MAN BEAST (1956)
Article #245 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 11-16-2001
Posting date: 4-1-2002

A woman is searching for her brother who is on an expedition in the Himalayas to discover the Yeti.

This is actually pretty amazing—a coherent Jerry Warren film. It’s still badly acted and the script is pretty clumsy at times, but he does a much better job of using footage from another film to augment this one than he usually does, probably because he only uses the long shots and landscape footage rather than trying to incorporate any of the plot into the film. There’s also some interesting ideas in the screenplay. especially when you learn the history of a certain mysterious character; in fact, I’ve found that abominable snowman movies tend to be more interesting than movies about Bigfoot. This is by no means a classic, but it’s probably the best thing Jerry Warren ever did and is actually worth a watch.

In reality, I do have to admit to a certain fondness for this guy’s work, but that has a lot to do with my love of puzzles. I just like the challenge of taking a movie like THE FACE OF THE SCREAMING WEREWOLF (which is made up of two different Mexican movies and original footage by Warren) and sorting out which scene belongs with which group of footage.

MAD LOVE (1935)
Article #238 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 11-9-2001
Posting date: 3-25-2002

When a pianist has his hands crushed in a train accident, the surgeon (who loves the man’s wife) grafts the hands of a murderous knife-thrower in place of those of the pianist.

The second adaptation of the “Hands of Orlac” story has a lousy title; it sounds like a musical comedy. It does, however, have an excellent performance from Peter Lorre and good ones from Colin Clive and Ted Healy. I really like Freund’s direction here; it’s a shame it was his last movie in that capacity. I also really like the script, especially the way it sets up Orlac’s discovery of whose hands he possesses. (“This happens to be my pen, gentlemen.”) I’m afraid I don’t care for the hysterical performance of Frances Drake, but the movie also features Billy Gilbert (as the guy who tries to get Rollo’s autograph), a wonderful scene in which the murderer spends his last few moments pondering Hoover Dam (the movie has a few scenes like this), and a reference to THE MUMMY (“It went out for a little walk.”). I like this movie more each time I see it.

THE MONSTER MAKER (1944)
Article #211 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 10-13-2001
Posting date: 2-26-2002

A doctor falls in love with the daughter of a pianist, but she denies him. He tries to force her hand by injecting her father with germs that cause acromegaly.

One thing that came to mind while watching this movie is that whatever you can say about the cheapness of the production, PRC certainly cared a lot more about their horror product than Monogram. I found you can take their movies quite seriously, where all too often the Monogram movies were jokey and campy. The acromegaly angle makes this movie tasteless to some, but I quite like it; the story and the performances hold my interest throughout. The cast features Ralph Morgan, J. Carrol Naish, and Glenn Strange. Incidentally, acromegaly was the real-life ailment that distorted the features of actor Rondo Hatton.

THE MONSTER AND THE GIRL (1941)
Article #210 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 10-12-2001
Posting date: 2-25-2002

A woman marries a man involved with gangsters who disappears after their wedding night. When her brother tries to locate him, he is framed for murder. A scientist puts his brain in the body of a gorilla.

The first half of this movie is a mess; it’s a complicated, confusing story about a woman who marries a gangster, and trying to sort out the characters is a pain; you really start wondering why it’s considered a horror movie. Had I seen only this part, I would have hated it. However, something very strange happens in the second half; once the brother’s brain is in the body of the gorilla, it becomes almost another movie and a memorable one at that. Part of the reason for the improvement is Charles Gemora, who gives what may well be the best performance ever by a man in a gorilla suit; his eyes actually express real emotion; you can see that the gorilla has a human brain. And the haunting shots of the gorilla hunting down his enemies by following his faithful dog through the streets of the city is a sight to behold. George Zucco (as the scientist who performs the brain transplant) is on only briefly and not given much to do; the emphasis is very much on the man in the gorilla suit in this one.

THE MAN WHO LAUGHS (1924)
Article #209 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 10-11-2001
Posting date: 2-24-2002

A boy is mutilated by gypsies as a child so that his face is permanently set in a hideous smile. When he is abandoned by them, he saves the life of a child and ends up staying with a man who runs a circus and makes him a clown. Eventually, the Queen discovers he is of royal birth, and tries to reinstate him to the nobility.

This one is a classic. The first half hour of this movie is absolutely stunning; I love Gwynplaine’s trek through the snow and his discovery of the child, which I consider one of the great scenes of silent cinema. I also love Conrad Veidt’s performance throughout; it’s amazing the range of emotions he projects despite the fact that his mouth is restricted to one expression. I also like Brandon Hurst as the cruel jester Barkilphedro; this was the first time I really noticed him, and soon discovered that he appeared in several key roles in horror films throughout the years. The movie also features Mary Philbin as the blind girl who loves Gwynplaine, and Olga Baclanova (most famous for playing the trapeze artist in FREAKS) as the Duchess Josiana. This is one of the joys of working on this project; the discovery of a new favorite that I may never have taken the time to look at otherwise.

MURDER BY TELEVISION (1935)
Article #197 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-29-2001
Posting date: 2-12-2002

Well, let’s see. . . Hmm, can’t remember this one very well. . .I remember people standing around and talking . . . someone dies. . . there’s someone lying on the floor (I think it’s Bela Lugosi). . . another man who looks like Bela Lugosi shows up. . . the movie ends.

This movie was made by Cameo Pictures, most likely with an assist by Sominex. Let’s see how it stacks up to several other movies.

The action scenes are almost as thrilling and exciting as anything in MY DINNER WITH ANDRE.

The cinematography almost reaches that same energetic fluidity of motion to be found in the 1931 DRACULA.

The plot is almost as enticingly mysterious as that of THE MAGIC LAND OF MOTHER GOOSE.

The dialogue is almost as sparklingly witty as that of ONE MILLION B.C.

And the movie is even longer than SHOAH or BERLIN ALEXANDERPLATZ (I may be wrong on this one, but I’m going by feel).

All in all, one of the most effective cures for insomnia I’ve ever had the pleasure to sleep through.

And I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that the movie industry released a movie with the word “television” in the title that would make us associate that word with mind-numbing boredom.

THE MIRACLE MAN (1919)
Article #196 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-28-2001
Posting date: 2-11-2002

All right, I’ll fess up from the beginning that I have not actually seen this lost movie in its entirety. This is somewhat against the rules I set down for these Musings and Ramblings, as I have heretofore only included movies I’ve seen; however, since I have seen the only five minutes that are known to exist of this one, I’ve decided to let it count. The movie appears to be about some criminals who get in involved in a faith healing scam, with Lon Chaney portraying a fake cripple who “gets healed” by the faith healer. The clips that survive appear to have been part of a running series of sound shorts that gave capsule descriptions of classic silent movies while running clips from said movie. The extant clip largely involves the moment in which Lon Chaney is healed, and then a real crippled boy comes forward in the hope of being healed himself, and amazingly enough, is healed.

Though I’ve let this one count, I’ll try not to make a habit of it. With so many lost movies out there, sometimes we just have to be grateful for those clips that do exist.

MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM (1933)
Article #102 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 6-26-2001
Posting date: 11-9-2001

Several years after his first wax museum was destroyed in an arsonous fire, a sculptor prepares to open his new museum. However, a series of strange deaths occur, and the bodies disappear from the morgues. And some of the new wax figures look quite a bit like the missing people…

This movie was missing for years, and during that time it came to be believed that the movie was a classic far superior to the 3D remake HOUSE OF WAX. When the movie was found and screened, many were disappointed. I too was disappointed when I first saw the movie, but on rewatching it this last time, I quite enjoyed it. I think what made the movie work for me is that I put myself in the right frame of mind when I watched it. I observed a few rules.

1) Tolerate the wise-cracking girl reporter. I have now seen enough movies from the thirties that I’ve gotten to the point where this type of character no longer annoys me; in fact, this character was so ubiquitous during the period that I’m surprised at how many movies from that time don’t have a wise-cracking reporter. She is the main character of the story, so the sooner you get used to the idea, the easier it will be for you.

2) Watch the movie as a mystery rather than a horror movie. Despite the horror elements, it plays like a mystery and is best enjoyed that way.

3) Pretend you don’t know who the killer is. The denouement of this movie is quite well known, but knowing whodunit really does interfere with your enjoyment of the movie, as it makes it look as if the movie is constantly veering off the track. If you can set aside that foreknowledge and allow yourself to suspect several people, the movie makes a lot more sense and feels more focused.

It may seem unusual to adopt a strategy to watch a movie, but in this case, it worked for me.

Also worth mentioning is the fact that the movie features Fay Wray, Lionel Atwill, and Glenda Farell (as the wise-cracking reporter). The use of early two-strip Technicolor also gives this movie a unique look that it shares with DOCTOR X.

THE MUMMY (1932)
Article #101 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 6-25-2001
Posting date: 11-8-2001

When the Scroll of Thoth is read by a curious archaeologist, the mummy of Im-Ho-Tep revives, steals the scroll, and vanishes. Years later a curious character named Ardeth Bay leads archaelogists to the undiscovered tomb of a woman.

This fine movie did not establish the basic mummy mythology that survives; credit for that goes to THE MUMMY’S HAND, which, though it borrows footage from this movie, is not a sequel. In this movie, the mummy is only seen as such at the very beginning (in a great scene); it contains the classic line, “He went for a little walk!” The rest of the movie is quieter and more poetic. In many ways, it is similar to DRACULA, a movie on which Karl Freund (the director of THE MUMMY) served as cinematographer.

I love Boris Karloff’s performance in this movie; his stiff, often motionless stance and his obvious distaste at being touched gives him a sense of great age and extreme delicacy, as if he’s ready to crumble to dust at any moment.

Incidentally, when I started watching movies on my local Creature Feature, this was the first one I encountered; unfortunately, I found myself bored after the first scene and found myself wondering where the mummy had gone to, and I failed to watch the movie in its entirety. As an adult, that problem has vanished, and though the movie does require a little patience, Karloff’s performance and the quiet but steady accumulation of detail that drives the movie keep me interested throughout (unlike DRACULA, which never fails to cast its irresistible spell of sleep on me).

THE MONSTER WALKS (1932)
Article #100 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 6-24-2001
Posting date: 11-7-2001

When her uncle dies, a woman finds she is to inherit his fortune. Attempts are then made on her life. Is it the ape locked up in the basement that has always hated her? Is it the man in the wheelchair whom everyone suspects, but who can’t walk? Or is it…

Yes, folks, we’re taking another trip into the old dark house. This is pretty standard stuff, and I figured out who the killer was long before the movie was over; it was a simple matter of figuring out which character wasn’t suspected by any of the others. The movie is mainly noteworthy for two things. It was one of the first screen appearances of Willie Best (as Sleep ‘n’ Eat) in one of those stereotyped comic black roles that is embarassing to watch nowadays. The other is that it uses a full-grown chimpanzee as the ape rather than a man in a gorilla suit. We’re so used to seeing only baby chimps in films that it is rather novel to see a full-grown one. The downside of this is that we don’t really perceive chimps as dangerous animals, though I’ve heard that in reality they can be some of the most temperamental and dangerous of the apes. Still, gorillas simply look more threatening, and perhaps they would have better off with a man in a gorilla costume.