THE GENIE OF DARKNESS (1962)
(a.k.a. NOSTRADAMUS, EL GENIO DE LAS TINIEBLAS)
Article #1335 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 11-9-2004
Posting Date: 4-8-2005
Directed by Federico Curiel, Alberto Mariscal, et al.
Featuring German Robles, Domingo Soler, Julio Alemain

The professor once again pits his wits against the cunning will of the vampire Nostradamus.

Hey, I’ve figured out the gimmick behind naming this vampire after the famed prophet; he keeps predicting the deaths of his victims! All right, I’ll admit that I feel pretty slow in taking so long to come to that revelation, but at least I’m not scratching my head about it anymore.

This is the third of the four Nostradamus the Vampire movies. Each movie was edited out of several episodes of a serial, and as usual, it is best to keep that in mind when watching these movies, because if you take the movie as a single entity, it doesn’t work; it seems bizarrely plotted, incomplete and confusing. It’s only if you take it as part of series that it starts making sense, with some plot threads that run through several episodes. At the same time, each episode makes a certain amount of sense on its own terms, with a story arc that gives it its own sense of unity.

As usual, it’s a bit of a struggle, but I think it’s worth the effort; as a whole, the Nostradamus series has some fun ideas. The dubbing is quite awful, with highly inappropriate voices; Leo the hunchback sounds entirely too much like Goofy, and his mother the witch (whose death scene is the highlight of this movie) has a thick New York accent. Of course, the chances of anyone bothering to put out a decent subtitled copy of the whole serial are highly slim, so you may have to make the best of it.

GHOST CHASERS (1951)
Article #1326 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-31-2004
Posting Date: 3-30-2005
Directed by William Beaudine
Featuring Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall, Lloyd Corrigan

When the neighbor of Slip’s mother becomes obsessed with reaching her dead son through the help of a phony medium, Slip decides to expose the racket.

Is it just me, or does this Bowery Boys comedy seem a little classier than usual? Maybe it’s just a little bit earlier than most of their movies, or maybe I just got hold of a really good print, but it just seems slicker, more thought out, less frantic and better paced. It has touches I usually don’t expect from a Bowery Boys film; the ghost that appears at one point breaks the fourth wall and addresses the audience directly, there’s a bit more emotional depth to the story (I like the scenes with Slip and the neighbor woman), and among the boys themselves, the emphasis isn’t entirely on Slip and Sach; Billy Benedict as Whitey is given a central role in the proceedings as well. I don’t know if these touches made a whole lot of difference; it’s still a Bowery Boys movie, and Huntz Hall’s mugging and Leo Gorcey’s malaprops are still the primary focus. Still, I just wanted to say that I noticed those little touches. My favorite scene: Louis Dumbrowsky agrees to a seance to speak to his dead uncle (who owed him money when he died) only to have the spirit ask for a loan of a hundred dollars.

GUESS WHAT HAPPENED TO COUNT DRACULA (1970)
Article #1180 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 6-7-2004
Posting Date: 11-4-2004
Directed by Laurence Merrick
Featuring Des Roberts, Claudia Barron, John Landon

A woman comes under the spell of a vampire known as Count Adrian.

The title implies that this movie will tell us what happened to Count Dracula. It does no such thing; Count Adrian is actually the son of Dracula. Yes, I know; that was Count Alucard in another movie, but not in this one. However, there is a character named Alucard; he’s Count Adrian’s pet tiger, who likes to play with the vampires when they’re not cavorting in their sacred Macumba ceremony, in which a woman dances until she entices a man into eating a lizard. This also involves a man in a gorilla suit wearing a pendant; IMDB doesn’t credit the man in the gorilla suit, but I sure know Charley Gemora’s suit when I see it. Highlights of this movie: two vampires have a staredown, Des Roberts is offered a beer, but says “I only drink blood…bloody marys”, and a nurse decides she wants to do it with the doctor on his desk (and you’ll find out what “it” is for yourself.) Des Roberts actually uses a Bela Lugosi accent in portraying Count Adrian. Conclusions: I think this might have been a comedy, but it’s hard to tell. One thing is for sure; it’s a lot classier than the other movie on the DVD (DRACULA, THE DIRTY OLD MAN), but that’s like saying that it’s shorter than SHOAH.

Oh, and did I mention that Count Adrian runs a swinging nightclub known as Dracula’s Castle?

THE GORGON (1964)
Article #1179 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 6-6-2004
Posting Date: 11-3-2004
Directed by Terence Fisher
Featuring Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, Barbara Shelley

People are being turned to stone in an East European village, and a man whose dead son was held responsible for the murders vows to investigate.

I go into this movie with two prejudices. First, the gorgon has always been one of those creatures that to me seems out of place anywhere but in Greek mythology, and it seems just odd to me to find the creature appearing in this more Gothic setting. However, this is a minor quibble, and one that I can easily set aside if all else works.

The other prejucide has to do with bringing the Gorgon to life. The Gorgon is one of the most memorable monsters ever devised, and I believe if you’re going to try to bring this creature to life, you’d better do it right. In other words, you’d better deliver on the “snakes for hair” issue. At the time this movie was made, that would have required stop-motion animation, and this was obviously beyond Hammer’s means. So what we get is an unconvincing mask with snakes that occasionally bob up and down, and though that was probably the best they could have done on their budget, I find it thoroughly unsatisfying. I think they would have been better off making this movie about a different monster altogether.

That being said, the movie works well enough on many other levels. The acting is fine, with Cushing at his usual level of excellence and Christopher Lee giving a fairly energetic performance. I didn’t even recognize Patrick Troughton as the Inspector; despite having a truly memorable face and having gained fame for playing the Doctor in “Doctor Who”, he somehow manages to look very different in his other roles. The movie is deliberately paced, but never becomes dull. The script is a little contrived at times (the only reason Peter Cushing shows up with a sword rather than some other weapon in the final scene is because it proves convenient for the end of the movie), but this is a minor problem. What the movie really needs is a convincing monster.

GOLIATH AND THE DRAGON (1960)
(a.k.a. LA VENDETTA DI ERCOLE)
Article #1178 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 6-5-2004
Posting Date: 11-2-2004
Directed by Vittorrio Cottafavi
Featuring Mark Forest, Broderick Crawford, Gaby Andre

Goliath faces off against a usurper who is planning an invasion of Thebes.

Now here’s what I like in a sword-and-sandal movie; a muscleman who fights off mythological beasties as well as evil tyrants. As Goliath, Mark Forest takes on a three-headed dog, a shaggy bat-person, a centaur, a bear, an elephant, and the dragon of the title. Of course, the foes aren’t equally believable; the three-headed dog looks like a big puppet (as does the dragon half of the time), the bat-person, the bear and the centaur are humans in costumes (and the centaur is only seen in his full form at a distance), but the dragon is stop-motion animated for half of its screen time, and the elephant (of all things) is real! Granted, the elephant battle wasn’t to the death, but it still makes for an impressive scene. The plot is fairly coherent, Mark Forest is fun in the title role (though I don’t know why they changed his character’s name to Goliath; in the original version, he was Hercules), and the presence of Broderick Crawford adds a bizarre little touch to the proceedings. All in all, this is one of the better sword and sandal movies I’ve seen, and I would recommend it to anyone seeking to try one of them out.

GODZILLA VS. THE SEA MONSTER (1966)
(a.k.a. EBIRAH, HORROR OF THE DEEP/
GOJIRA-EBIRA-MOSURA: NANKEI NO DAIKETTO)
Article #1175 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 6-2-2004
Posting Date: 10-30-2004
Directed by Jun Fukuda
Featuring Akira Takarada, Kumi Mizuno, Chotaro Togin

While on a search to discover the whereabouts of a missing man, several people find themselves stranded on an island guarded by a giant shrimp.

Jun Fukuda made a valiant attempt here to move the Godzilla series in a new direction by incorporating him into a story with a more conventional action-oriented plot. I admire the effort, and it is at least partially successful; it’s well-paced and fun in its own way. However, there are problems. Logic seems to have been thrown out the window here; the scene where the good guys try to break into a vault only to discover it’s a nuclear reactor is just plain silly, and when a new captor suggests to the enslaved natives that they should sabotage the Red Bamboo (for whom they have been crushing fruit to produce a yellowish liquid designed to keep Ebirah at bay) by creating the liquid from the leaves rather than the fruit, I find myself asking two questions: 1) Wouldn’t the leaves be green and wouldn’t the Red Bamboo notice the change in color? and 2) why doesn’t the Red Bamboo have even one guard monitoring the activities of the slaves?

My biggest problem with the movie, though, is that Godzilla himself seems like an unnecessary character. Ebirah is essential to the plot (even if he’s a pretty lame foe for Godzilla), and Mothra has an important role to play towards the end, but as for Godzilla, I feel he was just shoehorned into the material. The discovery of his presence seems arbitrary, the decision to revive him is downright dunderheaded, and once he’s in the action, the movie doesn’t really know what to do with him. His tennis match with Ebirah is a repeat of a similar scene in GHIDRAH, THE THREE-HEADED MONSTER, and the sequence where he tries to get some sleep only to be menaced by a giant condor and some jet planes seems like awkward filler. And though he serves some purpose in destroying the Red Bamboo camp, it’s a real disappointment seeing him stomp on a few small buildings when you can remember his destruction of whole cities in earlier movies. Though I wouldn’t call this the weakest of the Godzilla movies, it’s the one where he seems to play the smallest role.

THE GIANT BEHEMOTH (1959)
(a.k.a. BEHEMOTH, THE SEA MONSTER)
Article #1174 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 6-1-2004
Posting Date: 10-29-2004
Directed by Douglas Hickox and Eugene Lourie
Featuring Gene Evans, Andre Morell, John Turner

A radioactive monster is found near the coast of Cornwall, which then makes its way to the heart of London.

The U.S. title of this movie is an example of redundancy; a behemoth is by definition “giant”. Unfortunately, this movie is itself a little redundant, being as it is largely a rehash of THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS from the director of that movie (who would go on to repeat himself one more time with GORGO). On its own terms, it’s a fair movie, but it definitely suffers in comparison to its model. For one thing, the Behemoth is simply not as impressive as the Rhedosaurus; not only is it not as well animated, but it looks a bit rubbery and feels more like a model. This may account somewhat for the fact that the monster is kept largely under wraps for the first two-thirds of the movie, which in itself is a bit dullish except for the sequences in Cornwall. The ending is also less satisfying; the submarine vs. monster sequence that ends the movie has none of the visual splendor of the Rhedosaurus-in-the-amusement-park climax to its predecessor. Even the monster attack sequence is a bit repetitive; most of this sequence consists of scenes of people running intercut with closeups of the monster roaring, and only occasionally do we see the monster and the people in the same shot. And not only does it copy the shot from the original of the Rhedosaurus stepping on a car, it does so three times. Again, the movie is competent enough, but given the choice, I would opt for THE BEAST FROM 20,000 FATHOMS anytime.

GHOST SHIP (1952)
Article #1164 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-22-2004
Posting Date: 10-19-2004
Directed by Vernon Sewell
Featuring Hazel Court, Dermot Walsh, Hugh Burden

A couple buys a yacht that is reputed to be haunted.

This ghost story isn’t scary, but then, I don’t think it’s trying to be. As a matter of fact, I don’t see ghosts as being necessarily horrific; they can be, but often they seem merely indifferent or benign. In this one, the ghost really does nothing more than appear and leave behind the smell of his cigar smoke, and the only thing that I consider horrific about this is that it challenges our notions as to whether there are things beyond the ken of man’s understanding. This movie is decidedly minor, and will probably disappoint a lot of people, but I enjoyed it well enough. It’s decidedly unsensational-istic, the leads are pleasant and likable, and despite its talkiness, the talk is pleasant enough. If it succeeds particularly well at anything, it’s merely that it allows you to ponder the existence of ghosts without using high-pressure tactics to force you to do so, which I find is a good method to get around my innate skepticism on the matter. As such, the movie does have its uses.

GAPPA, THE TRIPHIBIAN MONSTER (1967)
(a.k.a. MONSTER FROM A PREHISTORIC PLANET/DAIKYOJU GAPPA)
Article #1163 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-21-2004
Posting Date: 10-18-2004
Directed by Haruyasa Noguchi
Featuring Tamio Kawaji, Yoko Yamamoto, Yuji Okada

When an expedition discovers a newly hatched monster on a tropical island, they bring it back to Japan with them, unaware that its parents will search for him.

It’s been a long time since I’ve covered some Kaiju for this series, and since I have an inordinate fondness for these movies, there’s a chance I may like this one a lot more than others do. On the other hand, most of the others have probably seen the dubbed version; I saw a few moments of that one and the dubbing is very substandard. I opted instead for the subtitled version, and it’s somewhat better. This was the only kaiju put out by Nikkatsu (whose logo is a little reminiscent of Toho’s); shortly after this movie was made, they turned to soft-core pornography. The plot is largely lifted from GORGO, with a little bit of KING KONG, RODAN and GODZILLA thrown in for good measure. The special effects are fun if highly variable, and for the most part this is strictly pretty standard kaiju. However, it does have a handful of interesting touches and moments. When the parent monsters first arrive in Japan, one of them carries a dead crustacean in its mouth, probably intent on feeding it to the child when they find it. Another curious moment has a man putting out a match in a pool of water; it’s shot in such a way as to indicate that the scene is very important, but unless it’s a metaphor for putting out his passion for a woman he loves (there’s your typical love triangle situation in the story), I have no idea what it means. The ending itself is also decent, and even brings a little tear to the eye.

THE GAS HOUSE KIDS IN HOLLYWOOD (1947)
Article #1138 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-26-2004
Posting Date: 9-23-2004
Directed by Edward L. Cahn
Featuring Carl ‘Alfalfa’ Switzer, Rudy Wissler, Benny Bartlett

Four young men from New York en route to Hollywood stay at the home of a mad scientist, where they encounter all sorts of spooky goings-on.

You’re a former member of a famous all-child comedy team known as ‘Our Gang’. You’re too old to be a child star anymore. So what do you do? Well, you combine with a few other former child stars and form a new comedy team to engage in Bowery Boys-like slapstick. You then make a haunted house movie, with a cadaverous looking scientist experimenting with corpses to communicate with the dead a la THE DEVIL COMMANDS (the scientist is played by the instantly recognizable Milton Parsons), a gaggle of beautiful girls, a wise-cracking parrot who is mistaken for both Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Foster (and my rule that wise-cracking parrots are never funny still holds), some dumb cops, some gangsters, and an actor known for playing detectives who, despite being famous enough to have fan clubs across the country, isn’t earning enough money to make a living and so has become involved with the gangsters in order to search for a fortune hidden in the haunted house. Throw in lots of gags of dead bodies disappearing and reappearing, revolving doors and skeletons, mix thoroughly, and Voila! Instant comedy. If I were to say it was as good as it sounded, that would be no compliment; as it is, it’s worse than it sounds. How bad is it? Not only did it make me miss the Bowery Boys, but it made me miss the Lemon Grove Kids. Incidentally, Benny Bartlett would go on to become a legitimate Bowery Boy.