CHARLY (1968)
Article #1463 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-17-2005
Posting Date: 8-14-2005
Directed by Ralph Nelson
Featuring Cliff Robertson, Claire Bloom, Lilia Skala

A mentally challenged man is given an operation to increase his intelligence, and he begins to see the world with new eyes.

When I was in junior high, I read the novel “Flowers for Algernon” as part of a literature class. A few years later, I took up reading science fiction, and consistently found and enjoyed the short story version in any one of several SF anthologies. I then appeared as Dr. Strauss in a production of the stage version of the story. Throughout the years, I grew to love this story, and I have strong feelings about it to this day.

However, this screen version of the story does not partake of this affection. In fact, had I reviewed the movie after my first viewing some years ago, I would have expressed a virulent hatred for it. I have seen the movie twice since then, and though my hatred has cooled quite a bit, I still consider this version of the story a misfire.

It’s certainly not the fault of Cliff Robertson, who gives a truly worthy performance as Charly Gordon. My problem is that the direction is wildly inconsistent. In my opinion, the primary concern for anyone handling this story is to make sure that viewers connect with and relate to Charly Gordon on an emotional level; the focus should be on intimacy. Unfortunately, the movie was made during the height of the psychedelic era, and it engages in arty experimental techniques, including an embarassing montage sequence and some bad use of split-screen. It also woefully mishandles certain scenes. In particular, the scene where Charly attempts to seduce his teacher is a travesty; it plays like a horror movie (with Charly Gordon as the monster). Instead of getting us to try to understand him, the scene seems to want us to hate him. This is so diametrically opposed to the feeling of the book (which is told via entries in a journal written by Charly) that it almost destroys the movie for me. And the scene in which Charly confronts a group of scientists and barks out cynical sound bites to their questions also hits all the wrong chords with me.

Still, not every scene is like that, and when the movie focuses in on Charly and lets us know him and experience his feelings, it works best. And it does manage to move us at times. But the movie’s batting average in this regard is very weak in comparison with the literary versions of the story. There are a couple of TV versions of the tale that I haven’t seen, so maybe one of those is definitive. If not, this is one story that would merit a new cinematic version.

CHANDU ON THE MAGIC ISLAND (1935)
Article #1462 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-16-2005
Posting Date: 8-13-2005
Directed by Ray Taylor
Featuring Bela Lugosi, Maria Alba, Murdock MacQuarrie

Chandu must save Princess Nadji from a cult which intends to put her soul in the body of their goddess.

Bela Lugosi played the villain in CHANDU THE MAGICIAN, but when the time came to make a serial based on the character (THE RETURN OF CHANDU), he was given the role of Chandu himself. The serial was then edited into two features; the first feature (from the first half of the serial) was also called THE RETURN OF CHANDU, while this was the second one (from the second half). Watching a feature version of half of a serial is hardly an ideal way to enjoy it, especially if you haven’t seen the serial or the other feature version. It should be no surprise that this one is missing a goodly amount of exposition, and that it has that pervasive lack of variety of feature versions of serials. Still, it doesn’t descend into the trap of repetitive non-stop action like so many of them do, probably because this wasn’t an action-oriented serial. It’s creaky as hell, but it does have certain qualities I rarely find in serials; it’s quite atmospheric and has a real sense of fantasy to it. Actually, I find myself looking forward to seeing this serial at some later date, though I suspect that it may prove to be rather static and tiresome over the length of several episodes. Still, I have to say this is one of the better feature-versions-of-serials I’ve seen to date.

CAVE OF THE LIVING DEAD (1964)
(a.k.a. DER FLUCH DER GRUNEN AUGEN)
Article #1459 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-13-2005
Posting Date: 8-10-2005
Directed by Akos Rathonyi
Featuring Adrian Hoven, Karin Field, John Kitzmiller

An inspector goes to a small village to investigate reports of strange deaths. He begins to believe they may be the result of a vampire.

I’ve seen any number of European horror films at this point, and you can usually tell what country they’re from without checking; each country seemed to add its own distinct style to its cinematic output. This one had me scratching my head a pit; it looked a little Italian and a little German, but not so much that I felt comfortable with either guess. It turned out to be a West German/Yugoslavian production. Now, I haven’t seen many Yugoslavian movies, but I get the same feel from some of the footage here that I did from the Yugoslavian footage used in TRACK OF THE VAMPIRE.

In some ways, the movie is very conventional, and in other ways, it’s just strange. Our hero is of the type that feels like he’s be more at home in an Italian spy flick, and some of the music feels the same way. There are the colorful small town villagers to contend with, including an ugly witch, two stupid cops, and a black servant who comes across a little too much like the scared comic blacks from the thirties and forties. There are also some odd touches; for example, when the vampires are on the loose, all the electricity goes out in the town. All in all, the movie comes across as mostly silly, but there are some scary scenes and creepy sequences that are exquisitely moody. There’s a short sequence near the beginning of the movie where we see the shadow of a creature on a wall, followed by a shot of clawed hands raising a window, and then a shot of a shadow hovering over the form of a girl; this sequence is simply breathtaking, and there are a few other moments that are just as nice. It also suffers from horrible dubbing, but that’s no real surprise. It’s a mixed bag, to be sure, but one I think is worth checking out.

CURSE OF THE STONE HAND (1964)
Article #1451 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-5-2005
Posting Date: 8-2-2005
Directed by Jerry Warren, Carlos Hugo Christensen and Carlos Schlieper
Featuring Chela Bon, John Carradine, and Carlos Cores

A stone hand exudes a baleful influence over residents of a house and anyone who watches this movie.

For those not familiar with Jerry Warren’s technique in bringing foreign films to an English speaking audience, here’s a quick recap. He takes one or two foreign movies, removes any scene that might require extensive dubbing. When he does dub, it is usually only when characters are turned away from the camera or when they say only a small phrase. To compensate for the fact that in this process he has most likely removed most of the exposition and plot points, he provides occasional narration. If something more is needed, he will write insert scenes with available actors. This scenes are instantly recognizable because a) they are lit and directed in a style completely different from the footage from the foreign movies, and b) the terseness of the kept footage gives way to endless chattering, since he no longer has to worry about syncing up dialogue. This last technique wouldn’t have been as disastrous as it was had Jerry Warren been a decent writer and director; as it is, his characters are so loquacious and given to discursive digressions that these scenes utterly fail to pass any crucial plot information whatsoever, and they are directed so flatly that they are likely to put you to sleep.

This movie is similar in technique to FACE OF THE SCREAMING WEREWOLF. Like that movie, he combines footage from two different movies (one from Mexico and one from Chile, though I’ve also heard the story that they are both from Chile). Though he tries to tie them together by the use of the stone hand curse, it’s obviously two different movies. The first one is a variation of “The Suicide Club”, and though it’s a bit on the predictable side, at least much of its tension is visual in the first place. As a result, this part of the story is singularly free from Warren’s inserts, and the story is coherent (a word that rarely pops up when speaking of Warren’s oeuvre). The second story is an utter disaster; the cutting has rendered it incomprehensible, the inserts are useless, and after awhile the only thing left for the viewer to follow is the slow passage of time. Many descriptions of this movie say that the hand comes to life and crawls around, but unless my print is missing something, I saw no such footage and no one talks about such a thing happening. I’m not sure exactly what the stone hand has to do with anything in the movie; in fact, I don’t think it appears in any form for the entire second half of the movie. All in all, it’s pretty sad; I suspect that the original films used to make this one weren’t bad at all.

THE CARPET OF HORROR (1962)
(a.k.a. DER TEPPICH DES GRAUENS)
Article #1443 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 2-25-2005
Posting Date: 7-25-2005
Directed by Harold Reinl
Featuring Joachim Fuchsberger, Karin Dor, Werner Peters

Members of a crime syndicate are being murdered one by one when they come by an incriminating document that reveals the name of their secret leader. The method of murder involves a poison ball that emits toxic gases.

Let’s get that title out of the way. CARPET OF HORROR is one of those titles like LAKE OF DRACULA that simply fails to convey much in the way of horror; instead, it’s more likely to make you think up names for possible sequels, such as THROW-PILLOWS OF TERROR and DOILIES OF DOOM. Still, if it doesn’t quite convey a sense of horror, it’s somewhat fitting, as this isn’t a horror movie but rather a krimi in the style of the early sixties’ Edgar Wallace / Dr. Mabuse movies. The carpet is largely incidental; it just happens that the gas balls in question are usually tossed on a carpet to begin their work, though the carpet doesn’t seem to be a necessity in order for the gas to work.

Nonetheless, it’s a fun if somewhat confusing movie. You get quite a few characters thrown at you and you spend most of the plot trying to figure out who they are; are they good guys? Bad guys? Incidental characters? And who is the leader of the organization? Actually, the last one was fairly easy to figure out.

I’ve seen enough of these types of movies now to develop a general impression of them. I find I quite like them, though I have yet to see one that really blows me away. They also look like they would be quite good for rewatching, as it seems that certain scenes may prove more interesting once you know the later plot developments.

CAROUSEL (1956)
Article #1442 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 2-24-2005
Posting Date: 7-24-2005
Directed by Henry King
Featuring Gordon MacRae, Shirley Jones, Cameron Mitchell

A man returns from the afterlife to help his daughter through a crisis situation in her life.

Rodgers and Hammerstein made an important contribution to the American musical; they took the musical out of the comedy / revue format within which it had been entrenched, and incorporated stories with darkness and tragedy into the form. Though I can appreciate this on an intellectual level, I’m afraid that I just don’t warm up to their musicals, largely because I don’t think they quite went far or dug deep enough; when push comes to shove, they fell back on feel-good inspirational platitudes, and I emerge somewhat unsatisfied.

This is one that I was pretty leery about. It’s based on the story of LILIOM, and I disliked and distrusted the early movie version I’d seen of that story because it seemed to be romanticizing domestic abuse; the “he hit me and it felt like a kiss” sequence disturbs me. Still, this movie version of the musical really does something right; it refuses to let that be the last scene in the movie, and makes it clear that the hit in question is indeed the wrong action. This goes a long way towards making this version of the story somewhat more palatable than the 1930 version.

Outside of my problems with this theme, I find the movie a mixed bag. A great musical wins me over even though I’m not particularly fond of the form, but this one does it only sporadically. The quieter, more intimate songs fail to hold my attention, but I really like some of the big production numbers, in particular the one that tells the story of the daughter’s humiliation and the “June is Busting Out All Over” number. It also has a likable cast, including Gordon MacRae, Shirley Jones, Cameron Mitchell and Gene Lockhart. John Dehner plays a rich man who is the target of a robbery, but you never get a clear look at him. Tor Johnson and Angelo Rossitto are reportedly on hand here, but I didn’t see them; this is probably due, however, to the fact that I saw a pan and scan version of the movie, and the possibility that they only appeared for a short time on missing ends of the frame may account for that.

THE CRIMSON PIRATE (1952)
Article #1427 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 2-9-2005
Posting Date: 7-9-2005
Directed by Robert Siodmak
Featuring Burt Lancaster, Nick Cravat, Eva Bartok

A pirate hatches a scheme to make a fortune by selling guns to rebels, and then turning in the rebels for a reward. His scheme backfires when he falls in love with the daughter of the rebel leader.

At the top of this swashbuckling pirate epic, Burt Lancaster tells the viewer to ‘believe only what you see’. Then, after an impossible stunt (courtesy of running some footage backwards), he amends this to ‘believe only half of what you see’. This is the movie’s witty way of telling you not to take it too seriously, but they needn’t have worried; the movie does a fine job of putting you in the right frame of mind even without the reminder. In short, this is a hilarious and fun romp, chock full of stunts, many of them courtesy of Burt Lancaster and his partner from his circus days, Nick Cravat (who plays his part like an athletic Harpo Marx). Watching these two work together is a real joy, as they share a real chemistry with each other. The fantastic content doesn’t really manifest itself until the end of the movie, when certain science fiction elements come to the fore, but it’s best to leave these as surprises. In a sense, this movie reminds me a little of the TV show, “The Wild Wild West”, in which an athletic star is placed in a period setting with occasional primitive-looking science fiction devices. The movie also features Torin Thatcher (THE 7TH VOYAGE OF SINBAD), and Christopher Lee.

CAPTAIN VIDEO, MASTER OF THE STRATOSPHERE (1951)
(Serial)
Article #1419 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 2-1-2005
Posting Date: 7-1-2005
Directed by Spencer Gordon Bennet and Wallace Grissell
Featuring Judd Holdren, Larry Stewart, George Eldredge

Captain Video must do battle with the evil space dictator, Vultura from the planet Atoma, and his agent on earth, a turncoat scientist named Dr. Tobor.

Ten thoughts on CAPTAIN VIDEO.

1) This serial has a certain degree of novelty value in having been based on a TV show, “Captain Video and his Video Rangers”. I found this a little ironic, because to some extent, the rise of television was one of the factors that wiped out movie serials.

2) Most of the serials I’ve covered so far just barely qualify as genre. This is one of the exceptions; it’s so packed with science fiction gadgetry that I don’t have to strain at all to argue for its inclusion in this series. Actually, this may have gone a ways towards helping me enjoy this one.

3) Still, one problem with a serial with this much science fiction gadgetry in it is that the cliffhangers end up being rather repetitive. Most of the cliffhangers are resolved by someone pulling out just the scientific gadget they need to help them escape their predicament. This doesn’t mean they aren’t above using the “roll-out-of-the-car-just-before-it-explodes” ploy, which also gets a bit of a workout here.

4) Still, the lamest resolution to a cliffhanger here is where our heros get caught in an underground furnace that threatens to burn them up. Well, it turns out that fire on the planet Atoma doesn’t burn human tissue. Why? It just doesn’t! If believability was essential to enjoyment of this serial, the whole thing would have gone out the window at this point.

5) Gene Roth plays the evil dictator, Vultura. Unfortunately, being a dictator doesn’t mean you get to wear figure-flattering costumes, and his outfit really accentuates his pot-belly. This does have a tendency to distract you a little from his ruthlessness.

6) The turncoat is named Dr. Tobor. Tobor, by the way, is robot spelled backwards, a fact that will be obvious to anyone who has seen TOBOR THE GREAT. However, at least the Tobor in that movie was a robot. Here, the fact that his name is Tobor means precisely nothing.

7) This is not to say that there are no robots in the movie. There are. However, they’re the same robots that appeared in THE PHANTOM EMPIRE; you know, the ones that look like they’re wearing cowboy hats. Of course, given that THE PHANTOM EMPIRE is partially a western, that makes sense; here they just look silly.

8) Dr. Tobor does have one cool thing about him, and that is that his assistant Retner is played by none other than Skelton Knaggs. And what does it say about me that I consider that cool?

9) Captain Video and his Ranger pal are aided by a scientist named Gallagher. There is no reason to fear this; not a single watermelon was hurt during the course of the movie.

10) And finally, I must say a word about Captain Video’s weapon. He wields a Cosmic Vibrator. When he uses is it on people, it really shakes them up.

It’s always nice when I can close one of my write-ups with an image that will stick in the mind.

CHARLIE CHAN’S SECRET (1936)
Article #1385 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-29-2004
Posting Date: 5-28-2005
Directed by Gordon Wiles
Featuring Warner Oland, Rosina Lawrence, Charles Quigley

Charlie Chan investigates the murder of an heir who was killed the minute he returned home after an absence of seven years.

Fantastic content: Much of the mystery takes place in an “old dark house” environment, and psychics and seances both play heavily into the plot to give the movie some horror touches.

Given the recent controversy over attempted airings of the classic Charlie Chan movies, I found myself speculating on what changes would be necessary if the character of Charlie Chan was to be revived for modern audiences. The most obvious change (casting an oriental in the role) would be the easiest. However, you would have to change two qualities of Chan’s character; his unfailing politeness and his aphoristic speech pattern. Both of these qualities have stereotypical qualities to them, and unfortunately they are both essential to Chan’s character. His politeness served to offset the potential intimidating qualities of his keen mind, while his aphorisms displayed his keen mind at work while also showing his witty side. Without these qualities, Chan just wouldn’t be Chan. I suspect a revival of the character is highly unlikely.

For those of us who choose not to be put off from these movies by the stereotypes, they can be a lot of fun. This one isn’t one of the best, but it’s still quite good. it also has a somewhat stronger horror content than some others of the series; in fact, the two biggest scenes (the discovery of the body and the final trap to catch the killer) both involve seances. Herbert Mundin performs comic relief duty as the butler here, and horror fans may recognize Egon Brecher from any number of horror movies, in particular THE BLACK CAT.

THE CRIMES OF STEPHEN HAWKE (1936)
Article #1350 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 11-24-2004
Posting Date: 4-23-2005
Directed by George King
Featuring Tod Slaughter, Marjorie Taylor, D.J. Williams

A series of brutal murders is being committed by a criminal known as The Spinebreaker, who is in reality a moneylender intent on making sure his daughter marries the right man.

It was only yesterday that I mentioned Eric Portman’s performance as one of the better things in the arty, pretentious CORRIDOR OF MIRRORS, and by coincidence, here he is again today, only in a movie that is the polar opposite of anything arty and pretentious. This is a Tod Slaughter film, and it’s pure, unadulterated barnstorming mellerdrammer. I’ve seen several of Tod’s movies so far, and up to this point, I would have found it hard to choose between them. That changes with this movie. Tod plays a moneylender (who really enjoys throwing women and children out of their homes and into the street) who moonlights as a serial killer; he has extra-powerful hands with which he can snap a man’s spine. Yet, somehow, this amoral fiend becomes the “hero” of the movie, as he ends up putting himself in peril in order to save his daughter (the one true love of his life) from being forced into marriage with a man she loathes. I even found myself almost cheering as he makes his stand near the end of the movie, and when he makes his final revelation to his daughter, a tear almost came to my eye. Yet, the movie never once denies its stagey origins, with its creaky direction, hammy acting, and hilariously campy dialogue. It even has a framing story about a radio broadcast, which eventually introduces Tod Slaughter as himself talking about his new old melodrama, and ends with an actually very amusing punch line. Really, there’s something rather deliciously perverse and almost subversive about the whole movie.

Never seen a Tod Slaughter movie? This is the one I’d recommend you try. Quite frankly, I’ve seen this sort of thing many times before without ever having seen anything quite like it. Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself.

(Talk about arty and pretentious; quoting Walt Whitman while reviewing a Tod Slaughter movie?)