THE CURIOUS FEMALE (1970)
Article #916 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 9-17-2003
Posting Date: 2-14-2004
Directed by Paul Rapp
Featuring Angelique Pettyjohn, Charlene Jones, Bunny Allister

In the future, a group of rebels fight against the dystopian regime of the master computer by watching dirty movies from 1969.

To get an accurate idea of what this movie is like, I’d suggest you ignore everything but the last four words of the above plot description; the science fiction aspects of this movie only exist to give the movie a chance to end on a lame joke. All we have here is your basic late-sixties softcore porn movie, and it’s of minimal interest to fans of fantastic cinema, unless you just absolutely have to see the movie because of Angelique Pettyjohn. At least ORGY OF THE DEAD is sporadically entertaining…

THE CABINET OF CALIGARI (1962)
Article #915 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 9-16-2003
Posting Date: 2-13-2004
Directed by Roger Kay
Featuring Dan O’Herlihy, Glynis Johns, Constance Ford

When a woman’s car gets a flat tire, she goes to an isolated house to get help, and then finds herself trapped inside with a mysterious doctor.

I’ve heard conflicting reports as to whether this movie was a remake of the classic 1919 Robert Wiene version, and for the most part it is not. It does, however, borrow at least one crucial element from the original, and therein lies the problem. The element that is borrowed is a plot point which is only effective if it comes as a surprise at a crucial moment in the story; however, I figured out that this plot point was coming almost five minutes into the movie, because it seemed to me to be the only logical explanation for the events that were happening. Unfortunately, knowing this plot point ahead of time short-circuits the movie in terms of suspense and horror, and as a result, I found the movie deeply uninvolving, despite the existence of strong Freudian elements and some memorable visual moments. A further problem was the casting of Glynis Johns in the lead role; her voice and facial expresssions were singularly ineffectual in helping her bring this role to life. As a result, the whole movie feels like a game, and one that wasn’t much fun. It actually might have helped, though, if they had retitled the movie and renamed one of the characters so that any connection between this one and the Wiene movie would have vanished; as it is, this movie utterly fails to surprise, and I can only consider it a disappointment.

A CONNECTICUT YANKEE (1931)
Article #911 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 9-12-2003
Posting Date: 2-9-2004
Directed by David Butler
Featuring Will Rogers, William Farnum, Frank Albertson

A radio repairman finds himself in the times of King Arthur, and uses his knowledge of history and science to rise to power.

This Mark Twain novel was well-adapted to the persona of Will Rogers, whose talent seemed to be the ability to make satirical jabs that were cute, folksy, charming and palatable to an audience that really didn’t have a taste for satire, and when you think about it, that’s no small accomplishment. Most of the gags are of two sorts; Will Rogers’ observations on the events around him or the various anachronistic devices he creates to help King Arthur. On top of the general fantasy nature of the story, the movie actually has touches of horror and science fiction as well; the story really begins in a spooky house on a stormy night, and an inventor has created a machine that is able to hear sounds from the past; for a while, I found myself wondering if the machine would come into play in sending Rogers back to the Dark Ages (thus making it an early cinematic time machine), but it doesn’t pan out that way. Overall, it’s a very entertaining rendition of the story.

CASTLE IN THE DESERT (1942)
Article #909 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 9-10-2003
Posting Date: 2-7-2004
Directed by Harry Lachman
Featuring Sidney Toler, Victor Sen Yung, Richard Derr

Charlie Chan receives a letter from a descendant of Lucrezia Borgia, who thinks she is being framed for murder.

I’ve covered several of the Charlie Chan movies so far, but this is the first one I’ve seen to feature Sidney Toler rather than Warner Oland. I’ve generally heard that Sidney Toler was nowhere near as popular in the role as Oland, and I have to admit that I prefer Oland as well; his performances as Chan always seemed unassuming and thoughtful, whereas Toler just seems to be uninvolved. Nevertheless, this is a fairly entertaining entry in the series, with some very funny lines on occasion, and Henry Daniell is present as one of the suspects. The fantastic elements are very slight; there are murders by crossbow, and a torture chamber is present in the castle, but other than scaring Victor Sen Yung in a couple of scenes, it really doesn’t play into the plot at all. Therefore, I have to consign this one to the realms of marginalia.

COMIN’ ROUND THE MOUNTAIN (1951)
Article #899 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 8-31-2003
Posting Date: 1-28-2004
Directed by Charles Lamont
Featuring Bud Abbott, Lou Costello, Dorothy Shay

An escape artist discovers he is the grandson of a hillbilly named Squeezebox McCoy, and may be the heir to a fortune.

There are a few laughs to be had in this Abbott and Costello outing, in particular during a discussion between Bud and Lou about a forty-year-old man in love with a ten-year-old girl. However, most of the movie is fairly lame hillbilly slapstick combined with Dorothy Shay’s novelty musical numbers. The part of the story that moves this one into the realms of the fantastic is when the boys encounter a witch (Margaret Hamilton—how’s that for typecasting?) to get a love potion; this is also one of the better scenes, as the witch makes a voodoo doll of Lou and Lou returns the favor. It’s also fun to see the boys team up with Glenn Strange again; here playing Devil Dan Winfield, who ends up drinking the potion at one point (and you don’t want to know with whom he falls in love). It’s not the boys’ best by a long shot, but it has its moments.

A CHRISTMAS CAROL (1938)
Article #898 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 8-30-2003
Posting Date: 1-27-2004
Directed by Edwin L. Marin
Featuring Reginald Owen, Gene Lockhart, Kathleen Lockhart

Three things no one needs: 1) Last week’s TV schedule, 2) Paper toothpicks, and 3) One-sentence plot descriptions of A CHRISTMAS CAROL.

I don’t know how many versions of this Dickens Christmas perennial are out there, but I suspect that if I covered them all in a row, it might well take two to three weeks to finish them all. As far as the ones with which I’m familiar, this one isn’t quite up to the later Alastair Sims version, but is worlds better than the Seymour Hicks version from a few years earlier. The basic rules for pulling off a version of this story are simple; 1) get the spirit right, 2) know what the key scenes are in the story, and 3) have a decent Scrooge. This one does a solid job with the story, and as such is very effective. In some ways, it’s hard to go wrong with this story; the basic theme that choosing to engage in the joy of the Christmas season actively contributes to the joy of oneself and others is very resonant, and there is always something healing about watching a good version of the story. This version is certainly no exception.

CAREFREE (1938)
Article #897 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 8-29-2003
Posting Date: 1-26-2004
Directed by Mark Sandrich
Featuring Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers, Ralph Bellamy

A psychiatrist agrees to analyze his friend’s girlfriend, and ends up falling in love with her.

This is one of the pleasant surprises about taking a fairly wide view in this survey of fantastic cinema; I really didn’t expect to be covering any other Fred Astaire movies than ON THE BEACH or GHOST STORY. But here I am, touching upon one of those wonderful RKO musicals he made with Ginger Rogers during the thirties, and it gets in the gate by featuring a certain amount of hypnotism, a scene that takes place in a dream, and a sequence where Fred Astaire’s mirror reflection talks back to him. The plot is pretty nonsensical, but that’s not why you watch a movie like this; you watch it to see Fred Astaire dance, with or without Ginger Rogers, and this is an experience I find heavenly. In fact, if this movie is a disappointment at all, it’s because there’s not enough dancing and a little too much comedy, though in all honesty the comedy is pretty good. Ralph Bellamy once again finds himself in the role of a boyfriend whose girl is destined to fall in love with the leading man, as he was in HIS GIRL FRIDAY.

Quite frankly, the magic of watching Fred Astaire dance makes me want to take up the art itself. For that matter, I’d take up golf if I could play it while dancing like Fred Astaire (as he does here).

CARRY ON SPYING (1964)
Article #828 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 6-21-2003
Posting Date: 11-18-2003
Directed by Gerald Thomas
Featuring Kenneth Williams, Bernard Cribbins, Barbara Windsor

A spy organization sends out their worst agent along with new trainees to recover a secret formula.

Title Check: Since “Carry On” was a whole series, and this one is about spies, I don’t know what else they could call it.

All I really knew about the Carry On series from direct experience was having seen a trailer for one of the series in the late seventies at my local drive-in (incidentally, the movie never came to the drive-in). From what I could tell, the movie was basically about women ending up in their underwear. With that fact in mind, and knowing that this one was about spying, I fully expected that it was going to be like watching THE AMBUSHERS all over again; fortunately, this wasn’t quite that bad, as their is a greater variety of humor here than there was in that one. Nonetheless, I found it only sporadically funny; outside of making the main villain a hermaphrodite of sorts, I thought there was precious little inventiveness at work here. Which is not to say that the occasional gag doesn’t strike home; there are some decent ones here. It was just painfully obvious to me that this was part of a series of movies that were churned out on a regular basis, just like the Bowery Boys were here in the USA. And I wouldn’t watch too many of these in a row; Kenneth William’s smarmy nasal delivery gets awfully tiresome after a while.

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971)
Article #801 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-25-2003
Posting Date: 10-12-2003
Directed by Stanley Kubrick
Featurning Malcolm McDowell, Patrick Magee, Michael Bates

A violent hoodlum in the future is sent to prison, and ends up taking part in an experimental behavior modification technique in order to get an early release.

Title check: Actually, I once read an article somewhere about the titling of movies that made specific mention of this one; the gist of the article was that the title makes no sense unless it’s explained to you. The book includes the explanation, but the movie does not. I’d say this pretty much sums up anything I might say about the title.

This is a tough movie to cover, at least partly due to the fact that I’ve read at least one essay about the movie (in Danny Peary’s Cult Movies book) that has had a huge effect on my own thoughts on the movie, and a great deal of what I would say about it has already been covered there; consequently, I can’t really claim that much of what I’ll say will be truly original, those who want to go to the article mentioned should feel free to do so.

I won’t argue about the brilliance of the movie; Stanley Kubrick has a sharp visual sense, and he actually does an amazing job of presenting the story in such a way that the repugnance doesn’t drive you away. However, he handles the movie in such a way that he tries to make you sympathize with Alex, a truly repellant character. He does this by making him the only character with many sides to his personality; for the most part, all the other characters are only shown at their least endearing. Unfortunately, this sets up some real moral conflicts for me as a viewer; I don’t want to sympathize or identify with this man, but he’s the only character for which I’m given this opportunity. As for the message of the movie, I’m not sure what it is or whether one even exists, though it is quite possible that I just don’t see it (or don’t want to see it). If there is anything I do get out of this movie, it’s that film can be a very powerful thing; not only are movies used as a crucial manipulative element in the Ludovico technique in the movie itself, but the movie’s strong attempt to try to get us to identify with the main character further bears that out. Still, it is important to realize that the movie is highly stylized; some of the characters are cartoons (the Michael Bates character in particular), and others are used in a purely manipulative fashion. Consequently, any messages the movie might deliver may have little relevance in the real world, and caution should definitely be used to apply them to a real world environment.

CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG (1968)
Article #800 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-24-2003
Posting Date: 10-11-2003
Directed by Ken Hughes
Featuring Dick Van Dyke, Sally Ann Howes, Lionel Jeffries

An inventor tries to raise money to save a car that turns out to be magical.

Title check: Personally, I think the title is perfect for a movie about an old car that turns out to be magical; it even has a nice rhythmic feel appropriate to a musical.

As a child I had really wanted to see this movie; I had the Big Little Book and a sticker coloring book about it, and I was really hoping to see the movie when it came around to my area. I never got the chance, and I didn’t see it until many years later, and was pretty dismayed by what I saw then.

Considering the role the movie played in my personal history and my ultimate disappointment, I found myself being quite curious to see what I would think about this movie when it came up on my viewing list. For about the first third of the movie, I really didn’t see any major problems, though seeing that the movie ran a good two and a half hours made me quite apprehensive; it actually had a nice charm to it. It’s only at the halfway point that it really starts screwing up; while the first half of the movie had a light, whimsical touch to it (all it really needed was some pruning), the second half is frantic, strident, loud, overbearing and full of desperate slapstick; it was at this point that the movie became actively annoying and unpleasant. I also felt queasy about the scene where the Baron (in his pajamas) flirts with the Baroness (in what I think are supposed to be some fairly elaborate Victorian undergarments) while trying to kill her; not only is the scene totally unnecessary to the story, I also had strong misgivings as to whether it was really appropriate for children. Some of the songs aren’t too bad, but there are way too many; I think the pacing of the movie could be improved immeasurably if a good half of the songs were axed and most of the rest abbreviated somewhat; unfortunately, even that wouldn’t quite save that second half. However, I do like the design of the car (though the special effects are pretty weak for what was supposed to be a big movie) and Dick Van Dyke’s performance.

On a side note, this movie is number 800 in the series, and I couldn’t help but notice that this movie has something in common with number 700 (DR. NO); the original story is by Ian Fleming, the creator of James Bond. The producer was Albert Broccoli, who was also responsible for the Bond movies, and Ken Hughes was one of the people who worked on the movie version of CASINO ROYALE.