THE GHOST AND MRS. MUIR (1947)
Article #1633 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 9-3-2005
Posting Date: 1-31-2006
Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Featuring Gene Tierney, Rex Harrison, George Sanders

A widow decides to move into a cottage by the sea despite the fact that it is believed to be haunted by the sea captain who once lived there.

When I first saw this movie years ago, I went into it with fairly low expectations; first of all , it was one of my least favorite cinematic forms (the love story), and secondly, the main experience I had had with the title up to this point was with the late sixties TV series, a show which I haven’t seen in years but which struck me as exceedingly bland at the time. The movie is something else again, and much of the thanks goes to the fine performances from all concerned (especially Gene Tierney and Rex Harrison), the fine and assured direction of Joseph L. Mankiewicz, the superb score by Bernard Herrmann (I am all too lax in crediting the work of composers during this series of write-ups, but I couldn’t help but notice how well the music underlines the emotional tenor of the scenes in this one), and the story itself. One of the reasons I don’t usually like love stories is that the barriers set up between the lovers are all too often artificial and contrived; here, with the barrier between the lovers being that they actually live on separate planes of existence, the barriers are profound and can only be gotten around by the slow, steady march of time, and I like the fact that when the Captain decides to leave the life of the widow, the movie does not rush to the ending but understands how a deliberately paced study of the passing years is necessary to give the ending its maximum impact. I also like the fact that it is a drama rather than a comedy. Yes, it does contain some comic scenes and moments, but I’m glad it avoids some of the easy traps of a comedy; in particular, it avoids (with the exception of one appropriate scene) the Topper-style shtick of having someone talk to the ghost while in the presence of others and being thought crazy. It’s a tribute to the movie’s skill that the ending does bring tears to my eyes and a lump to my throat.

GRIMM’S FAIRY TALES FOR ADULTS (1969)
(a.k.a. GRIMMS MARCHEN VON LUSTERNEN PARCHEN)
Article #1524 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-17-2005
Posting Date: 10-14-2005
Directed by Rolf Thiele
Featuring Evelyn Dutree, Gaby Fuchs, Walter Giller

Fairy tale characters engage in bawdy shenanigans.

I had originally planned to write my review of this movie before seeing it, and guessing what it was going to be like based solely on the title. Though I ended up seeing the movie first, I can let you know what I was going to say in advance 1) that it was a soft-core porno version of several fairy tales, 2) that it was going to be really dumb, 3) that a lot of characters would be unclothed, 4) and that the plot (such as it is) would involve voyeuristic dwarfs and pseudo-bestiality (you know, sex between a human being and another human being in an animal costume). Given the title, the first three points were no-brainers. The fourth was a shot in the dark, but I figured we were bound to have talking animals, and in this type of movie, if they can talk they can do other things. I also strongly suspected there was going to be a parody of Snow White in the mix, and that being the case, I concluded that Prince Charming was going to do more than just kiss Snow White, and that while he was doing that, those seven dwarfs would have to be keeping themselves occupied somehow.

Well, I have seen the movie, and the only thing I’m not sure about is number two. Sure, it looks really dumb, but since my print is in unsubtitled German, I couldn’t understand the jokes well enough to say whether they were dumb or not. I also didn’t anticipate that the movie would be fairly bloody as well; in fact, it slips into horror on occasion. Actually, this may not be as outrageous as it seems; I’ve heard tell that the fairy tales told to children are often expurgated versions of much more grotesque stories, and the example I’ve seen trotted out most often is that Cinderella’s ugly stepsisters took certain extreme measures to ensure their feet would fit into the glass slippers. The slippers here aren’t glass, but the extreme measures are here in full glory. Still, the most upsetting thing about this movie is that some of the animals are treated horribly; in particular, a pig is rather badly mistreated at one point. Grimm indeed!

GRAVE OF THE VAMPIRE (1974)
Article #1523 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-16-2005
Posting Date: 10-13-2005
Directed by John Hayes
Featuring William Smith, Michael Pataki, Lyn Peters

A woman is raped by a vampire in an open grave in a cemetery. Many years later, the son born as a result of this vows to track down his vampire father and destroy him.

Because of the big-budget excesses of many recent films, I think there has been a reaction on the part of many moviegoers to equate big budgets with bad movies and small budgets with good movies. Though I think there’s more to admire in making a movie on a low budget, I don’t buy into this theory myself; if you’ve got a lousy script, it hardly matters what kind of budget you have, since you’ll end up with a lousy movie. However, if you’ve got a good script that doesn’t demand an elaborate budget, a small budget will do just fine. This is one of those small budget movies that benefits from a good script. The story itself is quite interesting, and it is peopled with interesting characters well played by a group of little known but capable actors. I found myself really caught up in this one, and what I find most surprising about it is that it is a vampire movie. Vampires are one of the most popular horror monsters of all time, but as a result of this, the stories surrounding them are often retreads of the same plot elements. This movie found some fresh blood in the concept, which is, of course, something that a vampire story really needs. My only real complaint is a silly ending title card that is almost as bad as the dumb pun that I used in the previous sentence.

THE GHOST AND THE GUEST (1943)
Article #1522 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-15-2005
Posting Date: 10-12-2005
Directed by William Nigh
Featuring James Dunn, Florence Rice, Robert Dudley

Newlyweds move into old dark house. Coffin containing corpse of gangster arrives. Hilarity ensues.

If you can’t say anything nice, say nothing at all, I’ve often been told. Bearing this in mind, here are ten good things about this movie.

1) The cranky ex-hangman who serves as caretaker for the old dark house is actually rather amusing.

2) The title is actually somewhat clever. Not only do the words ‘ghost’ and ‘guest’ sound somewhat alike, but if you remove the ‘g’ from ‘ghost’, you get ‘host’, which is the opposite of ‘guest’. This cleverness is somewhat marred by the fact that the movie has no ghost and a plethora of guests.

3) My print runs only fifty-five minutes. If you have an hour to kill, you can watch this movie and still have time to trim your toenails. Real overachievers can perform both tasks at once.

4) This movie completely avoids any mind-stretching expansions in cinematic art, so watching it will not force you to painfully stretch your mind to encompass it in your definition of a cinematic experience.

5) For those into genre pigeon-holing, this is a piece of cake. Just file it under “old dark house comedy”.

6) If you’re a babysitter, and you’re caring for a bratty child who you want to go to sleep but who insists on staying up to see a scary movie with the word ‘ghost’ in the title, you can show him this movie with full confidence that not only will he not be over-frightened, but also that you will have no problem getting him to fall asleep.

7) If it only hurts when you laugh, this one won’t hurt hardly at all.

8) The VHS cassette on which the movie comes can be used to adjust a table with an uneven leg.

9) For those into more high-tech formats, the DVD makes an ideal coaster.

10) Since it is highly unlikely that you will ever be at a cocktail party and find yourself in the awkward position of being left out of the scintillating conversation about THE GHOST AND THE GUEST, you can feel blissfully free of having any social obligation to see this movie.

So there you are; ten nice things about THE GHOST AND THE GUEST. And I bet you thought I was going to poke fun at the movie.

GAS-S-S-S (1971)
Article #1521 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-14-2005
Posting Date: 10-11-2005
Directed by Roger Corman
Featuring Bob Corff, Elaine Giftos, Bud Cort

When a gas is released that kills everyone in the world over the age of 25, several hippies take off on an odyssey to an oracle.

Some people hate this rather silly counter-culture curio, but I’m not one of them. Maybe it’s because I always had a bit of a yearning to be a hippie; unfortunately, I spent my late teens/early twenties in the era of disco, an empty experience indeed. Still, I have little use for a lot of these hippie curios; they’re usually pretty ugly, unpleasant, and filled with bad music. Not this one; I like the music here, mostly supplied by Country Joe and the Fish. I also found the characters quite likable in their own ways, even some of the bad guys. The best thing about the movie is its lightness of touch; the movie never really takes itself too seriously, which is a good thing for one that flirts with pretentiousness as well as touching upon some rather unpleasant themes. And some of the scenes are genuinely amusing. There’s the scene where the hippies engage in a gunfight with a highway bandit named Billy the Kid in a used car lot; every shot is punctuated by the calling out of a name of a western movie celebrity (“Johnny Mack Brown!” “William S. Hart!” “Gabby Hayes”, etc.). There’s also the scene where the hippies dress up as regular people so as not to call attention to themselves, but end up finding that the local golf course has been taken over by a cycle gang. Then there are the Indians who have decided to give everything back to the white man that was given to them (including smallpox and the English language). I also like the Greek chorus-like Edgar Allan Poe character who tools around on a motorcycle with a raven on his shoulder. All in all, it felt like a parody of the post-apocalyptic movie, with the heroes meeting any variety of odd cultures that have developed in the wake of the release of the gas. This would also be the last movie Corman would direct for American International Pictures; he objected to their editing the movie against his wishes.

GOLIATH AND THE BARBARIANS (1959)
(a.k.a. IL TERRORE DEI BARBARI)
Article #1454 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-8-2005
Posting Date: 8-5-2005
Directed by Carlo Campogalliani
Featuring Steve Reeves, Chelo Alonso, Bruce Cabot

A man named Emiliano (aka Goliath) takes revenge on rampaging barbarians who kill his father.

There are three things I don’t think I’ll ever see the end of as part of this series of write-ups; old dark house movies, Jesse Franco movies and Sword and Sandal movies. Actually, I don’t mind the ones on the ends (it’s the middle one that bothers me), and as far as Sword and Sandal movies go, this one is not too bad. No, it’s not the Biblical Goliath; after all, this takes place in 568 A.D., a fact that is established both visually and verbally, and this was quite a ways from Biblical times. No, he’s just a man so strong that he’s called Goliath (and if you’ve seen enough of these Sword and Sandals, you should be familiar with how often voice-overs at the beginnings of these movies have to establish that the titular hero is NOT the famed one of legend, but just a really strong man who earned the name). Actually, he’s referred to as THE Goliath, but I’m not going to debate as to whether he’s properly “Goliath” or “The Goliath” (I’ve already done that with Batman).

At any rate, “Goliath” is played by Steve Reeves, and the whole movie looks more expensive than others of its ilk, but that’s probably due to the fact that it was made before they really started churning them out. During the first part of the movie, he makes his raids on the barbarians while wearing a monstrous mask, which (along with his massive strength) gives the movie some of its fantastic content. The characters are given a bit more dimension than usual, and the dance scenes actually seem tied to the story, as the main dancer is also the leading actress. Still, it’s hard to find a decent print of this one; mine is so faded that it looks like black and white most of the time. It’s not too bad, though it’s not quite up to the level of Reeves’ Hercules movies.

THE GREAT IMPERSONATION (1935)
Article #1398 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 1-11-2005
Posting Date: 6-10-2005
Directed by Alan Crosland
Featuring Edmund Lowe, Valerie Hobson, Wera Engels

In 1914, a banished Baron decides to make a fortune by becoming an undercover agent for a munitions company intent on making a big profit from the coming war. He uses his uncanny resemblance to a British lord who he has betrayed and left for dead.

Whatever faults this movie has, predictability isn’t one of them. In fact, I’m not even quite sure what this movie is. It starts out as a jungle movie, turns into a movie about political intrigue, and then rapidly flirts with any number of genres, including soap opera, old dark house movie, ghost story and gothic romance. It all leads up to a twist that I feel I should have seen coming, but since I was never quite sure what this movie was, I was never sure where it would go. Still, there are some plot holes here that will manifest themselves without even thinking too hard. The movie is enhanced by an entertaining cast of familiar faces, but Dwight Frye is wasted (and uncredited) as a madman who is more talked about than seen. This is definitely one of the stranger movies to pop up in some time.

THE GHOST WALKS (1934)
Article #1371 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-15-2004
Posting Date: 5-14-2005
Directed by Frank R. Strayer
Featuring John Miljan, June Collyer, Richard Carle

An aspiring playwright, a broadway producer and his superciliious assistant all become stranded at an old dark house where a ghost is believed to be active.

As if you couldn’t guess from the plot description, we’re back squarely in the “old dark house” genre of the thirties. This one isn’t too bad, though it relies a little too much on the comic antics of Richard Carle and Johnny Arthur, who are mildly amusing at first but can’t quite hold your interest for the length of the movie. Still, it does have a great gimmick that comes into play thirty minutes into the movie; I won’t give it away here, but it’s similar to the one used in the silent movie LAUGHING AT DANGER. It also has a memorable psycho popping up near the end of the movie, though he’s dispatched a little too easily for my tastes. Other than that, it’s business as usual.

GOLIATH AGAINST THE GIANTS (1961)
(a.k.a. GOLIATH CONTRO I GIGANTI)
Article #1340 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 11-14-2004
Posting Date: 4-13-2005
Directed by Guido Malatesta
Featuring Brad Harris, Gloria Milland, Fernando Rey

Goliath must return to his native country to dethrone a tyrannical usurper.

If there’s any type of movie that needs to be in color, it’s a sword-and-sandal movie. As far as I know, all of them are, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t some black and white prints floating around, and apparently I’ve managed to snag one of those for this movie, and I do have to admit that it tempers my enjoyment of this one somewhat. The usurping king plot is probably the most common of the sword-and-sandal storylines, and this one really doesn’t add much new to the formula. Still, you can sit back and enjoy Brad Harris taking on crowds of soldiers as well as various beasties, including a sea serpent, a lion, a strange ape-like creature, a dragon, and several big chunky guys with bad skin conditions (I think these are the “giants” of the title). He rescues his friend and his girl from torturous executions (the one with the wheel of knives looks pretty nasty). He also picks up big heavy things and throws them. However, he doesn’t bend the bars back; instead, in a real show of he-manship, he pulls the whole network of bars out of the cave wall. There’s the occasional rather odd lyrical moment here and there, and the sea monster sequence uses some truly eerie special effects. All in all, pretty standard sword-and-sandal fare.

Oh, and I also figured something out. If you were a stunt man who had wanted to work in a sword and sandal movie, what talent would you most need to develop? My answer would be to find creative ways of falling off of a wall / cliff / any high place, especially after being shot with an arrow. This movie is chock full of scenes of men tumbling off of high places.

GLEN OR GLENDA (1953)
(a.k.a. I CHANGED MY SEX / HE OR SHE / I LED 2 LIVES)
Article #1338 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 11-12-2004
Posting Date: 4-11-2005
Directed by Edward D. Wood, Jr.
Featuring Edward D. Wood, Jr, Bela Lugosi, Lyle Talbot

A policeman consults a psychiatrist in order to understand the causes behind the suicide of a transvestite.

Fantastic content: This expose on transvestism and sex changes features Bela Lugosi as a mad scientist/ commentator, and the devil features prominently during a bizarre dream sequence.

“There’s no mistaking the thoughts in a man’s mind!” Bela Lugosi intones at one point in the proceedings of this, Ed Wood’s first movie. Though I think the statement in itself is open to question, somehow it seems appropriate when dealing with the work of Ed Wood. As a writer, he rarely edited his words; they flowed out of his mind onto the paper and stayed that way. His direction and editing only enhanced the sense of a wandering mind jumping around a subject in no logical fashion. His plea for the understanding and tolerance of transvestites and transsexuals is impassioned and sincere, but his attempts at logic and reason are ridiculous; in particular, the attempts to find a connection between tight hats and baldness is more likely to elicit horselaughs than serious thought. Still, there is no doubt that this is Ed Wood’s most personal movie. It’s also his most surreal, especially during the dream sequence where Wood faces the demons that plague him.

On the other hand, a question does come up for me; just how much of the movie I’m watching was actually the work of Wood himself? I recently purchased the DVD of this movie after having had a VHS copy of it for years. I found that some scenes were omitted, new ones added, and I don’t think it was Ed Wood himself that did this. It is known that George Weiss wasn’t all that happy with Wood’s work, and that the movie was rereleased over several years with different titles. I’m willing to bet that a lot re-editing went on as well. Here are a couple of differences I noted.

1) The DVD had a scene where Bela Lugosi and Ed Wood react to a series of lurid bondage and S&M footage (fairly tame). The music is totally different from the rest of the movie during this sequence. I do not believe that this scene was part of the original movie.

2) There is a scene where two working men discuss the sex change headline (I assume they work at a steel mill and that the shots of white-hot metal bars going in and out of narrow openings isn’t intended solely as sexual suggestion). On the DVD, the scene ends with one saying goodbye to the other. On the VHS, there is an extra moment; the other man returns the goodbye, only in a woman’s voice. In short, the DVD version removes the punch line to the scene.

There are other differences, but I think this illustrates them. I wonder if there are several different edits of this movie out there under various titles. I wonder if someday some researcher might take the time to go through the various copies of this movie and map out the various differences. I suspect that my VHS version is much closer to Wood’s original vision.