HOUSE ON BARE MOUNTAIN (1962)
Article #1533 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-26-2005
Posting Date: 10-23-2005
Directed by Lee Frost
Featuring Bob Cresse, Laine Carlin, Leticia Cooper

A granny who runs a school for girls who like to go topless is actually a bootlegger with a werewolf assistant.

Let’s face it; you go into a movie with expectations. Given that the title of this movie is HOUSE ON BARE MOUNTAIN, and that my foreknowledge of this movie was that it was a nudie with monsters, I can admit to having some expectations. I expected that there were going to be a lot of topless women, lame monsters, no story to speak of, bad jokes, poor photography and rotten sound.

So what did I get? Yes, there are a lot of unclothed women in the picture, though it stops short of full frontal nudity. There’s only one real monster; the rest are just guys in monster costumes, so it could be considered a disappointment on that level, but I think I’ll let it slide; after all, in this context, it doesn’t matter much. The plot was just as elaborate and scintillating as I expected.

In the final assessment, though, the movie was better than I expected, but this is just my way of saying that the occasional joke wasn’t too bad, and that the photography and sound were both acceptable. It’s greatest strength is a simple one, though; despite the copious nudity in the movie, Granny Good herself remains clothed throughout, and considering that she’s played by Lovable Bob Cresse, this is a good thing. You’ve got to be thankful for such tender mercies.

THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (1959)
Article #1532 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-25-2005
Posting Date: 10-22-2005
Directed by Terence Fisher
Featuring Peter Cushing, Andre Morell, Christopher Lee

Sherlock Holmes investigates the death of a nobleman who is believed to have been frightened to death by a hellish hound.

I think it’s a bit of a shame that Hammer never made any more movies featuring Peter Cushing as Holmes; he is exquisite in the role. Still, I suspect that they were more interested in the horror content of this particular story rather than seeking to start a series; this is far and away the most horrific of the Holmes stories. In fact, many of the alterations to the original story seem to be there to augment the horror content; though it’s been a while since I’ve read the novel, I don’t recall anything involving the sadistic sequence involving Hugo Baskerville, the tarantula, or the excursion into the mine, though they do feel like scenes I’d find in a Hammer movie. Still, these scenes don’t really do any damage; in fact, the Hugo Baskerville sequence is quite memorable. My main problem with the movie is the sometimes sluggish pace that I find in many of the Hammer movies. Still, this is a minor quibble in light of Cushing’s performance; in particular, I love a scene where Cushing’s Holmes tries to encourage Doctor Mortimer to lead him to the entrance of the mine, because Cushing does such a fine job in expressing both his manipulative power over Mortimer while showing us how much he dislikes him. Andre Morell also deserves kudos for his solid portrayal of Watson, which somewhat makes up for one of the central problems with the story itself—to wit, that Holmes himself is missing from a goodly section of the story.

HOMEBODIES (1974)
Article #1530 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-23-2005
Posting Date: 10-20-2005
Directed by Larry Yust
Featuring Douglas Fowley, Ruth McDevitt, Frances Fuller

Senior citizens in a boarding house try to stave off having to move from their condemned home by murdering those intent on making them leave.

If yesterday’s movie made me question whether it was really worth my time to pursue this project, today’s was an affirmation that it really was worth my time. It’s not so much that yesterday’s movie was awful (I’ve seen worse) or that this one is a classic (it has its problems). It’s just that yesterday’s movie had nothing about it that made it seem worth the effort on my behalf to watch it. This one is different; the premise is offbeat and eccentric, I found myself thoroughly engrossed in the movie, and it’s one of those forgotten movies that I’m glad to have encountered. Sure, these senior citizens commit some horrendous acts to keep from moving, but their struggle is fascinating for several reasons, not least of which is that you know that their struggle is futile; there is no way they can prevent their home from being torn down. The fascination is in seeing just how far they’ll go for their lost cause. The movie is also helped by a wicked sense of humor, and at times I really suspect that this is a black comedy of sorts. The cast is mostly unfamiliar to me; the only two names I recognize are veteran character actor Ian Wolfe, and one-time star of several science fiction movies Kenneth Tobey. All of the actors and actresses playing the senior citizens do a fine job, with particular kudos going to Paula Trueman, as an ominously elfin woman who is the most committed to the cause at hand. There are a number of memorable scenes here, including a chase scene involving pedal boats. The ending is a bit of a puzzle and can be interpreted in several ways, but one interpretation hints that there may be a supernatural force behind the events. All in all, an engaging curiosity.

THE HEAVENLY BODY (1943)
Article #1529 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-22-2005
Posting Date: 10-19-2005
Directed by Alexander Hall
Featuring William Powell, Hedy Lamarr, James Craig

An astronomer caught up in his discovery of a new comet neglects his wife, who turns to astrology. She becomes convinced that she is going to meet the man of her dreams, and decides to break up their marriage.

It’s not necessarily the nature of the fantastic content that makes a movie belong in marginalia; it’s the way that the movie handles the content. The fantastic content here is the discovery of the comet that will collide with the moon. Though the special effects employed for this happening are quite entertaining, ultimately it is only used to serve as a counterpoint to a critical moment where the astronomer believes his wife is engaging in adultery. As a consequence, I consider this movie only marginally fantastic.

It’s also one of those movies that makes me wonder just how far afield I care to go in exploring marginalia. At heart, I really don’t care for romantic comedies, and despite the fact that this one has a decent reputation, I think it’s fairly weak. I do like William Powell, but I think he’s floundering with a weak script here. Despite the fact that I find it a bit clever that the movie deals with both astronomy and astrology and involves predictions from both of these sources, I don’t think the movie ever effectively builds its comic moments around this. Too much of the high comedy seems forced; in particular, a sequence in which the astronomer tries to fake an illness and it results in his house being invaded by a gaggle of partying immigrant Russians comes off as so badly contrived that I didn’t enjoy it in the least. The only gag I really liked in the movie is that the wife is constantly hiring new maids. Still, the cast is interesting; besides the names listed above, it also includes Spring Byington, Fay Bainter and Morris Ankrum.

HARVEY (1950)
Article #1528 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-21-2005
Posting Date: 10-18-2005
Directed by Henry Koster
Featuring James Stewart, Josephine Hull, Peggy Dow

When a woman is frustrated in her attempts to find a match for her lonely daughter by her mild-mannered brother (who claims to be friends with a giant invisible rabbit), she decides to have the brother committed.

I’d seen this comedy when I was a child, but I haven’t seen it again till now. Over the years since my initial viewing, I was left with two impressions. One was that Harvey (the invisible rabbit) was a figment of Elwood P. Dowd’s imagination, and the other was that I found it curious that the movie had such a high reputation. I had enjoyed it well enough as a kid, but there didn’t seem anything about it at the time that was special enough to merit its reputation.

Watching it now, I have revised both of these impressions. First of all, I now lean towards the belief that, within the context of this film, Harvey is very real indeed. I had originally chosen to ignore or forget the evidence in this regard, but I can no longer do so. I found no other acceptable explanation for the hat found by Dr. Chumley or the definition of a “pooka” as read by Mr. Wilson, and the various openings of doors towards the end of the movie further confirms this belief. In fact, I find it more satisfying to believe in his existence; somehow, it says a lot about Dowd’s character that Harvey chooses to be his companion for as long as he does.

I also now fully understand the film’s reputation. Within this rather silly and whimsical premise, writer Mary Chase found an enormous amount of emotional resonance. We end up caring deeply for Elwood P. Dowd and the other characters in the movie, and we find his philosophy of “being pleasant” rather than “being smart” rather touching, especially when this philosophy is delivered by one of the most likable actors ever produced by Hollywood, James Stewart. This emotional resonance transcends the premise; it becomes greater and deeper than its comic premise would indicate in a way that ARSENIC AND OLD LACE (a movie which in some ways resembles this one) does not. It is also filled with other fine actors and actresses; Josephine Hull won an Oscar for her role as Elwood’s sister, Victoria Horne does a fine job as Elwood’s awkward niece, and it’s always nice to see such familiar faces as Cecil Kellaway and Jesse White. And one-time star of many an ‘old dark house’ movie Wallace Ford has a great cameo here as a taxi driver, whose observations at the end of the movie manage to turn the tide of the story. In short, this one fully deserves its classic status.

HANS CHRISTIAN ANDERSEN (1952)
Article #1527 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-20-2005
Posting Date: 10-17-2005
Directed by Charles Vidor
Featuring Danny Kaye, Farley Granger, Zizi Jeanmaire

A cobbler with a gift for telling fairy tales makes his way to Copenhagen, where he falls in love with a ballerina.

For many years, my only cinematic encounter with Danny Kaye had been watching a few scenes from this movie when I was a child. In particular, I never forgot a scene where he sings the story of Thumbelina to a young girl from his jail cell. I wondered for many years why I didn’t stick through the whole movie. Seeing it in its entirety many years later, I know why; the scenes of Andersen telling/singing stories/songs to the children give way to scenes about his love for a ballerina, and this whole subplot would have bored me to tears as a child. Nowadays I can weather it a bit better, but it, along with the big ballet numbers, is still the weakest part of the movie. It would have been better if they had stuck to the fairy tale songs, which, in their childlike simplicity, are simply perfect; “Inchworm”, in particular, still rings in my ears. It’s a shame this movie falters as often as it does; if it had managed to maintain the charm of its early scenes, it would have been a real classic.

THE HAND (1960)
Article #1525 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-18-2005
Posting Date: 10-15-2005
Directed by Henry Cass
Featuring Derek Bond, Ronald Leigh-Hunt, Reed De Rouen

When a drunkard is picked up in the street with his right hand amputated and carrying a wad of cash, the police investigate his story that he was paid to have it amputated.

Fantastic content: I would say that this movie is rather marginal. The horror content is mostly due to the grisliness of the concept of hand amputations.

This movie actually starts out with a bang; there’s a dramatic sequence in a prisoner of war camp, and then the story jumps to the rather intriguing mystery as described above. Unfortunately, it’s all downhill from there; the story becomes increasingly muddled and confusing, and it ends with an obvious and contrived ironic twist. Perhaps the worst problem, though, is that when you hold the story up to the light, it seems lame and poorly developed, and you end up wondering if you wasted your time.

Nevertheless, I find myself reluctant to abandon the story altogether. Though the story doesn’t work in this context, there are some hints of a more complex story underlying it all, enough so that I began to feel that it isn’t so much a bad story as a good story very badly told. If I had written that underlying story, I would have jettisoned the detective plot and concentrated on a more straightforward and character-driven version of it, because this story could only work if the characters are carefully developed (something this movie fails to do).

Even if I had been required to keep it a mystery, I would make one major change; I would move the opening prisoner-of-war sequence at the beginning to the accompanying flashback at the end of the movie. The reason for this is that it reveals too much; the mystery would have been a lot more engrossing had we not already known how certain characters lost their hands. Quite frankly, the sequence is too strong for this movie; you keep waiting to get back to it and the mystery plot starts to become a coy annoyance. At any rate, this is all speculation. In it’s present form, the movie falls flat.

HAUNTED HARBOR (1944)
(Serial)
(a.k.a. PIRATES’ HARBOR)
Article #1469 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-23-2005
Posting Date: 8-20-2005
Directed by Spencer Gordon Bennet and Wallace Grissell
Featuring Jim Marsden, Kay Aldridge, Roy Barcroft

In order to recover his gold and clear his name, a seaman must discover the secret identity of a man named Carter and brave the terrors of Haunted Harbor.

When this serial was first released, it was the year of movies like THE UNINVITED; ghosts being big that year, the word “haunted” probably seemed like a fine adjective. When it was re-released several years later, it was after TREASURE ISLAND was a big hit, and I’m willing to bet that was why the title was changed to PIRATES’ HARBOR (the title on my copy of the serial). Oddly enough, there are no ghosts nor pirates to be found, but somehow, that doesn’t surprise me. It does, however, have a mechanical sea serpent, and even though you know it’s mechanical, that doesn’t mean it’s not fun. They even save the creature for the middle of the serial rather than trotting it out in the first episode, so I can’t complain about the serial spinning its wheels during the middle.

All in all, this is definitely one of the better serials out there. It does run on a bit too long, but the cliffhangers are quite entertaining, it does have an air of mystery about it, and it never once dedicates any of its episodes to a recap. Still, I couldn’t help notice that Kay Aldridge’s heroine, spunky as she is, has a hair-trigger faint mechanism; basically, she’ll go out every time she lightly bumps into a wall (I wonder if she finds it dangerous to brush her hair). And someday I’d like to start a school for aspiring serial heroes, simply so I could teach them how to use the brakes on their vehicles; they would get out of any number of perilous situations (and save money on insurance as well) if they used this method to avoid traffic accidents rather than abandoning the vehicle at every opportunity.

HE WHO GETS SLAPPED (1924)
Article #1455 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-9-2005
Posting Date: 8-6-2005
Directed by Victor Sjostrom
Featuring Lon Chaney, Norma Shearer, John Gilbert

A scientist loses both his discoveries and his wife to a man who then publicly humiliates him. The pain having become unbearable for him, he becomes a clown who makes others laugh by being slapped repeatedly.

Technically, this movie probably doesn’t qualify as fantastic cinema. The elements are very marginal; there is the presence of Lon Chaney, the possibility that he has become mad in his thirst for vengeance, a certain horrific quality to his method of vengeance (it involves a lion), and some surreal metaphorical moments involving a circle of clowns and a globe. That’s about it, and I don’t think it’s near enough to make the movie qualify.

Still, I’m glad this one came up on my list; it’s one of Chaney’s finest movies, and he gives a dazzling performance of a man who can only net laughter from a world that he wants to take him seriously. It’s heartbreaking to see the amount of pain that lies under the things that bring us laughter, and we who know his full story find it impossible to laugh as he publicly replays his humiliation for all to see. This was the first production of the newly formed MGM studios, though it was not the first one released. Chaney would play a clown once again a few years later in LAUGH, CLOWN, LAUGH, and seeing that that movie is also one of his best, this underscores Chaney’s ability to see the human tragedy inherent in comedy. Victor Sjostrom may have been the best director Chaney ever worked with.

THE HUMAN VAPOR (1960)
Article #1411 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 1-24-2005
Posting Date: 6-23-2005
Directed by Ishiro Honda
Featuring Tatsuya Mihashi, Kaoru Yachigusa, Yoshio Tsuchiya

A librarian serves as a guinea pig in a scientist’s experiment, and gains the power to be able to dissolve his body into vapor. He uses this power to get money to help the dancing career of the woman he loves.

In some ways, this movie is a cross between Honda’s THE H-MAN from a few years earlier and THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, in that the villain/criminal is primarily motivated by love rather than money, and that the love includes breaking the law to help the musical career of the loved one. I found this one very effective. It’s both touching and scary. The scenes of the man dissolving within his clothes are truly unsettling, especially as he seems to be able to move and manipulate the clothes to eerie effect. The love story is equally effective, and leads to an ending that is both logical and very sad. This is a really satisfying movie, and it’s recommended to anyone who will take the effort to look past the poor job that was done at editing and dubbing the movie for American audiences.