind the groans it would elicit, would immediately have tried to come up with something better.

BLACK SUNDAY (1960)
(a.k.a. LA MASCHERA DEL DEMONIO / THE MASK OF SATAN)
Article #1669 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-9-2005
Posting Date: 3-8-2006
Directed by Mario Bava
Featuring Barbara Steele, John Richardson, Andrea Checchi

Two hundred years after her executions, a witch / vampiress is accidentally revived by two travellers and proceeds to wreak vengeance on the offspring of the man who had her executed.

This movie is generally regarded as Mario Bava’s masterpiece, though I do know that there are those who are less impressed with it. It’s beautifully shot, and there are some genuinely harrowing scenes in the movie; the effectively staged destruction of the cross, the explosion of the coffin, and the truly gruesome method of putting the soul of the doctor to rest all come to mind. Yet, taken as a whole, I don’t quite enjoy this one as much as I would something I would call a masterpiece; to me, it falls just a little short. Yet I find it difficult to point to exactly where my problems are with the movie. I think the story itself may be one of the problems; parts of it seem vague, and other parts seem over-familiar. The vagueness comes into play with the fact that I’m never quite sure what kind of supernatural creatures I’m dealing with; they’re called vampires at the outset, but the opening execution looks more like one for witches than vampires. They’re also described as ghosts at one point, and exactly what their powers are remains something of a mystery; there are times I think the movie is making it up as it goes along. The overfamiliarity of some of the plot elements may not be the movie’s fault; most of those elements appear in movies that postdate this one. But I also have a little problem with the characters; they seem a little too two-dimensional to really engage my attention. Granted, the dubbing may be at fault here, since it’s a rare circumstance when the actors doing the dubbing are of the same level as the actors being dubbed. Nevertheless, the movie just misses really engaging my attention fully, and it’s one I more appreciate for individual moments than as a complete whole.

BILLY THE KID VERSUS DRACULA (1966)
Article #1668 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-8-2005
Posting Date: 3-7-2006
Directed by William Beaudine
Featuring John Carradine, Chuck Courtney, Melinda Plowman

Dracula impersonates the uncle of a beautiful ranch owner in order to turn her into a vampire. However, outlaw Billy the Kid is working on the ranch, and begins to suspect his intentions.

Neither this movie or its companion piece (JESSE JAMES MEETS FRANKENSTEIN’S DAUGHTER) are considered classics, but this one is generally considered something of a camp classic and the other is considered a tiresome bore. Actually, this one would probably be considered a tiresome bore as well if it weren’t for the presence of John Carradine, who had last assayed the role of Dracula in two Universal movies from the forties. It is his hamming that adds the needed spark (and the inadvertent laughs) to the movie, and it’s hard not to giggle when the camera gives us close-ups of Dracula’s glowering but baggy eyes. Actually, the cast is also a little bit more game here; Virginia Christine is having fun as the immigrant woman who knows a vampire is on the loose, and it’s nice to see old serial star Roy Barcroft as a sheriff. The main problem here is the blandness of Chuck Courtney as Billy the Kid; his performance is singularly lacking in fun. The movie does manage to work up a bit more western-style action in the opening scene than its companion piece ever did as well. The big question is: is the bat wearing a top hat or not? It’s really hard to say; in some scenes it appears so, but since we really don’t get a good look at it (which is probably a good thing), it may only be an illusion caused by the angle from which it was shot. Still, you probably wouldn’t want to bother with this one unless you’re looking for laughs.

BRICK BRADFORD (1947)
(Serial)
Article #1663 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-3-2005
Posting Date: 3-2-2006
Directed by Spencer Gordon Bennet and Thomas Carr
Featuring Kane Richmond, Rick Vallin, Linda Johnson

Brick Bradford tries to help noted scientist Dr. Tymak to protect his Interceptor Ray from theft by a gang of hoodlums.

On the surface, this 15 chapter serial has a lot to offer fans of fantastic cinema. Sure, it has a scientist with a death-ray (don’t most of them?), but the scientist has a lot of other fun inventions up his sleeve, including an invisibility ray, a teleportation machine (that sends our heroes to a surprisingly well lit dark side of the moon) and one of cinema’s earliest time machines. Furthermore, the serial has two of my favorite familiar serial faces in it; John Merton as Dr. Tymak, and Wheeler Oakman as his assistant Walthar. It also has Fred Graham, who I will always remember as the Sheriff from THE GIANT GILA MONSTER. And to top it all off, the comic relief sidekick (Rick Vallin) is actually pretty funny. The serial manages to find a little variety of setting by having a few episodes take place on the moon, and a few others take place back in pirate times. However, once all of Dr. Tymak’s inventions are stolen (they’re being hauled around the countryside in a station wagon that seems entirely too small to contain them all), the serial reverts to pretty standard form, and it’s then you notice that the cliffhangers are singularly lame (many of them are the “booby-traps-that-wouldn’t-work” variety, and most of the resolutions are of the “gosh-we’re-lucky-that-didn’t-kill-us” type) and the villains are fairly dull. Nonetheless, I like this one well enough despite the cheapness, and I do admire the simple but fun special effects used to show time and space travel.

BEGINNING OF THE END (1957)
Article #1661 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-1-2005
Posting Date: 2-28-2006
Directed by Bert I. Gordon
Featuring Peter Graves, Peggie Castle, Morris Ankrum

Chicago is threatened when grasshoppers eat radiated grain and grow to tremendous proportions.

At one point in this movie, Peter Graves tries to convince the military of the degree of the grasshopper threat by presenting a film of grasshoppers and giving a talk (this is SOP for big bug movies). He solemnly mentions at one point that grasshoppers attack humans. I can attest to the truth of this assertion. Let me now pass on to you my harrowing true life account of how I survived a grasshopper attack.

MY ENCOUNTER WITH THE GRASSHOPPER

“It was one of those summer days that seemed ideal for walking. Intent on trying to keep my weight down, I made my way to the nearest bike trail and began my walk. The grass on either side of the trail was teeming with insect life, and I would often see the little creatures making their way across the trail to feed on the tasty pickings on the other side.

“It was then that my path along the trail intersected the path of another traveller, but whereas I walked on foot, this one hopped. His goal was the other side of the trail, but my presence blocked his way. This was how it came to be that the grasshopper landed on the sleeve of my jacket.

“Our eyes met. We considered each other for a second. I thought to discourage my foe from continuing his attack by shaking my arm, but the grasshopper clung to me with tenacious determination. It was then that I knew that I was dealing with a grasshopper with great will.

“I considered brushing him off with my hand, but this would have involved invading his personal space, and even though this might have accomplished my immediate objective, my flouting of the Grasshopper Encounter Guidelines of the Geneva Convention would have clearly given the moral victory to my foe. Obviously, a more subtle form of strategy was needed.

“It was then that I realized that my best weapon of defense was patience. Sooner or later, the grasshopper would have to lessen his hold, and when that moment came, I would be able to go on my way unhampered. So I observed my foe for what seemed like eons, but was, in reality, a mere five seconds. At that time, the grasshopper leaped off, but not at my face as I expected, but across the trail to the other side. Obviously, I had intimidated him.

“I passed my way back down the path. To this day, we have never met again.”

THE END

Now, doesn’t that story make your blood curdle?

No?

Well, it shouldn’t. The worst problem I’ve had with grasshoppers is they tend to stick to you when they hop. Sure, they can be a threat if you get ten thousand of them together and they eat your crops, but that’s hardly the same type of gut-level threat that you get from bees or poisonous spiders.

In short, grasshoppers are not scary. Though to some extent, I admire Bert I. Gordon’s ambitions in trying to make a big bug movie on a tiny budget, he ended up choosing an insect whose fear value was on the level of ladybugs, butterflies, potato bugs, inchworms and fuzzy caterpillars. Let’s face it; they don’t even have a fearsome face, and every time I see a close-up of one of their faces in this movie, I get the same doleful sense I get when I look at the face of a basset hound. Granted, given Gordon’s special effects techniques, I understand why he chose grasshoppers for his insects; they were probably fairly safe to handle. I even don’t mind the special effects of having the grasshoppers climb up pictures of buildings, which is actually a pretty clever low-budget special effect idea; he just should have made sure they didn’t step off onto the sky. No, the main problem is that the movie just failed to make the grasshoppers seem scary and frightening.

I will give Gordon credit for the title of the movie, though; if there’s one thing he learned from THEM, it was that a vague title would make the nature of the threat more of a mystery. On the other hand, maybe he realized that was the only way to effectively sell the movie; I don’t think he could have seriously called it ATTACK OF THE BIG HONKIN’ GRASSHOPPERS.

BATTLE FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES (1973)
Article #1660 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 9-30-2005
Posting Date: 2-27-2006
Directed by J. Lee Thompson
Featuring Roddy McDowall, Claude Akins, Natalie Trundy

After nuclear war has destroyed human civilization, apes try to build a new society based on not killing each other, but find themselves dealing with internal dissension, mutants from a destroyed city, and humans who have only a second-class status in ape society.

This was the last of the “Planet of the Apes” movies, and it is generally considered the weakest. My memory of having seen it years ago was somewhat kinder; though I considered it a weaker entry, I had fond memories of the way it closed up the series, and I felt rather warm towards it in much the same way I would feel about sending in the last payment of a long-standing loan. If anything, I liked it better than BENEATH THE PLANET OF THE APES.

However, on re-viewing, I do believe this one goes on the bottom of the heap. It has some good ideas, but the problems overwhelm it. The acting is uneven; probably the best performance comes from Lew Ayres as Mandemus, the keeper of the armory, whose questioning of Caesar’s motives for requesting armaments is the highlight of the movie. Roddy McDowall is also quite good, but he’s had plenty of experience with these roles as well. Paul Williams does a serviceable job as well as Virgil. However, the villains are particularly weak; Claude Akins never conjures up the aggressive sense of authority he needs to pull off the role of General Aldo, and the mutants of the underground city are never convincing, though this is less to do with the acting and more to do with the fact that the script develops them as nothing more than symbols of man’s violent nature and then gives them the most horrible dialogue of the movie. I don’t think anyone could have pulled off these roles. Furthermore, the direction is listless and unimaginative, and sometimes downright poor; in particular, the final confrontation between Caesar and Aldo is weakly handled. The cast also includes John Huston as The Lawgiver (he narrates the movie) and an early screen appearance from director John Landis. All in all, it’s a tired and uninspired end to the series.

BOMBA ON PANTHER ISLAND (1949)
Article #1562 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 6-24-2005
Posting Date: 11-21-2005
Directed by Ford Beebe
Featuring Johnny Sheffield, Allene Roberts, Lita Baron

Bomba hunts down a panther which is killing natives working on an experimental farm.

This is the only movie I’ve seen so far from the Bomba series. “Bomba” is to “Boy” as “Jungle Jim” is to “Tarzan”; in other words, the Bomba series served to keep Johnny Sheffield in loincloths in the jungle after his stint in the Tarzan series was over (as the Jungle Jim series did for Johnny Weissmuller). If this movie is representative, then there is at least one thing about the Bomba series that I like better than the Jungle Jim series, and that is a certain lyrical and moody ambiance to the proceedings. In fact, the opening scene of a monkey coming out of the trees into Bomba’s camp, flipping through a journal, meeting up with Bomba, and then being killed by a panther, is effective enough that I thought the movie would turn out to be something special. Such is not the case, though, as the movie rapidly loses steam and gets mired in a subplot about the romantic rivalry for Bomba’s attention between the innocent young sister of man heading the farm and an exotic French-speaking native girl. Eventually, the turgid pace drags the movie down. The main fantastic element in the movie (other than the inherent but marginal element of fantasy in many jungle movies) is an implication that the native girl may actually be the panther herself, but despite the fact that several scenes put this possibility forward, the movie makes no use of the idea dramatically, either as truth or enticing red herring. At this point, I’m going to have to say that the Jungle Jim movies are at least a little more fun.

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.