HORROR ISLAND (1941)
Article #93 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 6-17-2001
Posting date: 10-31-2001

A small-time entrepreneur takes advantage of a fake treasure map he has acquired to stage a treasure-making scheme on an island with an old castle that he has rigged up to be haunted. However, he finds himself being stalked by a killer known as “The Phantom,” and the treasure-seekers find themselves being knocked off one by one.

I wonder just how many obscure horror comedies of the thirties and early forties were variations of THE CAT AND THE CANARY, with a variety of characters staying in a spooky house/mansion/castle with secret doors and passages while being terrorized by a caped fiend. I think of them en masse as “The Old Dark House Films.” At any rate, here’s another one. This one is not too bad; it’s directed with a fair amount of energy and gusto. In fact, it may move too fast at one point; once the killer starts keeping numeric track of the living persons left on the island, there are only about twelve minutes left to the movie. Still, this is silly, light-hearted fun.

Incidentally, my favorite joke in the movie involves pigeons.

HERCULES (1957)
Article #83 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 6-7-2001
Posting date: 10-21-2001

Hercules takes part in Jason’s quest for the golden fleece and tries to win the heart of his love, Iole.

The Italian title of this Steve Reeves entry is LA FATICHE DE ERCOLE (The Labors of Hercules), but this movie (which initiated the whole sword and sandal craze) is a lot more interested in the Jason quest than the labors; about halfway through this movie I realized I was watching another version of JASON AND THE ARGONAUTS, which I had just seen the day earlier. Sword and sandal movies can be a lot of fun, though I often have trouble telling one from another; this one at least has the advantage of at least being based on specific myths, unlike many later entries. Actually, one can have some fun just compiling a list of common sword and sandal cliches. Here’s a starting point for a list of common scenes and plot elements of sword and sandal movies; feel free to add your own.

Our hero bends back the bars of a cage and escapes.
Out hero lifts a heavy object and throws it at someone or something.
Our hero battles some deadly wildlife, such as tigers, lions, bulls, crocodiles, etc.
Our hero is seduced by an evil queen.
Our hero is drugged by the evil queen and loses his memory.
An evil underling engages in court intrigue to gain control of the throne.
Someone makes a long boring speech.
While out riding his horse, our hero encounter a line of refugees walking in the opposite direction, some of which are pulling a cart with big wheels.
Our hero encounters a band of slaves going in the opposite direction.
Our hero only pretends to be drugged by the evil queen.
Our hero is cast into a pit from which he must escape.
A village is destroyed by evil men on horses.
Women in skimpy dresses dance in the court.
Amazons are encountered.
An evil queen kills or otherwise eliminates her ex-lovers (by stuffing them, turning them into trees, etc.)
This sounds like the beginning of a drinking game.

THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME (1923)
Article #73 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 5-28-2001
Posting date: 10-11-2001

When the deformed bell-ringer of Notre Dame cathedral is sent out by his friend Jehan to kidnap a gypsy woman named Esmeralda, he is captured by the guards and sentenced to a public flogging. He gains an attachment to Esmeralda when she is the only person to give him water to drink after his flogging. Then when Esmeralda is arrested for the attempted murder of the guard Phoebus (an act actually performed by Jehan), the hunchback takes it upon himself to rescue her from execution.

This is not my favorite rendition of the Victor Hugo tale, but it comes a close second. Lon Chaney is a wonder as Quasimodo the hunchback, and the scenes of him climbing up and down the walls of Notre Dame in his Quasimodo get-up are amazing; on top of being a consummate actor and make-up artist, he must have possessed a great deal of athletic prowess. Unsurprisingly, changes have been made from the original story, particularly in turning Phoebus the womanizer into the hero of the piece; in fact, the movie spends entirely too much time with this character, one of the less interesting ones in the story. Nonetheless, this is one of the better versions of the novel.

HOW TO MAKE A MONSTER (1958)
Article #72 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 5-27-2001
Posting date: 10-10-2001

When a disgruntled make-up man discovers that he is going to be axed by the studio because they aren’t going to make monster movies anymore, he concocts a special makeup that allows him to control those whom he makes up. He then has these people commit murders in their monster regalia.

I love the concept behind this movie, and I love the fact that rather than concocting a different name for the studio, American International Pictures used their own name. The decision in the movie that AIP would start making musicals (which gave me visions of movies like ROGER CORMAN’S THE SOUND OF MUSIC) I found frankly hilarious, though in one sense the move from horror to teen movies is exactly what happened. It also gave them a chance to bring back the makeup jobs of both the Teenage Werewolf and the Teenage Frankenstein. Unfortunately, the movie itself never fully exploits the concept, and the last part of the movie, where the script abandons the original thrust of the story and turns the makeup man into a much more conventional homicidal maniac, is to my mind distinctly unsatisfying (despite the switch to color).

I do find it a bit ironic that the makeup man has his house decorated with several masks of monsters designed by Paul Blaisdell, who was himself dropped by the studio when they shifted away from horror. I’ve also heard that he was not informed about the fire, and that many of these items were lost in the final scenes of the movie.

HOUSE OF WAX (1953)
Article #59 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 5-14-2001
Posting date: 9-27-2001

A series of murders and disappearing bodies seem to be tied to the opening of a new wax museum by a wheelchair-bound artist (Vincent Price).

This remake of MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM jettisons a lot of the subplots of the original; in their places are setpieces for the 3D presentation. In fact, of all the movies shot in 3D, this seems to be the one that most needs to be seen in that format; several of the scenes are pointless or overlong unless they are viewed that way. Price is a great deal of fun, as usual, and the story seems less cluttered than the original. However, unless you can catch it in 3D, you will most likely find it rather tedious and disappointing.

THE HAUNTED STRANGLER (1958)
(a.k.a. GRIP OF THE STRANGLER)
Article #58 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 5-13-2001
Posting date: 9-26-2001

A writer (Boris Karloff) who is researching an old case of murders committed by a fiend known as “The Haymarket Strangler” has a theory that the wrong man was executed for the crime. To prove his point, he has his grave exhumed and comes upon the knife used in the killings. When he picks up the knife, he transforms into the strangler and begins a new series of killings.

Karloff himself picked the story from which this was filmed, “Stranglehold” by Jan Read. It’s bloodier and has a nastier edge than you would expect from a Karloff vehicle, but it has some unexpected and quite interesting story twists. Unfortunately, this is one of the very few Karloff performances I don’t like; he seems to me to be somewhat over the top, almost hysterical, and I don’t get the feeling he was comfortable with the role, which is odd, considering the role he played in picking it out. His other movie for Amalgamated Productions, CORRIDORS OF BLOOD, (I always associate these two movies in my mind) is the one I much prefer.

H.G. WELLS’ THE NEW INVISIBLE MAN (1957)
(a.k.a. THE NEW INVISIBLE MAN)
Article #53 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 5-8-2001
Posting date: 9-21-2001

A man framed for murder receives an injection that turns him invisible. He uses his power to escape and prove his innocence. Unfortunately, the drug causes madness, and…

First of all, I just love Mexican horror movies from the fifties and sixties. They were like bizarre remakes of Universal classics filtered through a very unique sensibility, and the results could be quite engaging. I’ve only seen one of these in its original language, and the dubbing is usually quite bad, but the charm manages to show through anyway.

Unfortunately, this is one of the lesser entries in the field. It borrows little from Wells and is hardly new, being essentially a remake of one of the Universal invisible man sequels. In fact, the concept of a man trying to use invisibility to prove his innocence seems a fairly common invisible man theme. This one doesn’t really add anything new to the idea, and is somewhat dull. This is not the place to start if embarking on a journey through Mexican horror.