DARKEST AFRICA (1936)
(Serial)
Article #1258 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 8-24-2004
Posting Date: 1-21-2005
Directed by B. Reeves Eason and Joseph Kane
Featuring Clyde Beatty, Manuel King, Elaine Shepherd

An animal trainer undertakes to help a young jungle boy rescue his sister from the clutches of a power-hungry high priest from the lost city of Joba.

If my sources are correct, this was the first Republic serial, and even at this point I can see a marked improvement over the previous Clyde Beatty serial, THE LOST JUNGLE. This time the curiosity value is upped a notch by the inclusion not only of Beatty, but of Manuel King (“The Youngest Animal Trainer of All Time”) as the jungle boy. The fantastic elements are much more pronounced here, as the lost city of Joba is inhabited largely by winged flying men known as Bat Men. Watching them on the wing is actually quite a bit of fun, even if you can tell they’re obviously miniatures in some scenes (though not all) and certain flying sequences are repeated ad infinitum (spot how many times we see the same shot of a Bat Men flying away from us with leafless trees in the background). The guys playing the Bat Men don’t get credited by name, though; they are listed simply as Bat Men in the credits. For that matter, neither does Ray “Crash” Corrigan, who is billed (as he was in ZAMBA) by the name of the gorilla he plays (in this case, “Bonga”). For those who remember THE LOST JUNGLE, there is no sign of Syd Saylors in this one (the guy with the bobbing necktie), but the comic relief character Hambone is painful, and you can be thankful that he appears only intermittently.

DEMON HUNTER (1965)
(a.k.a. THE LEGEND OF BLOOD MOUNTAIN)
Article #1230 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 7-27-2004
Posting Date: 12-24-2004
Directed by Massey Cramer
Featuring George Ellis, Marianne Gordon, Erin Fleming

A reporter hopes to get his big break by covering the story of the monster of Blood Mountain.

Our hero’s name is Bestoink Dooley.

He’s fat, incompetent, and looks kind of like Zero Mostel.

He eats cookies and drinks milk in bed while listening to an Easy Listening radio station. We have an extended sequence in this movie where he does this. By the way, I’m fairly sure whoever was responsible for the music on the Easy Listening station was responsible for the rest of the music in the movie as well.

His boss doesn’t want Bestoink in his office because he knocks ashtrays into his lap and steps on his cigars.

Bestoink dreams of having beautiful women give him drinks and hand him cigars. He then dreams his name is in the headlines.

We see lots of scenes of Bestoink walking. We see lots of scenes of Bestoink driving. On the plus side, Bestoink has a cool antique car.

Bestoink interviews a man who wants to talk about the annual cemetery cleaning. It appears that this is the big event of the town.

The legend of Blood Mountain is that when a bloodstain appears on the mountain, the monster is loose. He tears the hearts out of his victims and drinks their blood. Bestoink is too fast for him, though.

My print runs 65 minutes. The actual movie runs 76 minutes. Apparently, the video is missing 11 minutes of footage. Unfortunately, the footage appears to be from the middle of the movie. If they kept the whole interminable beginning of the movie in favor of this eleven minutes in the middle, I can only speculate on how bad it must have been.

I think the movie is a comedy. It’s hard to tell with nary a laugh in sight.

I could go on, but why bother? This one’s a stinker, pure and simple. It’s one of those movies that continues running its footage in blithe ignorance of the fact that absolutely nothing is happening for most of its length. It’s the cinematic equivalent of watching paint dry; it’s as exciting, as emotionally fulfilling, and as interesting to write about.

I lost 65 minutes of my life today.

I have nothing more to say.

DUNGEON OF HARROW (1962)
Article #1152 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-10-2004
Posting Date: 10-7-2004
Directed by Pat Boyette
Featuring Russ Harvey, Helen Hogan, William McNulty

A noble gets stranded on an island with the mad Count Lorente de Sade.

Imagine you’re watching THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME….

Now imagine watching THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME done on a budget that would barely cover the cost of a pack of Juicy Fruit…

Throw in some lepers and some torture…

Now throw in some people to recite the dialogue in the script. I’d call them actors except that would be misleading…

Now imagine these actors delivering their dialogue. Except it isn’t dialogue they’re reciting. It’s a series of lengthy speeches. Therefore, imagine them speechifying…

Imagine them speechifying badly….

Imagine them speechifying badly and very very slooooooooowly…

Imagine our hero describing his emotions and feelings in voice-over narration. Imagine being grateful at having him let you know how he’s feeling because there’s no way you could have seen it on his face…

Imagine a shipwreck scene that is shot so darkly that it almost (but not quite) completely obscures the fact that the boat is obviously a badly designed toy…

Imagine a scene that takes place in a cabin on the boat during a storm that is even less convincing than the cockpit sequences in PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE…

Imagine sound quality worse than that of a Herschell Gordon Lewis movie…

Imagine that the guy who directed the acting was also responsible for the script as well as the music. Imagine that his level of competence is about equal on all these tasks….

Now imagine that you’re not imagining.

Okay, you can run screaming now.

DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE (1968)
Article #1151 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-9-2004
Posting Date: 10-6-2004
Directed by Freddie Francis
Featuring Chrisopher Lee, Rupert Davies, Veronica Carlson

Dracula is resurrected only to find that his castle has been exorcised and the door is barred by a cross. He vows revenge on the Monsignor responsible for this.

Watching movies is a very individual experience. Something in a movie that can distract and bother one viewer may be easily glossed over or even go unnoticed by the second. Furthermore, an interesting touch or telling detail may make a great deal of difference to one viewer but mean nothing to another. It’s not really a matter of good or bad as much as a mark of the individuality of each of us. For example, I myself generally have no trouble with continuity errors and usually don’t notice them.

I only bring this point up to mention that I did notice certain continuity errors that distracted me during this movie. I only noticed these because they involved details that had significant impacts on the plots at certain points; because a previous scene had clearly established the importance of certain details, it seemed very obvious to me when the a following scene failed to follow up on the detail. I won’t mention the details, as I feel continuity-error hunting can take the fun out of a movie and there’s always a chance that another viewer may not notice. Nonetheless, despite these distractions, I did find this a fairly entertaining entry in Hammer’s Dracula series. Though in some ways I miss the presence of Cushing, there really is no role for him here, and the fact that the final battle with Dracula pits him against characters who are all too fallible and vulnerable (one is an atheist whose disbelief in God leaves him without the spiritual strength to effectively battle this fiend, and a priest whose lack of will makes him a too-easy prey; in fact, he’s Dracula’s helper for most of the movie). Christopher Lee is given dialogue this time, though it is kept to a minimum. Everyone does well, with special honors to Lee and to Rupert Davies as the Monsignor.

DORIAN GRAY (1970)
(a.k.a. THE SECRET OF DORIAN GRAY)
Article #1150 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-8-2004
Posting Date: 10-5-2004
Directed by Massimo Dallamano
Featuring Helmut Berger, Richard Todd, Herbert Lom

A young man wishes that a painting of him would age in his place, and the wish comes true.

It’s no surprise that this one was made; after all, the more permissive times of the sixties onwards opened up the gates for making explicit all the debauchery that is hinted at in the story. Unfortunately, the sex, violence and nudity is handled in that rather cheap, sleazy and exploitative style common to the time which undercuts the elegance and wit which are necessary in any handling of an Oscar Wilde story. Only Herbert Lom (in the character played by George Sanders in the 1945 version) manages to convey those qualities, but even with him, the few lines that actually come from Wilde himself seem out of place with the rest of the production. It was also a bit of a mistake to update the story to modern times; since the story itself takes place over a few decades, it’s hard to believe that any time is passing when the styles at the beginning of the movie look just the same as the styles at the end of the movie, which is a problem that is less noticeable when you leave the story in a period setting. The acting is mostly acceptable, though, and Helmut Berger is well cast in the title role. Nevertheless, when I want to see this story again, I know that it’s the 1945 version I will seek out.

DR. ORLOFF’S MONSTER (1964)
(a.k.a. EL SECRETO DEL DR. ORLOFF)
Article #1148 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-6-2004
Posting Date: 10-3-2004
Directed by Jesus Franco
Featuring Hugo Blanco, Agnes Speak, Perla Cristal

Dr. Conrad Jekyll uses a robot monster to murder women to whom he has given necklaces.

I really dread covering Jesus Franco films, not necessarily because I find them unwatchable but rather because of his reputation; his merits as a director are so hotly contested that you can find opinions as diverse as those that consider him an unqualified genius and those who consider him the worst director of all time. You would think that any director capable of inspiring these strongly divided reactions would at least inspire some strong reaction in me, but such is not the case. I find his movies neither particularly unwatchable nor particularly compelling.

In the case of this movie, I find the story coherent but ordinary. The characters in the story are developed serviceably enough to get by, but I don’t find them all that interesting. He has a nice visual sense at times, but it never really seems to inspire me to anything more than a comment like “That’s a nice shot of a castle.” His most striking quality is his tendency toward sleaze, but here that seems muted; the movie features nudity that feels both gratuitous but passionless. My overall reaction after watching the movie was somewhat akin to my reaction to driving to work in the morning; it’s not something I react to but something that I do because I have to.

In short, I have no idea as of yet as to why Franco elicits the reactions that he does. Maybe I’ll know with the next movie of his I see. Maybe not.

DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1941)
Article #1146 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-4-2004
Posting Date: 10-1-2004
Directed by Victor Fleming
Featuring Spencer Tracy, Ingrid Bergman, Lana Turner

A doctor experiments with a drug that ends up bringing out his evil side.

There is a controversy among horror fans as to which version of the Robert Louis Stevenson story is better; this one featuring Spencer Tracy or the 1932 version with Fredric March. First of all, I find it interesting that these two in particular are singled out for the competition, whereas the John Barrymore version from 1920 doesn’t enter into the fray. Having now seen the Tracy version for the first time in years, I’ve developed a bit of a theory about that, and that is that these two movies are so similar (I think there are several chunks of dialogue that are identical) that in watching them both, you get the sense that one of them is unnecessary. The question is – which one?

Rouben Mamoulian was a very flamboyant director, whereas Victor Fleming was more the seasoned professional; the 1932 version is certainly more audacious, but there are times where the direction in that version distractingly calls attention to itself, a problem that never occurs in the 1941 version. I also like certain touches and details in this one, including that of allowing Hyde to look much more human than in the 1932 version; after all, Hyde’s monstrousness is psychological rather than physical. I also think the acting is slightly better throughout the 1941 version, and the movie has a subtler touch throughout.

However, one big problem with the 1941 version is that it was made after the Hays office went into effect. As a result, much of the ferociousness of the 1932 version is not to be found here; everything looks neater, cleaner and classier, and the whole movie feels a lot more polite. Also, this version is a good 20 minutes longer than the 1932 version, and this is most noticeable during the scenes with Ingrid Bergman, which go on much longer than the equivalent scenes in the 1932 version, no doubt increasing the size of her role. Furthermore, though I think she’s a better actress than Miriam Hopkins, she also feels a little too classy for the role, and when she’s trying to be seductive and sexy, I find her less believable. As to which does a better job with the title characters (Tracy or March), I’m willing to call that a draw, as I really don’t have a preference.

So how does it balance out? Well, in my case I’d have to go with the March version. Not only do I feel it’s a more efficient telling of the story, but the first time I saw it, it blew me away, and that’s something the Tracy version never managed to do. Not that this will settle the controversy, by any means; I feel both movies will be watched and discussed for years to come.

THE DEVIL’S MESSENGER (1961)
Article #1145 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-3-2004
Posting Date: 9-30-2004
Directed by Herbert L. Strock and others
Featuring Lon Chaney Jr., Karen Kadler, Michael Hinn

The devil picks a recent suicide to deliver items to various people to lure them to hell.

How about that; I’m watching a movie that consists of several episodes of a failed TV series that is hosted by a horror icon. When was the last time I covered one of those?

This time, the series was a Swedish horror anthology from Curt Siodmak called “13 Demon Street”. The individual episodes here aren’t bad, but they don’t exactly sparkle, either. The first one is probably the best; it involves a photographer who finds himself haunted by one of his photographs after he commits a rape/murder. The second starts well (a woman is found frozen alive in a block of ice for 5000 years), but ends lamely, and the third (about a man discovering his destiny in a dilapidated old building) is just average. The linking story is fun, though; Lon Chaney Jr. really seems to be enjoying his role as the devil If it does seem to be taking a long time to wind up after the third story, you might want to stick with it; it has one of those meaningful endings that is quite likely to elicit horselaughs because it comes totally out of left field. And wait until you find out who will receive the last delivery.

DESTINATION NIGHTMARE (1958)
Article #1143 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-1-2004
Posting Date: 9-28-2004
Directed by Paul Landres and others
Featuring Boris Karloff, Denise Alexander, Tod Andrews

Boris Karloff hosts four tales that pierce the veil.

If the above plot description doesn’t clue you off, then I’ll tell you this is another compilation of episodes from the unsold TV series “The Veil” stitched together to make a feature. The series was fairly uninspired and the episodes were indifferently written. Despite the presence of Karloff as both host and various characters, they weren’t really trying for scares; since they were based on purportedly true stories, the emphasis was more on making us wonder about the mysteries of the beyond. Unfortunately, the end result was all too often to have a lot of the running time being spent watching people be puzzled about the events without making any attempt to really understand them; it does make for a rather shallow experience.

This anthology does have a theme binding all four stories together; in this case, the theme is that of the dead influencing the lives of the living. Roughly, this divides into two different types of tales; the second and fourth are both ghost stories, of which the second (involving an apparition seen in the cockpit of an airplane) is the more interesting, as the fourth is predictably hackneyed. The first and the third deal with people who have been taken over by the personalities of dead people, the first via possession (an unsatisfying story that has some potential but really goes nowhere) and third involving reincarnation and the memory of a previous life. Both of these stories suffer quite a bit from the aformentioned “puzzled” sequences, though the third one does manage to have a real story to tell. Still, the main attraction here is the parade of familiar faces. Outside of Karloff, you might recognize Tod Andrews, Whit Bissell, Roy Engel, a young George Hamilton (in one of his earliest roles), and Myron Healy.

DEEP RED (1975)
(a.k.a. PROFONDO ROSSO)
Article #1142 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-30-2004
Posting Date: 9-27-2004
Directed by Dario Argento
Featuring David Hemmings, Daria Nicolodi, Gabriele Lavia

When a psychic is murdered after picking up the thoughts of a psychotic murderer, a witness to the crime tries to figure out who is responsible. He then finds that the killer is stalking him and anyone who helps him.

Certain movies in these series of write-ups represent landmarks in that they finally serve to introduce me to directors who have become well-known in the genre but who I haven’t yet encountered. This marks the first movie I’ve ever seen by Dario Argento, and though you can’t judge a director like this by one movie, it does serve as a starting point for an exploration of his work. I’ve heard Argento is a master stylist, and there are certainly scenes here that bear that out, particularly during the opening sequence. Other aspects of the movie do leave me less than satisfied. What follows is a list of some of my reactions to various aspects of the movie.

The dubbing – This was definitely a minus; my only print of this was dubbed, and I have no doubt that a subtitled print would have been much more effective. As it is, the dubbing was distracting.

The death scenes – The death scenes are inventively staged. However, some of them seemed a little more outrageous than was strictly necessary. In particular, the last two deaths seemed almost comic.

The story and plot points – Some of the plot points were brilliant and fascinating; my favorites included a message that could only be read with the help of hot water, and the revelation of the significance of the missing picture. On the other hand, some parts of the plot are quite muddled. Though they may sort themselves out on rewatching, I did find it hard to follow on a first watching.

The music – Though the movie makes great use of sound effects at times, and the use of the children’s song motif is quite unnerving, I found myself mostly irritated by the musical soundtrack by Goblin; melodically, it reminded me of those cheap, repetitive synthesizer tracks that passed for music on some of the cheaper made-for-video movies of the eighties.

In conclusion, I found the movie a very mixed bag. Though I can’t say that I was really satisfied with the movie as a whole, nonetheless, I do look forward to seeing more of Argento’s work and getting a better feel for it. There appears to be plenty of it out there.