BEWITCHED (1945)
Article #1496 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-19-2005
Posting Date: 9-16-2005
Directed by Arch Oboler
Featuring Phyllis Thaxter, Edmund Gwenn, Henry H. Daniels Jr.

A woman leaves her home and fiancé at the urging of her evil alternate personality.

Arch Oboler was the writer/producer/director of the radio show “Lights Out” before moving into a cinema. This was his first directorial effort, based on an adaptation of a story called “Alter Ego” that he had done for his radio show. It must have made for a fine radio presentation; as a movie, however, it doesn’t quite work. There’s a lot of dialogue here that would have worked fine over the radio, but on screen, it feels artificial, forced and self-conscious. As a director, Arch Oboler knows a few cinematic tricks, and this movie has a few of them; unfortunately, they feel like tricks rather than part of the real action, and they stand out like sore thumbs. The story doesn’t stand up quite as well as it could; I think Oboler made a mistake by making the girl’s alternate personality such a mean-spirited, snarling villainous hussy (whenever she talks, it sounds like she’s trying to do an imitation of one of Edward G. Robinson’s gangsters) because it makes the whole experience seem less unsettling and more like a standard good-versus-evil situation. Still, there are nice touches the story, and Edmund Gwenn is memorable as a psychiatrist. Oboler would go on to direct other genre efforts such as FIVE, THE TWONKY and THE BUBBLE.

THE BACCHANTES (1961)
(a.k.a. LE BACCANTI)
Article #1495 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-18-2005
Posting Date: 9-15-2005
Directed by Giorgio Ferroni
Featuring Taina Elg, Pierre Brice, Alessandro Panaro

A Theban tyrant banishes the worship of Dionysius in favor of that of Demeter, but the resulting drought drives his subjects into rebellion.

This story of the ancient Greeks is a French/Italian co-production made in the early sixties. If this description doesn’t conjure up the phrase “sword-and-sandal”, then nothing does. However, the phrase doesn’t quite fit here; despite the presence of many of the usual trappings of the form, this is less of an action-adventure spectacle than a drama. It even credits Euripedes with the source of the story, though anyone familiar with the Greek tragedy in question will find little familiar here. Still, I can’t blame them; ancient Greek tragedy is something of an alien form anymore, and for what it’s worth, this movie comes up with an interesting enough story that is worth following. In fact, I think it’s a decent fantasy-drama overall, though it does have some problems; in particular, the dancing and partying scenes of the Dionysians are pretty silly. I only wish I had snagged a color copy of the movie, but no such luck. Akim Tamiroff is almost unrecognizable as the blind prophet Teiresias.

BATMAN AND ROBIN (1949)
Article #1486 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-9-2005
Posting Date: 9-6-2005
Directed by Spencer Gordon Bennet
Featuring Robert Lowery, Johnny Duncan, Jane Adams

Batman and Robin do battle against a master criminal called the Wizard.

This Columbia serial tends to be sneered at, but I have to admit to a certain fondness for this one. This is partially due to the fact that the characters are familiar enough to me that I can sort them out; Batman, Robin, Commisioner Gordon and Alfred the Butler were all known to me from the TV series of the sixties. Granted, I wish they had gotten one of the well-known villains rather than the relatively lame ‘The Wizard’ that appears here, but I must admit that I’m not really surprised. I also like that there is a sense of humor that pops up on occasion here; usually, humor is a rarity in serials (unless there is a stock comic relief character). Still, there are problems. The costumes are poorly done, especially Batman’s mask. Robin, the Man Wonder (sorry, I just can’t call him “The Boy Wonder” here) was played by 26-year-old Johnny Duncan, who looks even older; he would later appear in PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE with his fellow BATMAN AND ROBIN actor, Lyle Talbot (here playing Commissioner Gordon). The cliffhangers and their resolutions are particularly lame here as well. I don’t think Batman and Robin should be storing their costumes in a file cabinet, and I still can’t get used to them driving around in these old cars. And there are still people referring to him as “THE Batman” rather than just “Batman”. Lot’s of gadgetry put this one firmly in the realm of science fiction as well.

BOOM IN THE MOON (1946)
(a.k.a. A MODERN BLUEBEARD / EL MODERNO BARBA AZUL)
Article #1473 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-27-2005
Posting Date: 8-24-2005
Directed by Jaime Salvador
Featuring Buster Keaton, Luis G. Barreiro, Guillermo Bravo Sosa

A confused American soldier from World War II surrenders himself to the Mexicans under the mistaken belief they are Japanese. They in turn confuse him with a notorious Bluebeard. He is then offered the option to avoid the electric chair by volunteering for a planned expedition to the moon.

This may be the most depressing movie I’ve seen for this series. It’s not necessarily the worst, though it is pretty bad. It’s just that bad comedies tend to be pretty depressing anyway, and this is only compounded by the fact that it represents the nadir for one of the greatest screen comedians of all time, Buster Keaton. If that’s not depressing enough, consider these points. Fellow silent comedian Charlie Chaplin would take the Bluebeard concept that this movie touches upon and produce the brilliant and daring MONSIEUR VERDOUX just a year later. Then consider that Abbot and Costello (two comedians who, though I have a great deal of affection for them, simply weren’t in the same league as Buster Keaton) would use some of the same elements of this movie (two convicts aboard a rocketship; Earth being mistaken for another planet) to make ABBOTT AND COSTELLO GO TO MARS, which, despite the fact that it was one of their weakest movies, is still better than this one. It’s also more than a little depressing that at the time of this writing, this remains the only Buster Keaton movie I’ve covered for this series (and SUNSET BLVD. doesn’t count, as it contains Buster only in a cameo). Still, the saddest thing about this one is that every once in a while during this movie, you’ll see Buster do something that for a fleeting few seconds reminds you of the old Buster of the silent era. It never lasts long enough to make a joke work; all it does is remind you of how low he’d fallen to this point. Let’s just hope there aren’t any other movies out there more depressing than this one.

BLOOD OF THE IRON MAIDEN (1970)
(a.k.a. IS THIS TRIP REALLY NECESSARY?)
Article #1450 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-4-2005
Posting Date: 8-1-2005
Directed by Ben Benoit
Featuring Marvin Miller, Peter Duryea, Carole Kane

An actress gets the lead in a movie, not aware that the director specializes in nudies and intends to use drugs on her during the filming.

Let’s start out this one by taking a look at those titles. The first title of this movie, BLOOD OF THE IRON MAIDEN does seem to promise a certain amount of blood and an iron maiden. Yes, the movie does provide both, but there’s only about two seconds of blood and ten seconds of iron maiden. In fact, the blood is caused by a cursed suit of armor rather than the iron maiden, so the title isn’t even accurate. I would say that anyone attracted to the movie by this title would walk away disappointed.

The other title is IS THIS TRIP REALLY NECESSARY?, and whatever you think of that one, at least it asks a pertinent question. The word “trip” has a double meaning of course, and a good part of the movie does involve drug use. At any rate, let’s cover some of the features of this movie so you can decide if it is really necessary or not.

This movie has –

Ten minutes of leering (the opening scene, in which the director consistently tries to convince auditioning actresses to take off their clothes).

No nudity (despite the fact that the movie opens with ten minutes of the director trying to talk auditioning actresses into taking off their clothes).

Lot’s of subpar psychedelic music by a group known as Weeds End. Never heard of them? You’re not alone (as well as lucky).

John Carradine cribbing lines from both Shakespeare and Groucho Marx.

Low-budget drug trips.

John Carradine trying to bring a woman down from her drugged stupor by using electroshock therapy, brandy, laughing gas, and really strong coffee.

A scene where the director inspires his cameraman by telling him a story about a kamikaze pilot with a bullet in his head. Incidentally, this is the funniest scene in the movie.

The director’s vision of a guru’s dream. This consists of drugged-out actresses in Arabian Nights costumes dancing around a mirror ball.

With this information in hand, I feel I can answer the pertinent question posed by the title. The answer is no.

However, if they changed the title to IS THIS TRIP REALLY DUMB?, that would be another matter entirely…

The fantastic content? Probably a combination of Carradine’s slightly addled scientist character, a haunted suit of armor (so they say), and the psychedelic sequences.

P.S. According to an email I received from Glenn Abenathy, the Carol Kane in this movie is actually a different actress named Carole Kane, so I’ve removed the part of the review that says this is Carol Kane’s debut acting performance. Thanks for the correction, Glenn.

THE BRAIN THAT WOULDN’T DIE (1962)
Article #1441 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 2-23-2005
Posting Date: 7-23-2005
Directed by Joseph Green
Featuring Jason Evers, Verginia Leith, Leslie Daniels

A scientist experimenting with transplants manages to save and keep alive the head of his fiancee after a car accident, and then embarks on a plan to find a new body for her.

Some thoughts on THE BRAIN THAT WOULDN’T DIE.

1) There seems to be a great deal of affection out there for this sleazy, exploitative horror movie, probably for the very reason that it is so sleazy and exploitative. I myself am not a fan of exploitation per se, so it should be no surprise that I do not look on this movie with affection. Still, there are some points to be made for good and bad, so I’ll touch upon those.

2) On the positive side, the movie does manage to work up a certain amount of tension. In particular, the monster in the closet is handled in such a way that it lets your imagination run wild as to how horrible it is. And when it finally appears, it isn’t a total disappointment, even if it looks a bit too lumpy.

3) If the movie is a pioneer of anything, I think it would be in the field of gore. There were movies with gory scenes before this one, but this was one of the first in which the gore was truly excessive; the movie wallows in its bloody scenes. The death of Kurt in particular stretches on far longer than is necessary; in fact, the initial shock gives way to giggles before he finally expires.

4) The biggest problem I have with the movie is its inability to decide just how it wants to be taken. Is it straight horror? Straight exploitation? Comic exploitation? A philosophical treatise on science? The movie tries all these things and never achieves a decent balance, and the jumps back and forth are annoying.

5) The movie is also devoid of likable characters. This in itself wouldn’t be a problem if it weren’t for the fact that all of the characters are potentially likable. The scientist is desperate to save the life of his loved one, but his sleazy predatory search for the woman with the right body renders him unpleasant. The fiancee who has been reduced to a single head could easily engender our sympathy if it weren’t for the fact that she wallows in bitterness and ugly vengeance. The assistant with the withered arm who dreams of having it replaced with a good arm is too condescending and sarcastic to garner much sympathy. And we fail to care for the model with the scarred face because of her stupid bitterness and the incidental fact that the actress playing her gives the worst performance in the movie.

6) I’m also a little annoyed that two of the characters who die in the movie do so as a result of their own monumental stupidity. They have a ferocious monster locked in a closet, and there’s a small latched opening in the closet door through which they give it food. They both unlatch (or leave unlatched) that opening, and then blithely turn their backs on it so that the monster can reach out for them. I wonder if they also stick forks in toasters while standing in puddles.

7) One thing that really drives me crazy is the jokiness of some of the scenes. While the scientist is stalking several of the women, he constantly finds his machinations foiled by the appearance of a potential witness who would be able to identify him as the last person to be with the woman in question. He always abandons his prey, but usually with some sort of clumsy ironical comment that he says aloud for all to hear, even though the comment often makes no sense unless you realize that he’s planning on killing someone. This kind of jokiness renders the movie highly unpleasant.

8) Near the beginning of the movie, the injured scientist scoops up head of his beloved, wraps it in a towel, and runs several miles with it as if he’s rushing for the goal line in a football game. No comment.

9) At one point, two large breasted women have a drop-down knockout fight. We then see two hanging of cats on the wall. Someone goes “Meow”. No comment.

10) This movie is in public domain. Several places that advertise it claim they have the rare “complete” version of the movie with all the gore. Now, despite the fact that I care little for this movie, I have it several times over in my collection (due to my passion for collecting boxed sets with lots of movies in them), and every single version of them I’ve seen has the complete gory sequences in question. I’m beginning to think that it’s the prints without the gory sections that are the rare ones.

At least they never made a sequel.

THE BLACK RAVEN (1943)
Article #1440 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 2-22-2005
Posting Date: 7-22-2005
Directed by Sam Newfield
Featuring George Zucco, Robert Livingston, Wanda McKay

The proprietor of an inn that serves as a front for transporting criminals out of the country finds himself caught up in murder and a struggle to find a satchel with $50,000.

Though this is not a horror movie, it qualifies as marginalia thanks to some nice atmosphere and the presence of George Zucco. It’s really a mystery, and not a particularly good one, but somehow, that doesn’t really matter. I found myself enjoying some of the odd touches, such as having Glenn Strange play the comic relief character, and having our hero be George Zucco’s criminal proprietor; after all, it is his investigation that cracks the crime rather than those of the Sheriff (played here by perennial serial villain Charles Middleton). I also have to admit to liking the ham-fisted way the movie sets up its situation; that this particular combination of characters should all happen to converge at this one place is highly unlikely, but it does have its amusing side to it. So on top of the crooked but soft-hearted proprietor and his dumb assistant, we have the obligatory couple trying to elope, a desperate criminal trying to leave the country, an escaped convict bent on revenge, a bigwig with underworld connections, and a meek clerk who has actually embezzled a large sum of money. They’re all here because the bridge is washed out. It’s silly and obvious, but fun enough in its low-budget PRC way.

BILLION DOLLAR BRAIN (1967)
Article #1439 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 2-21-2005
Posting Date: 7-21-2005
Directed by Ken Russell
Featuring Michael Caine, Karl Malden, Ed Begley

A retired spy is pulled back into the business when the theft of some new viruses gets him entangled with a plot to invade the U.S.S.R.

Fantastic content: The near-invasion of the Soviet Union and the use of a giant supercomputer push the movie into marginal science fiction territory.

It’s movies like this that make me understand why I never really took to the whole James Bond franchise. It’s because those movies are so jokey that they never surprise me; when they throw jokes, bizarre characters or odd plot twists at me, I’m not really surprised because I saw them coming and expected them. This spy thriller takes itself much more seriously; it, too, has jokes, bizarre characters and odd plot twists, but they serve instead to keep my attention and freshen up the story. Quite frankly, I found more real laughs here than in any of the James Bond movies that I’ve seen. It also has its own visual style that is quite engaging while being markedly different from that of the Bond movies, and I attribute this to the direction of Ken Russell, who had a definite talent for catching the attention. I like the whole cast of this one, but the best performances come from Ed Begley as a superpatriotic Texas billionaire and Oskar Homolka as a Russian colonel who takes a liking to Michael Caine’s Harry Palmer. And let’s face it; any movie that opens with a man being given puzzling directions to deliver a thermos full of eggs to Helsinki must get some sort of award for catching one’s attention.

THE BAT (1959)
Article #1437 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 2-19-2005
Posting Date: 7-19-2005
Directed by Crane Wilbur
Featuring Vincent Price, Agnes Moorehead, Gavin Gordon

A mysterious murderer known as The Bat is after some money hidden in an old dark house.

I’m not a big fan of the two other versions I’ve seen of this old chestnut, though I do believe they have their good points. Perhaps the oddest thing here is that this old-fashioned old dark house movie was remade at all; it certainly seems out of place with the other horror movies of the fifties. I find it more coherent than the other two versions I’ve seen (THE BAT [1926] and THE BAT WHISPERS [1930]), but as far as I’m concerned, that’s really the only improvement. Whereas these earlier movies do maintain the mood throughout, this one does not; by spreading the action over several nights, the movie loses the intensity of the other versions. It also lacks the humor of the earlier versions. I also miss the exciting beginning of those other two movies; whereas they began with a thrilling murder from the outside of a skyscraper, this one just sets up its situation with a series of dull and awkward expositional scenes. I also have some problems with the performances. Vincent Price hits the proper pitch as the suspicious doctor, but Agnes Moorehead was miscast, and her overtheatrical performance here is a major distraction. It’s not horrible, but it falls somewhat short of what it could be.

BLAKE OF SCOTLAND YARD (1937)
(Serial)
Article #1403 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 1-16-2005
Posting Date: 2-15-2005
Directed by Robert F. Hill
Featuring Ralph Byrd, Herbert Rawlinson, Joan Barclay

A super death-ray has been invented that will guarantee world peace (or so the plot claims), and it is up to Blake of Scotland Yard to make sure that the weapon doesn’t fall into the claws – er, hands of that master criminal, the Scorpion.

Some thoughts on BLAKE OF SCOTLAND YARD.

1) There was a 1927 serial of the same name as this one. I don’t know if this is a remake of that one, but I do know they were both directed by the same man. I also know this; one advantage that the silent serial had was that, being silent, it didn’t have to contend with the obstacle of having to deal with the British accent, whereas the sound version doesn’t have that privilege. However, this being a serial, it probably didn’t have a wide stable of actors to choose from at casting time. The upshot of this is that, with the exception of Dickie Jones (who plays the child), none of the actors even attempts a British accent. The serial tries to compensate for this problem by having someone say “Righto” every once in a while. It doesn’t work.

2) The lack of British accents does create one bizarre little phenomenon. When you hear the phrase “take them to the yard” said with a British accent, you know they mean Scotland Yard. When you hear it with an American accent, you think they’re being taken to the grassy area behind the house. I have visions of all the criminals in this serial handcuffed to a swingset.

3) One odd thing about this serial is that the title character is the grey-haired older man (Herbert Rawlinson), and the inventor of the death ray is the young, virile serial-hero type (Ralph “Dick Tracy” Byrd). This is a switch from the usual serial casting. Still, that doesn’t prevent Byrd from getting better billing than Rawlinson.

4) Actually, the grey-haired old men here do their share of the fighting, which is a bit of a novelty. On the down side, the fighting is pretty bad. I’m sure I see some examples of what I call “arm fighting”, in which characters fight each other not with their fists (someone might get hurt) but with the insides of their arms. This style is about as convincing as the movie’s British atmosphere.

5) During the opening credits, Joan Barclay has a surprisingly snooty expression on her face (though not in her performance). I wonder if this is another attempt to add to the British atmosphere. It doesn’t work.

6) Back when I covered PHANTOM OF THE RUE MORGUE, I posed the question about the existence of a French dance where the male violently throws the female to the floor. This is the other place where I’ve seen that dance; chapter three of this serial features a dance in a French cafe where a man in in a striped shirt slaps around his female partner and repeatedly throws her to the floor, to the polite applause of the onlookers. In POTRM, this action took place in a wild dance hall and looked choreographed, so I didn’t find it very offensive. Here it looks unchoreographed and comes off as mean and sadistic, with the audience applause only making it seem that much uglier. Quite frankly, this was the most unpleasant scene I’ve ever seen in any serial, and I don’t recommend it. (And thanks to all who identified the dancing in question as “Apache Dancing”).

7) The Scorpion wears a black cloak, a black hat, a mask, and claw shaped glove. Why does he wear the latter when it obviously impedes his ability to use his hands efficiently? My only answer is that it must have been the trend; since three other people impersonate the Scorpion during the length of the serial, I can only come to the conclusion that the Scorpion costume must have been an easy commodity to come by, and it just wouldn’t have seemed complete without the claw.

8) If you pay attention to the opening credits, you’ll notice that five characters are listed. Four of them take active and prominent roles in fighting the Scorpion throughout the serial. The fifth is a secondary character who doesn’t really appear to be taking a major role in the proceedings. So why does he get a prominent credit? If you think about this for more than two minutes, you’ll figure out something that you’re not supposed to know until the final episode.

9) All right, I’m willing to suspend my disbelief long enough to believe that there is an elaborate network of underground passages that link the villains’ hideout with the basement of the home of Inspector Blake. I just want to know who decided that this secret network of underground passages needed to be furnished.

10) Actually, this is one of the weaker serials I’ve seen in some time. My worst problem with it is the editing; it’s so badly constructed that I have a difficult time figuring out what’s going on from one moment to the next. It’s not the worst offender I’ve seen in that regard, which is my way of saying that at least this serial is better than THE CLUTCHING HAND, if for no other reason that at least with this one, I have some vague idea of what is generally going on.