BLOODY PIT OF HORROR (1965)
(a.k.a. IL BOIA SCARLATTO)
Article #684 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 1-28-2003
Posting Date: 6-27-2003
Directed by Massimo Pupillo
Featuring Mickey Hargitay, Walter Brandi and Moa Tahi

Photographers and beautiful models find themselves terrorized by a sadistic torturer known as The Crimson Executioner.

The basic concept has been done many times before, usually much better. The dubbing is pretty bad, which certainly doesn’t help matters much. There are certain flashes of creativity in the torture sequences, particularly in one that takes place in an unlikely room involving a spider web, a fake spider, and several bow-and-arrow traps; the bizarre thing about this torture is it just doesn’t feel like the type of direct torture that our villain engages in for the rest of the movie. The oddest thing by far is the villain’s motivation for his acts, to wit “to keep his perfect body free from contamination.” Is this the dark side of body-building? The dialogue is so ludicrous, and Mickey Hargitay so deranged (especially in the last half of the movie), that it all becomes entertaining in spite of its unpleasantness.

THE BLACKBIRD (1926)
Article #682 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 1-26-2003
Posting Date: 6-25-2003
Directed by Tod Browning
Featuring Lon Chaney, Owen Moore, Renee Adoree

Two crooks vie for the attentions of a nightclub entertainer; the loser then tries to undermine the winner’s success.

This is another of Tod Browning’s and Lon Chaney’s exercises on the theme of deformity; Chaney’s character has a dual identity: a criminal called the Blackbird and a kindly but hideously deformed philanthropist known as the Bishop. It starts out very well, particularly during an opening scene in which faces from London’s limehouse district flash before us, and the story has some interesting twists to it. In some ways, it is reminiscent of THE UNKNOWN, only with the cards shuffled into a different order. Sadly, I feel it stumbles towards the end; the final twist is brought about by a specific physical occurrence that (for me) fails to be convincing, and unfortunately it is not possible for me to be more clear without engaging in spoilers of the worst kind. Let’s just say I didn’t buy the ending, and all the acting in the world from Lon Chaney (who does give a great performance throughout, as does Owen Moore) never quite makes me buy it.

BABES IN TOYLAND (1934)
(a.k.a. MARCH OF THE WOODEN SOLDIERS)
Article #681 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 1-25-2003
Posting Date: 6-24-2003
Directed by Gus Meins and Charley Rogers
Featuring Stan Laurel, Oliver Hardy and Charlotte Henry

Ollie Dee and Stannie Dum try to save Little Bo-Peep from having to marry the evil Barnaby.

Arrrghhh! The copy I have on tape is the #*&@%$ colorized version! And the recent DVD release? Also the colorized version! It’s enough to make you tear your own moustache out with frustration!

Still, even colorized, I found it a good antidote to the 1961 version I covered recently; the music has been scaled down quite a bit, and in its place we have the antics of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, the most charming, assured, and precise practitioners of slapstick comedy that ever lived. They rarely ventured into the realm of fantastic cinema, so I relish the chance to cover one of their movies. They’re in fine form here, fitting in well with the story-book plot here while stealing the show completely. There’s a good sense of whimsy throughout and a strong energy. Plus, the final sequence in which the boogeymen attack is scarier and more savage then you might expect. And is that John George I see as Barnaby’s minions? Indeed, it is, according to IMDB. I was also sure I spotted Angelo Rossitto as one of the ghostly dwarves that put the romantic leads to sleep, and it probably was; he also played the 2nd little pig. One special effect that puzzled me at first was how they did the mouse that hangs around with the cat and the fiddle; after watching closely, I’m guessing that’s a monkey in a mouse costume.

THE BATMAN (1943)
Article #674 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 1-18-2003
Posting date: 6-17-2003

Batman and Robin do battle with the evil spy from Japan, Prince Daka.

David Letterman once had a top ten list of Batman’s top ten peeves. The last one went roughly, “People who call him THE Batman; it’s just Batman, damnit!” This may be a big fuss over nothing, but even I have to admit that I flinch when I hear him called “The Batman,” and I’m no Batman purist. I do a lot of flinching during this serial.

In fact, it reminds me of CAPTAIN MIDNIGHT more than any other incarnation of Batman, and seeing how this is also by Columbia (as was CM), that’s probably why. I don’t know what Batman was like in the comics in the forties, but I can’t help but be a bit disappointed to see Batman being driven around in a perfectly normal car by Alfred the butler (no Batmobile), and I can’t help but feel a little dubious about the fact that the Batcave consists of little more than a few fake bats and an office desk. The most prominent gadget in the serial is a radium gun, and that’s an item of the bad guys rather than Batman’s. Worst of all, though, is that Prince Daka has none of the compelling fun of a real Batman villain; he’s nothing more than a run-of-the-mill serial bad guy, and even J. Carrol Naish seems bored playing him (though he does have a fine moment when he’s feeding his gators and begins to get ideas of what else to feed them). The anti-Japanese racism was a product of its time, but it does render the serial somewhat unfit for impressionable children. It’s my belief Batman has been handled much better on many other occasions.

BABES IN TOYLAND (1961)
Article #636 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-11-2002
Posting Date: 5-6-2003

Mary, Mary, Quite Contrary and Tom, Tom, the Piper’s Son mean to marry, but the evil Barnaby means to take Mary for his own bride.

Back when I covered THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939), I essentially avoided the pitfall of mouthing platitudes about the movie by cleverly (or spinelessly, as the case may be) speaking of it in terms of other movies entirely. Now that I am faced with this one, I find myself wanting to talk about THE WIZARD OF OZ instead, which is something I find a little ironic.

To start with, I wonder if THE WIZARD OF OZ would be the cultural touchstone that it is if its space as a perennial favorite had been usurped by some other musical fairy tale; this one, for instance. Would I have ended up loving and revering this movie as I do that one? The answer is an emphatic “NO!”, despite the fact that they both feature Ray Bolger and trees capable of expressing themselves orally. What THE WIZARD OF OZ had was a real villain; the closest the wicked witch of the west came to being a comic character was her reaction to the suggestion that someone might drop a house on her, a moment which in no way damaged her role as a dangerous adversary. Barnaby is, on the other hand, more apt to play up the comedy of his role, and you never sense a real threat. This is a mistake; without that sense of danger, this movie never develops into anything other than a piece of fluff. Sadly, this is something that used to be known at Disney; remember how scary parts of SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS were?

The music is another point of contention; in THE WIZARD OF OZ, the songs (for the most part) are strong, memorable, and bound firmly into the plot of the story; they flesh out the themes and advance the plot. Here, they are fairly unmemorable and usually bring the plot to a screeching halt. And as this is an operetta (my definition of an operetta: a musical for people who don’t think there is enough music in musicals and who think operas are too high class), it spends most of its running time at a screeching halt. For me, the movie doesn’t really become fun until Ed Wynn shows up, and though this is partly because I find Wynn a fun and comfortable comic presence, it is also because Wynn’s distinctly non-musical presence inspires the filmmakers to blessedly dispense with the singing and dancing for the most part.

Other points: Barnaby’s comic cohorts bear just enough resemblance to Laurel and Hardy to leave me wishing I was watching the 1934 version of the movie instead. Also, having no kids of my own, I had to watch this one on my own without the excuse of playing it for the kids, and if the truth be told, I think I was more embarassed watching this than I was watching DRACULA: THE DIRTY OLD MAN.

And there’s not a single flying monkey.

THE BLUE LIGHT (1932)
(a.k.a. DAS BLAUE LICHT)
Article #620 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 11-25-2002
Posting date: 4-20-2003

A strange blue light shines in a mountain and lures men to their deaths. The only person who can come close to it is a woman who is ostracized for being a witch. A stranger falls in love with her.

This movie qualifies for fantastic cinema by the rather compelling mystery of its central premise; we don’t know what the blue light is, but we feel it has a mystical pull to it, and this sucks us into the tale. Ultimately, it is all explained away in non-fantastic terms, so the movie becomes less fantastic as a result; still, this isn’t a whole lot different than many a movie that promises a monster and fails to deliver one in place of a mundane explanation. My print runs a little over fifty minutes; I’ve seen it timed from anywhere to seventy to ninety minutes, so it is quite possible my print is incomplete. It was directed by Leni Riefenstahl, who also plays Junta, the central character; Hitler was so impressed with this movie, he put her in charge of making propaganda movies for the Third Reich; one can only wonder what direction her career might have gone if this had not happened. I could see why he was impressed; there are some breathtaking moments here. It’s also a little slow and confusing at times, but not fatally so, and if I do have an incomplete print, that may be the reason.

BLOOD FEAST (1963)
Article #604 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 11-9-2002
Posting date: 4-5-2003

Horrible murders are being committed by a caterer intent on making an Egyptian Feast as an offering to Ishtar.

Ten thoughts.

1. Being as I am not a fan of graphic gore and violence, I am not a fan of the work of Herschell Gordon Lewis.

2. This was the first real gore movie. This makes it at least as important (in cinematic terms) as the first bubonic plague.

3. Having watched at least one other of Lewis’ gore flicks as part of this series, I found that the experience has given me the hard shell I need to stomach his movies. That doesn’t mean I mistake them for anything good.

4. Herschell Gordon Lewis has written many books on business and marketing. His movies make more sense if looked at from the perspective of a man finding a marketing niche that could be exploited, and then doing so.

5. He manages to make his movies look like home movies without giving them that air of verisimilitude that would make them believable.

6. The acting is bad in this movie.

7. … Really BAD…

8. I just can’t tell you how bad the acting is in this movie.

9. The acting couldn’t have been worse if Lewis had been trying to get the absolute worst actors he could find.

10. On a positive note, Lewis is a better director than Jerry Warren. The movie even has one clever moment where he does a jump cut that looks vaguely like the hands of a clock turning. So the movie is good for one second. I’d tell you precisely where that moment is, but then I’d have to watch the movie again to find it. No thanks.

BLOOD AND BLACK LACE (1964)
(a.k.a. SEI DONNE PER L’ASSASSINO)
Article #601 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 11-6-2002
Posting date: 4-2-2003

Models are being murdered one by one by an unknown killer.

The English translation of the Italian title is “Six Women for the Murderer”, and since I’ve heard this movie described as the first “body count” movie, then I suppose it qualifies by mere dint of its numbering the murders (though whether the count is accurate is a matter I will not pursue at this point). I’ve heard it praised as a masterpiece of style and dismissed as a slasher movie. I can definitely attest to the style comment; the movie uses color, shadow, lighting and camera movement all exquisitely. There is also some truth to the slasher line, as I can’t help but notice that several of the murders go on much longer than I feel comfortable with, and it makes me suspect at times that I’m supposed to “enjoy” seeing the women tormented rather than be frightened for them. Still, it’s more than a slasher flick; ultimately, there is a coherent reason for each one of the murders (beyond the “he kills because he’s mad” sort of description), and this helps to give the movie more of a sense of purpose rather than being a mere exercise of sadism. And I have no problem enjoying the beauty of the cinematic style. Directed by Mario Bava, and featuring Cameron Mitchell.

BRIDE OF THE MONSTER (1956)
Article #577 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 10-13-2002
Posting date: 3-8-2003

A female reporter starts her own investigation of a series of disappearances that have been attributed to a monster.

This is probably the most coherent movie I’ve seen from Ed Wood. I suspect that his intention was to make a Bela Lugosi movie, and that he modeled it off of Bela’s Monogram horrors from the forties, only updated (in story only, not in style) by throwing in atomic energy into the equation. It has certain eccentricities to be sure; Lobo’s attachment to an angora hat belonging to the heroine is one of the more striking examples of that particular obsession of Wood’s, and allowing Harvey B. Dunn to play with a bird throughout his scenes (he was apparently a clown with a bird act) adds a surreal touch that usually comes from an Ed Wood film, but despite this, it is his most conventional movie. There were some unsuccessful attempts at humor in the scenes at the police station, at least partially because he didn’t quite have the actors to pull it off, and there are some definite continuity errors, especially one involving a pencil. Still, Bela probably did more with his “I have no home” speech than Ed Wood ever dreamed, and even if it is a little over the top, the scene demonstrates that Bela himself was capable of a good deal of creativity. And at this juncture of his life, Wood was probably the only one willing to really give him a chance.

A BUCKET OF BLOOD (1959)
Article #507 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 8-3-2002
Posting date: 12-27-2002

A simple-minded busboy with artistic ambitions is praised for his talent when he makes a statue of a cat which was in reality a cat he accidentally killed and covered with clay. This leads him on the road to murder in order to fulfill his artistic ambitions.

I had heard about this movie for years before I had ever seen it, and, being a great fan of the similar LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS, I was extremely eager to see it. I was initially disappointed because the movie didn’t seem as funny as LITTLE SHOP, but then I wasn’t prepared for the fact that though the movies do share the same essential story, the one was a wild farce while this one was darkly satiric. I have a much greater appreciation for the movie now; it’s definitely a triumph for Charles B. Griffith (it’s one of his best scripts) and for Dick Miller, giving perhaps the best performance of his career. Roger Corman gives the movie solid direction, but it’s Griffith’s wonderful dialogue that captures the attention, particularly the pretentious beatnik poetry that Walter Paisley ends up taking to heart, mistaking its metaphor for literalness and seeing the messages as condoning his murderous activity. The characters are so well drawn, and the script unfolds so smoothly that I find myself drawn into the story. It makes a great companion piece to LITTLE SHOP, if for no other reason that it gives a complete course in how to take a story and reinvent it in radically different ways.