FLESH AND FANTASY (1943)
Article #651 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-26-2002
Posting Date: 5-21-2003

A man finds himself in a quandary after a fortune teller makes one prediction for him and his dreams make the opposite prediction, so a friend tries to help him by telling him three stories about precognizance.

This is the anthology from which the story that became the movie DESTINY (1944) was taken. The first story, about an ugly woman in love with a student wearing the mask of a beautiful woman during Mardi Gras is the weakest, with a fairly obvious ending and the annoying habit of pounding the viewer on the head with the meaning of the story. Thankfully, the other two stories, one of which deals with a man who is told by a palm reader that he will commit murder and the other about a tightrope walker who dreams he will have a fatal accident, are much better. I particularly like the one with about the fortune teller, as it features Edward G. Robinson, one of my favorite actors, but there are other familiar faces in these last two stories, such as Dame May Whitty, C. Aubrey Smith, Thomas Mitchell (instantly recognizable as the palm reader), Charles Boyer (as the tightrope walker) and Barbara Stanwyck. The second story has an almost dark and subtle humor to it, while the final story definitely takes some unexpected but satisfying twists. All in all, a solid anthology movie; it’s not as good as DEAD OF NIGHT, as the framing story is nowhere near as engaging as the one for that movie, but it is amusing enough and features Robert Benchley.

FAIL-SAFE (1964)
Article #606 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 11-11-2002
Posting date: 4-7-2003

An accident sends several American planes to Russia to bomb Moscow with atomic bombs. The president and the military try to prevent the planes from reaching their destination.

This movie has a few small problems; it starts out rather slow and gets a little preachy before it’s all through. However, its worst problem didn’t have anything to do with the movie itself; it came out just about the same time as Stanley Kubrick’s brilliant DR. STRANGELOVE, and though that was a comedy and this one is a straight drama, so many of the plot elements are so similar that it is hard to watch this movie and not find yourself constantly being reminded of the other movie. This is a bit of a shame, as this movie is worthwhile on its own merit, with fine performances throughout and building up to an excellent climax. There are many familiar faces to be found here, including Henry Fonda, Walter Matthau, Fritz Weaver (his big screen debut), and a young Dom Deluise; it’s interesting that two actors primarily known for their comic roles appear in this serious movie.

THE FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS (1967)
Article #596 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 11-1-2002
Posting date: 3-27-2003

A professor and his assistant encounter vampires in the snowbound wilds of Transylvania.

Roman Polanski is one of those great directors who has spent a lot of his energy on cinema of the fantastic, and I can’t help but be vastly amused that he decided to take on the rather dubious genre of the horror comedy here. He doesn’t even blanche at using slapstick humor throughout, though it’s certainly done with a lot more grace than you would expect from the Three Stooges, for example. It’s not my favorite horror comedy of all time (I can think of a few others that give me a lot more laughs), but it is genuinely amusing, clever, and strikingly beautiful to look at. I find it fascinating in particular that he chose to set the movie during the winter months; the vast fields of snow that serve as a backdrop to the action give the movie a unique ambience that is quite unlike any other vampire movie I know of. He has a lot of fun with certain vampire cliches; not only does this movie have one of the first openly gay vampires, but it also has one of the first Jewish comic relief vampires that I’ve noticed in a movie (and guess what defense against vampires is of little use against them?). I also can’t help but notice how mirrors, usually used to spot the vampires, end up playing a crucial role in helping the vampires to spot the humans at one crucial juncture of the story.

THE FIGHTING MARINES (1935)
(Serial)
Article #571 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 10-7-2002
Posting date: 3-2-2003

Marines try to establish a base on Halfway Island, but find themselves dealing with a masked villain known as the Tiger Shark.

Do they fight? They sure do. And you’ll know they do from the very first episode of this serial, where they do battle for possession of an island set (though you think the government could have seen their way clear to giving them rifles instead of pistols). And in case you miss the rip-roaring first episode of this serial, hang on for episode four, where the whole sequence gets repeated (just wait until you hear one of the characters say something like “Remember that time you saved my life…” and keep your eyes pealed). In fact, not only does this serial reuse its own footage in episode four, both episodes seven and eleven largely consist of footage from earlier episodes; I guess Mascot was making damn sure this one didn’t go over budget. It also suffers from a bad case of “cliffhangerus cheatus”, an affliction by which the makers feel it necessary to change the footage from last week’s cliffhanger in order to find a way to let our heros survive. Nonetheless, it’s an entertaining enough serial anyway, and you can (sort of) tell the two heros apart. And it does keep the identity of the Tiger Shark a secret, though you won’t think so for the longest time.

FROGS (1972)
Article #548 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-14-2002
Posting date: 2-7-2003

Frogs on an island organize the animals to attack the family of a curmudgeonly tycoon.

For those of you interested in making a movie the caliber of FROGS, here are some big hints.

a) Shoot a scene of some character in the movie walking through the woods.

b) Have the camera pan away from that person to the frog (or lizard/amphibian of choice) looking hostile (or just looking, for that matter).

c) Repeat the above shot with slightly different characters and locations a hundred times.

d) If you can’t pan to a convenient animal, just edit in a shot of a frog.

e) Also, make sure to give each character at least one line of dialogue that establishes him or her. Don’t develop them much further than that; after all, they’ll be frog fodder before long, so who cares what they’re like.

f) Remember, if an idea is good once, it is good several times in a row. Therefore, if you have someone looking at a scary animal and screaming, it’s a good idea to have them do it again and again and again in quick succession.

There. Now you should be able to make a movie just like FROGS.

I remember the ads for this movie years ago with the shot of the frog with a human hand hanging out of his mouth. In its own way, this ad had a kind of witty silliness to it. If only the movie had a modicum of that wit.

And remember; a protracted death scene can be either harrowing or dull. I’m afraid the ones found here fall on the wrong side of that line.

FRANKENSTEIN – 1970 (1958)
Article #547 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-13-2002
Posting date: 2-6-2003

A descendant of the original Dr. Frankenstein is engaged in experiments of his own.

This movie starts out with a bang with a thrilling chase through a swamp, so you know the people who made it were capable of shooting an exciting film; unfortunately, it turns out the scene is from a movie being shot in the area rather than a part of the movie itself, and this rather disappointing revelation leads us into the real story, which leaves us with the feeling that we’d rather have seen the movie they were shooting. This lame variation on the Frankenstein tale makes the major mistake of keeping the monster in bandages from head to toe throughout the movie, and though this may be necessary for the final revelation, it certainly makes for a disappointing monster; the fact that his head seems to be the size and shape of a wastebasket doesn’t help, either. But I think the real disappointment here is Karloff’s performance; it’s the weakest one of his that I have seen. He seems to have been saddled with too many gimmicks, what with the big scar on his face and the exaggerated limp being more distracting than scary, and though he handles certain scenes quite well, there are others where he is overacting and seems somewhat desperate. This is a shame; a good performance from him might have lifted this dull movie immensely; as it is, it’s one of the least interesting movies with the Frankenstein name attached to it.

4D MAN (1959)
Article #546 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-12-2002
Posting date: 2-5-2003

A scientist develops the ability to pass through solid matter.

This was the second of three movies produced by Jack H. Harris and directed by Irwin S. Yeaworth, Jr., the first being THE BLOB and the third being DINOSAURUS!. They were made in an order of descending quality (IMHO), which means I think this one, though not as good as THE BLOB, is better than DINOSAURUS!. It does have definite strengths, particularly in the areas of story and character development. The character of Scott Nelson (excellently played by Robert Lansing) is so well established and the circumstances of his situation so well set forth that you understand fully why he takes to crime once he develops his abilities; these decisions don’t seem arbitrary or convenient. It’s also the most adult of the three movies, not as teen oriented as THE BLOB or child oriented as DINOSAURUS!. It does have problems, though; certain of the romance scenes early in the movie are too cutesy for words, for example. The biggest problem, though, is the soundtrack; the James Bond-style jazzy horn arrangements would be appropriate for light-hearted action fare (like James Bond) or for movies in which a kind of swank nightclub atmosphere was important, neither of which fit this movie; every time those horns come in, they’re intrusive and distracting, and draw your attention away from the seriousness of the characters and the situations. It’s still possible to appreciate the finer points of the movie, but it’s not easy, and I’d like it better if it had a more somber soundtrack.

FORBIDDEN PLANET (1956)
Article #545 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-11-2002
Posting date: 2-4-2003

A spaceship lands on a distant planet to check on the status of an expedition that went there years ago, but they discover that the only survivor is a scientist with his daughter.

Several years ago a local theatre (stage, not movie) put on a musical called “Return to the Forbidden Planet.” The interview in the newspaper about the production described it as a musical sequel to that “campy” science fiction movie of the fifties, FORBIDDEN PLANET, but they made the decision to pass up anything having directly to do with the movie in favor of just lifting their plot from “The Tempest” and taking a “Rocky Horror” approach to it. Somehow, I got the feeling from the article that they were expecting to be praised for their artistic integrity in not dirtying their hands with such low-class stuff as FORBIDDEN PLANET. Needless to say, I did not go to this production.

Campy? FORBIDDEN PLANET? There are science fiction movies from the fifties to which that epithet might apply, but in order to consider this movie as camp, you’d have to consign practically all of cinematic science fiction to that designation. This was one of the classiest, most intelligent, most well-written and most audacious science fiction movies of its time. Yes, it does lift its plot from Shakespeare’s “The Tempest”, but the movie makes it work so well in a science fiction context that it would be better to say that the story was “inspired” by “The Tempest.” When I was a kid, I was a bit disappointed by it (there wasn’t enough of the monster or the robot; I was fairly predictable back then), but I’ve liked it better and better with each viewing, and this time I watched it, I was quite surprised with how good it was. The dialogue is sharp, witty and sets a certain standard for science fiction jargon (“Star Trek” owes an enormous debt to this movie); the romance plot elements that I used to dislike rise organically and effectively from the story, the comic relief is actually funny, and even though the movie doesn’t have a big-name star from the time (unless Walter Pidgeon counts), the acting is of high quality throughout. I also know of no other science fiction movie up to that time that took us both so far into the future and so far from the Earth.

It took a few viewings for me to appreciate how great this movie is, and I’m glad I took the time to give the movie that attention. It has now won a place in my list of the top ten science fiction movies of all time.

THE FACE OF MARBLE (1946)
Article #544 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-10-2002
Posting date: 2-3-2003

Scientists experiment with techniques to bring people back to life, but the subjects exhibit strange powers.

I’ve ragged on some of Monogram’s horror movies on occasion, but seeing this one in close proximity with REVENGE OF THE ZOMBIES has given me a respect for movies like THE CORPSE VANISHES, RETURN OF THE APE MAN and VOODOO MAN. These movies were silly, but I’ve come to realize they risked silliness in the attempt to be interesting to watch. I can also appreciate Bela Lugosi, especially in the care he would show to make practically every line he delivered sound important and interesting. This one, however, doesn’t court silliness at all; it is serious, somber and humorless. Don’t let the presence of Willie Best in the cast fool you; outside of a couple of very tepid lines near the beginning, he doesn’t serve as comic relief but instead is merely used to advance the plot at a point late in the movie when none of the other characters can do so. And though I think John Carradine gives a good performance (he is much better here than he was in REVENGE OF THE ZOMBIES), it is a very serious performance in a movie that badly needs a little silly comic spice to liven things up. It’s a bit of a shame; there are some very interesting ideas in this movie, but the plot spends way too much time on uninteresting romantic triangle subplot which, though it sets up some of the events later in the movie, is in itself very tedious. This is one movie where I wish at least one of the scientists was really MAD rather than both being fairly reasonable.

F.P.1 ANTWORTET NICHT (1932)
Article #481 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 7-9-2002
Posting date: 12-2-2002

A floating platform in the Atlantic Ocean finds itself the target of a saboteur.

This is the German version of the movie I covered a couple of days ago. Though it has a completely different cast as the English version (as does the French version), it is directed by the same man and for all practical reasons unfolds in the same way. This version is almost twenty-five minutes longer than the English version, which means either the English version I have is incomplete or it was given a somewhat condensed treatment; outside of a couple of short montages and some conversation scenes that seem to run longer, I really didn’t notice much different between the two versions. However, this one has Peter Lorre in the photographer role, which makes it of interest to fans of his. It might be interesting some time to sit down with both versions and do a scene-by-scene comparison.