THE HOUSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1945)
Article #222 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 10-24-2001
Posting date: 3-9-2002

Dr. Niemann and his assistant Daniel escape from a prison and vow to get revenge on those that imprisoned them. In the process, they encounter Dracula, the wolfman, and the Frankenstein monster.

I will always have a great deal of affection for this movie, since it was the first Frankenstein movie I ever saw. It’s certainly not the best of the Frankenstein movies; it largely just trots out the monsters and lets them do their thing, but I still find that a lot of fun. Plus, the cast adds to the enjoyment; Boris Karloff, J. Carrol Naish, Lon Chaney Jr., John Carradine, Elena Verdugo, Anne Gwynne, Lionel Atwill and George Zucco all together in one movie. The Dracula sequence seems tacked on, and the rest of the movie feels a little like a rehash of FRANKENSTEIN MEETS THE WOLFMAN (Talbot wants to be cured, but the scientist is more interested in the monster), but it doesn’t change my fondness for the whole thing.

THE HIDEOUS SUN DEMON (1959)
Article #221 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 10-23-2001
Posting date: 3-08-2002

A man suffering from a dosage of radiation turns into a monster after exposure to the sun.

I’ve heard that one of the reasons Robert Clarke directed this movie was to prove that he could make a better movie than the one he’d just appeared in, namely THE ASTOUNDING SHE-MONSTER. He succeeded, but on the other hand, it would have been harder to make a movie that was worse. This one is no better than okay, with a novel central gimmick and a decent monster head; I’ve never felt it was quite as bad as some people make it out to be (unlike THE ASTOUNDING SHE-MONSTER, which is every bit as bad). And he does avoid some of the pitfalls of low-budget movie-making, such as the heavy use of stock footage and narration. One of the interesting touches to the movie is that the main character (played by Clarke) isn’t a sympathetic character; he has pronounced character flaws (such as his drinking) that contribute to making his illness even more troublesome to him.

THE HEAD (1959)
Article #220 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 10-22-2001
Posting date: 3-7-2002

The strange Dr. Ood keeps the head of Professor Abel alive in order to get the formula for the serum that he needs. He also replaces the twisted body of a woman with the beautiful body of a model.

This is one of the stranger oddities I’ve encountered. It’s like a slightly less sleazy version of THE BRAIN THAT WOULDN’T DIE with elements of HOUSE OF DRACULA and CHARLY thrown in for good measure. Dr. Ood is as bizarre as his name; you find out why near the end of the movie. The house where most of the action takes place is a real treat, with a really bizarre looking staircase. And I’ve been trying to figure out why they have so many shots of Professor Abel from the back whenever he’s talking; it’s almost like they don’t want to show you his face (that is, while he still has a body). I always have a soft spot for movies this weird, and I think there should have been a whole series of Dr. Ood movies. Let’s fabricate a few.

THE ODD DR. OOD – The immediate sequel has Dr. Ood married, but his wife has been horribly scarred in an accident, and he tries to restore her beauty. Unfortunately, his squirrel gland injections turn her into a murderous weresquirrel.

THE OOD COUPLE – Dr. Ood grafts Tony Randall’s head onto Jack Klugman’s body, and Walter Matthau’s onto Jack Lemmon’s. The two hideous creatures battle to the death.

OOD OUT WEST – Dr. Ood moves to the wild west, where he grafts the feet of Rudolf Nureyev, the hands of Orlac, the head of Wyatt Earp, and the trunk of an elephant onto a cactus. This creature then gets into a wrestling match with Tor Johnson.

Y’know, it’s probably a damn good thing I don’t work in the movie business.

THE HANDS OF ORLAC (1961)
Article #219 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 10-21-2001
Posting date: 3-6-2002

When a pianist’s hands are crushed in an accident, a brilliant surgeon grafts the hands of an executed killer in their place. The pianist then discovers he has trouble playing the piano and is tortured by thoughts of murder.

This is the third version of this story of which I am aware. It’s not my favorite; as Orlac, Mel Ferrer is just not very interesting, and the script is so clumsy and obvious in continually bringing up the murderer’s name to him that it feels pretty contrived. The movie itself seems more interested in Nero the magician (played by Christopher Lee), but I find myself wondering what Nero is trying to gain from terrorizing Orlac; it doesn’t appear to be money or revenge, as in the earlier two versions. As it is, he appears to be doing it out of sheer meanness. Even the climax of the movie has little to do with Orlac, being more concerned with Nero and his assistant. Perhaps they should have gone all out and just made a movie about Nero. The cast also features Donald Wolfit and Donald Pleasence in small roles.

HALF HUMAN (1957)
Article #217 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 10-19-2001
Posting date: 3-4-2002

An abominable snowman is discovered in Japan.

This Ishiro Honda movie, like GODZILLA, was released in this country with different footage to make it more accessible to American audiences; it doesn’t do it nearly as well, though. In fact, the sequences consist of little more than John Carradine talking endlessly, though they do perform an autopsy on the the costume of the baby yeti, which Toho lent to the makers of this version for use in the movie. It still comes off better than a Jerry Warren movie, though, but I don’t care for the fact that it is the new footage that is almost entirely represented in the movie’s credits, with only a token mention of the actual Japanese cast and crew that were responsible for most of the movie. Incidentally, the story looks quite interesting and the Yeti costume is fantastic; I’m surprised that Toho could come up with a big hairy creature as good-looking as this one is and then bungle the costume used for King Kong (in KING KONG VS. GODZILLA). I can’t help but notice that in general movies about abominable snowmen are more interesting than movies about Bigfoot. I wish I could see the full Japanese version of the movie, but I gather that it is considered politically incorrect in Japan and is no longer available.

HERCULES AGAINST THE BARBARIANS (1964)
Article #202 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 10-4-2001
Posting date: 2-17-2002

Hercules faces off against Genghis Khan’s hordes in the thirteenth century.

I’ve taken to writing notes whenever I watch a sword and sandal movie, because if I rely on my memory, I’m lost. Sword and sandal movies are a sort of mental chinese food; an hour after watching them, you forget what they are about. I haven’t forgotten everything, though; I remembered enough of the plot to write the above description without having to consult a reference book. What I remember the most about watching the movie was that a nagging question popped into my mind; what is the Greek hero Hercules doing facing off against Genghis Khan? I discovered two possible answers; one is that, at a certain point in the movie, someone refers to the hero as having been called Hercules because he’s so strong, thereby implying he is not the REAL Hercules. The other is the fact that the Italian title of this movie has the name “Maciste” prominently displayed in the title; this is therefore really a Maciste movie retitled in the states to cash in on Hercules’ popularity (Maciste must have a real bad press agent out here). Despite the change in time periods, this is pretty standard sword-and-sandal shenanigans, with Mark Forest playing the bogus Hercules.

THE HANDS OF ORLAC (1925)
Article #195 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-27-2001
Posting date: 2-10-2002

When a concert pianist loses his hands in an accident, he has them replaced with the hands of a murderer.

There are several versions of the French novel “Les Mains d’Orlac”, and I would like to read it some day, if for no other reason than to find out which of the movie versions is closest to the source materials. At this time, I suspect it is this one; it’s the only one of the three versions I know in which the pianist is actually the main character; the other versions have a villain of some sort as the primary focus of the story. Orlac is played in this movie by the great Conrad Veidt, who in my mind was one of the best horror actors of the silents; he gives a gripping performance here of a man who is keenly aware that his hands are not his own, and he is a joy to watch.

THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1956)
(a.k.a. NOTRE DAME DE PARIS)
Article #123 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 7-17-2001
Posting date: 11-30-2001

A hunchback saves the life of a gypsy girl from the gallows.

This French/Italian version of the classic Victor Hugo novel is one of the few (I can’t say the only: I haven’t seen them all) versions that doesn’t change the ending of the novel, where a certain crucial character dies, so this movie certainly has that going for it. Yet, despite this faithfulness to the source, I put it a distant third behind the Chaney and Laughton versions of the story. Whereas those versions really make me feel like I’m in the time and place of the story, whether with the crowds of people at the festival of fools or high in the rafters of the cathedral, this version simply leaves me with the feeling that I’m watching actors playing roles on a set; in other words, the illusion of reality never takes hold of me. The dialogue also sounds overwritten and artificial, though the dubbing is partially to blame here. I also feel the character of Clopin is reduced to a clown; I expect more from the King of Thieves than I get here. I never once feel a glimmer of the awe I felt when I saw the crowd scenes in the other two versions; this movie is puny in comparison. And though both Gina Lollabrigida and Anthony Quinn do well in their roles, it’s not enough to overcome the weaknesses of the production. I guess it all comes down to the fact that if I want to see a cinematic version of the novel, I’ll pick either the Chaney or the Laughton version. If I want to enjoy a version that was faithful to the original story, I would most likely go back and reread the original novel before I would watch this adaptation.

HOUDINI (1953)
Article #122 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 7-16-2001
Posting date: 11-29-2001

The life and loves of the famous magician and escape artist.

In coping with Hollywood biopics and other films based on true stories, I make it a policy never to assume that the movie will accurately reflect what really happened; a good, carefully researched book on that particular subject would prove more useful in that regard. This gives me the opportunity to enjoy the movie for what it is, rather than placing expectations on it that it can’t possibly meet. Therefore, I won’t fool myself into thinking that I know the real Houdini after having seen this movie; what I have seen is what Hollywood thinks I would like to see about the life of Houdini. In this case, it thinks I would be most interested in seeing the trials and tribulations of Houdini’s love life. Not only is this aspect of Houdini’s life the one that find least interesting, but I feel I can safely say that the cute Hollywood-type events that surround this relationship in the movie have little bearing on what really happened.

Then there is the question of how this movie fits into the world of fantastic cinema; I will readily admit that it is one of the more marginal movies I’ve covered in this series. When setting up my viewing list, I decided to make no attempts to predetermine whether a movie qualifies for the category or not; I’ll watch it and decide afterwards. There are three points of interest for fans of fantastic cinema. One is that magicians by their very nature have a certain appeal for fans of the fantastic. Second is that Houdini himself appeared in several silent films that could qualify for the category. The third reason is the most interesting; there is a certain idea that pops up in the story after Houdini’s escape from a supposedly escape-proof strait-jacket; he doesn’t know how he escaped, and thinks he may have performed the feat through mystical means. He spends part of the movie looking for a magician who has experienced the same phenomenon. I don’t know if this was a real issue in Houdini’s life or not (though the fact that he had a penchant for exposing charlatan mystics calls it into question), but it does give this movie some of its most interesting touches, irrespective of whether I believe it or not.

HOUSE OF MYSTERY (1934)
Article #94 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 6-18-2001
Posting date: 11-1-2001

An adventurer kills a sacred monkey and is cursed by the priests of the temple of Kali. Twenty years later, the investors for the expedition locate the adventurer to get their share of the treasure, but in order to do so, they are asked to spend a week in the mansion. They find themselves dying one by one at the hands of a gorilla.

Yes, it’s more “old dark house” fun here, with George “Gabby” Hayes and Brandon Hurst in the cast. The motley assortment of characters is quite fun in this case, including a hen-pecked absent-minded professor, his shrewish wife, a comic-relief plumber with a secret, and an insurance salesman who uses the murders to drum up business. Maybe it’s just me, but I would have thought that the insurance salesman would have made an ideal first victim of the gorilla, but he turns out to be the romantic lead, so what do I know? I have to admit to giggling a few times throughout this one; my favorite gag has to do with a detective’s “subtle” way of trying to find out whether a man in a wheelchair is really crippled.

You know, as silly and repetitive as these “old dark house” mysteries are, they can get quite addictive.