THE DREAM OF A RAREBIT FIEND (1906)
Article #355 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 3-5-2002
Posting date: 7-22-2002

A man has nightmares after eating and drinking too much.

There’s really not an awful lot to say about this comic special-effects extravaganza by the man who directed THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY; largely a man eating, walking home drunk (this sequence, in which the lamppost sways and the world rushes by in a haze, is the most effective part), and then goes to bed and has Melies-style nightmares. It’s entertaining enough, but not quite as insanely bizarre as a Melies film would be.

DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1913)
Article #354 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 3-6-2002
Posting date: 7-21-2002

Dr. Jekyll experiments with a drug to bring out his evil side.

Uhh, King Baggott? Your Dr. Jekyll was stagey and artificial, but I’m quite willing to chalk that up to taste. But whoever told you that the way to make Mr. Hyde scary and threatening was to look like Jerry Lewis and walk like Groucho Marx was joking; I wouldn’t follow their advice if I were you.

Basically, another short (about 25 minutes) early version of the tale, and one of the weakest. Opt for Barrymore or Cruze; you’ll be glad you did.

DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE (1912)
Article #353 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 3-5-2002
Posting date: 7-20-2002

Dr. Jekyll experiments with drugs that bring out his evil side.

There’s not much you can do with a story in only ten minutes other than give a quick summary of the high points, but this one is not too bad. James Cruze actually does a quite good job in the role, and it covers most of the significant events in the story. Actually, not a bad introduction to the story, though you will want to choose one of the longer versions to flesh it all out.

THE DINOSAUR AND THE MISSING LINK (1915)
Article #352 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 3-4-2002
Posting date: 7-19-2002

Prehistoric shenanigans involving hapless cavemen, a dinosaur, and a missing link.

It’s described as a “prehistoric tragedy,” but in order to be that, you have to have something of a story. And though this early animated Willis O’Brien short is fun to watch, it really doesn’t have a story to speak of. The missing link is an ape-like creature in a tree.

THE DEVIL’S COMMANDMENT (1956)
Article #346 by Dave Sindelar
Posting date: 7-13-2002
Viewing date: 2-24-2002

A series of vampire-like murders are being committed in Paris. A reporter tries to unravel the cause of them.

I believe this was the horror movie that initiated the rise of Italian horror. Riccardo Freda is credited as the director, but Mario Bava was the cinematographer, and I know on my tape box he is credited as the director, but I myself really couldn’t say what the truth in this matter is. What I can say is that it looks beautiful, and that I feel lucky to have a subtitled Italian language copy (called I VAMPIRI), rather than the dubbed and edited English language one. There really aren’t any vampires in this movie (despite the title), but I don’t want to give away what it is, though I will go so far as to say that it is a familiar enough horror situation. It gets a little far-fetched at times, particularly when a man is accidentally brought to life, but it tells its story in an interesting way, and is quite enjoyable.

THE DEADLY BEES (1966)
Article #345 by Dave Sindelar
Posting date: 7-12-2002
Viewing date: 2-23-2002

A pop star suffering from a mental breakdown goes to an island to have a restful retreat, but gets caught up in a swarm of deaths committed by killer bees.

I have to admit that in all these years I’ve never been able to figure out who Michael Ripper was, so I made a definite attempt to recognize which character he was playing and fix it in my memory so I could learn to spot him. He’s the bartender here, and I will say this about him; he’s one of the few characters in this dull movie that isn’t unpleasant, unlikeable, or tiresome. There’s no doubt that the movie does have a little impact, if for no other reason than that bees are insects that always leave one feeling a little on edge. However, there is little else to recommend in this one; there are a lot of scenes that go nowhere, subplots that are never developed and dropped, and more repeated footage than is strictly necessary. In other words, it has all the indication of having been heavily padded to fill out the running time. And I found Suzanne Leigh quite unconvincing as a pop star, especially during her big number at the beginning. And was that opening group called The Birds? If they are, whatever you do, don’t mistake them for The Byrds!

DAUGHTER OF DR. JEKYLL (1957)
Article #282 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 12-22-2001
Posting date: 5-8-2002

A woman returns to her home on her 21st birthday with the man she is going to marry. She discovers that she is the daughter of Dr. Jekyll, and tries to call off the marriage in belief she has inherited the family curse.

Forget the Dr. Jekyll connection; this movie has nothing really to do with the Stevenson story; for one thing, Jekyll was not a werewolf who died by having a stake driven through his heart (talk about mixing up legendary mythologies). If you’ve seen SHE-WOLF OF LONDON, you’ve seen this one before; the only addition to the mix is a real monster instead of a faked one, but even this opens up a whole new set of plot holes. Gloria Talbott does the best she can, but this is still a rotten movie. Also with John Agar, Arthur Shields and John Dierkes (as Jacob, the suspicious manservant). Edgar G. Ulmer has done better.

THE DEVIL’S DAUGHTER (1939)
(a.k.a. POCOMANIA)
Article #263 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 12-4-2001
Posting date: 4-19-2002

When a woman returns to Jamaica from her trip to Harlem, her jealous sister tries to scare her off the plantation with voodoo ceremonies.

You know, there’s just something a little fascinating about this all-black cast movie; with all the usual Hollywood touches (including a dice-throwing comic relief character), there are touches of what feels like authenticity scattered throughout. Not in the plot, mind you; that is strictly by the book. It’s in the music and the dancing, and the way that, for example, the voodoo ceremony doesn’t feel quite as silly or contrived as it does in so many other movies; it captures a world that we rarely see in movies. And even though they’re hardly what you could call classy affairs, these all-black films of the thirties did offer blacks a greater variety of roles than were to be found in the more conventional Hollywood product of the time.

I can’t help but notice, however, this is my second movie in a row that features a cockfight. I hope this doesn’t portend a trend…

DRACULA VS. FRANKENSTEIN (1971)
Article #184 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-16-2001
Posting date: 1-30-2002

The evil Dr. Durea performs horrendous experiments in the laboratory inside his house of horrors in an amusement park using the decapitated bodies supplied to him by his subhuman assistant Groton. He is actually Dr. Frankenstein, and is approached by Dracula concerning an experiment to revive the Frankenstein monster.

This is not the Paul Naschy film THE MAN WHO CAME FROM UMMO under one of its many alternate titles; this is the one from Al Adamson, himself no slacker in coming up with alternate titles for his work. I consider Adamson as something of an heir to Jerry Warren’s throne, with his tendency to take existing movies and add new footage to them, with the difference being that, with the exception of VAMPIRE MEN OF THE LOST PLANET, most of the movies Adamson tinkered with were his own movies. If the movie sounds like a mess, it is: the original version of this movie had no Frankenstein or Dracula in it. He added those characters afterwards, and tried to tie it in by bringing back Regina Carrol and J. Carrol Naish to do a few scenes with Dracula (Zandor Vorkov) and the Frankenstein Monster (John Bloom) who I’ve given the name of Ol’ Lumpy. Lon Chaney Jr. is hard to watch as Groton, playing another one of those mute brutes of his, and J. Carrol Naish doesn’t fare much better, though at least they gave him dialogue; this would be the end of the line for both of these actors. Angelo Rossitto is also on hand, as well as Russ Tamblyn, Anthony Eisley, and Forry Ackerman as the first victim of Frankenstein’s monster. Zandor Vorkov may be the worst Dracula I’ve ever seen; he has curly black hair, a white face (not pale, but white) and red lips, and all his lines are spoken through an echo box.

I will admit that I have uses for this sort of movie; being a puzzle fan, I do like to try to sort out which footage belonged to the original movie and which was added later; this movie was fairly easy in that regard. But I’ve never been a fan of the mean-spirited and cruel streak that runs through Adamson’s work; I always get the sense I’m supposed to either enjoy or get some aesthetic satisfaction out of watching his characters suffer, and I never do.

DRACULA, PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1966)
Article #183 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-15-2001
Posting date: 1-29-2002

Four travellers spend the night at Dracula’s castle despite being warned against doing so. There they encounter a sinister manservant, and eventually, Dracula himself.

The sets are striking and the use of color is very nice throughout this entry in Hammer’s Dracula series, but despite this, I have to admit I find this one tedious. Part of the problem may be the pace of the movie; to my eyes, each scene seems to last a little longer than it really should to hold my attention. Another part of the problem may be that there is nothing in the movie that really surprises; the movie is made up for the most part of elements I’ve seen all too often in vampire movies, with the possible exception of how Dracula meets his fate at the end of the movie. I’ve heard it said that the movie is character oriented, but outside of Barbara Shelley’s performance of an inhibited prude who turns lustful upon becoming a vampire, I find the characters to be singularly dull and talky. I wish they had given Christopher Lee some dialogue, though reportedly he hated the dialogue they gave him; at any rate, I also wish Peter Cushing was on hand to enliven the proceedings (and though there are many who disagree with me, I find Andrew Keir’s Father Sandor character to be an unsatisfactory substitute).

Still, it’s a lot classier than the next one in line.