THE PHANTOM OF THE RED HOUSE (1956)
Article #269 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 12-10-2001
Posting date: 4-25-2002

A woman who works at a nightclub discovers she will inherit a fortune if she spends three nights in the house with the other heirs. She discovers that someone is trying to knock her off.

It’s a Mexican Old Dark House movie! And I have to admit I actually giggled quite a few times, though I can’t guarantee that the translation was accurate; at any rate, I enjoyed this one. It features one of the surliest housekeepers I’ve ever seen in a movie (one of her lines “The only important date is the date we keep with death.”), one of the stupidest detectives, and a passel of the most unrepentant greedy relatives I’ve ever seen in a movie of this type. One of the strangest moments in this movie comes during the opening credits; despite the cheery comedy music that is playing, all the credits are in typical K. Gordon Murray Mexican horror movie font; if you’ve seen enough of the movies he brought us, you’ll probably know what I’m talking about. At any rate, the font is definitely at odds with the music.

PANIC IN YEAR ZERO! (1962)
Article #260 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 12-1-2001
Posting date: 4-16-2002

While leaving for vacation, a family notices a flash behind them, and discovers that Los Angeles has been destroyed in a nuclear attack. They retreat into the wilderness to survive.

This is a strong, memorable movie with a solid performance and good direction by Ray Milland; after seeing this, I wouldn’t have minded if he’d directed some more. It’s not perfect; I find it hard to believe that once his family has found the cave where they stay, the only people they run into are ones that they ran into on the trip to the cave. Still, the movie is quite gripping, and you watch it in anticipation of finding out what’s going to happen next, and if all will survive. And the theme of trying to remain civilized while doing what is necessary to survive is quite compelling. I didn’t quite know what to expect from this film going in (and the trailer makes it look as if it could become quite exploitative), and I was pleasantly surprised.

PHANTOM FROM SPACE (1953)
Article #259 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 11-30-2001
Posting date: 4-15-2002

An invisible alien from outer space crashes on earth. When circumstances force him to kill two earthlings, he finds himself being chased by the authorities.

I’ve heard it said that one of the rules to making an interesting movie is to cut out the dull parts. W. Lee Wilder should have used that rule; the movie not only opens with a sleep-inducing four minutes of narration and stock footage montage, but it’s loaded with uninteresting detail, scenes of people sitting around and talking without anything interesting to say, and too many shots of people reading, smoking and pacing. For all that, it’s better than some of his other films (I prefer it to KILLERS FROM SPACE or THE SNOW CREATURE), largely because it does garner a few interesting moments; the scene with the alien trying to communicate with the woman in the lab, though it has some weak moments, is one of the better scenes I’ve seen from this director.

SPOILER

It also may feature the first self-cleaning alien in cinema history, that phenomena by which an alien, when he dies, dissolves into nothingness. Unfortunately, that may be too apt a metaphor for this movie.

THE PHANTOM CREEPS (1939)
(Serial)
Article #121 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 7-15-2001
Posting date: 11-28-2001

A mad scientist creates inventions that can be used to take over the world. Government agents try to prevent him from doing so, and foreign spies try to steal his secrets.

The plot is set up in the first two episodes of this serial, and the next nine episodes involve a box which contains the source of the scientist’s power being stolen back and forth between the various parties involved. Admittedly, it does find a bit of variety in coming up with ways to vary this particular routine, but you are still aware that the actual story has ground to a halt by this point; it’s only in the last episode when Dr. Zorkov unleashes his attack on the world (such as it is) that the plot starts moving again.

Still, there’s a lot of fun to be had in this old serial. Bela Lugosi does well, especially at the top of the second episode when he discovers that his attempt to cover up his tracks has caused the death of his wife. Edward Van Sloan is also on hand as the head of the spy ring. The real star of this one may be the world’s ugliest robot (played by Ed Wolff); that permanently grimacing face is a scream. After a while, you notice how the robot is trotted out at some point in each episode, even if it has nothing better to do at that point than to carry a heavy box.

Here’s a list of other fun things to watch for.

1) Notice how many times Lugosi’s cowardly assistant is shot by the police or the spies, and this generally fatal event always results in nothing worse than stunning the man.

2) Count the number of times Lugosi sics the robot on his own assistant to keep him in line.

3) Notice how many times the assistant complains about being in danger.

4) Enjoy the most ridiculous sequence in the serial when Lugosi decides to move his hideout out of his home and into the same office building where the spies reside. Lugosi knows the spies are there, but he decides that it will give him an opportunity to keep an eye on them. His box of power is then stolen within minutes of moving into the new hideout. This is not, in my opinion, one of the scientist’s more brilliant ideas.

And just as a side comment, even after watching all twelve episodes, I still couldn’t tell the difference between the two government agents in the serial. I think it might have helped if they had had personalities.

THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY (1945)
Article #118 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 7-12-2001
Posting date: 11-25-2001

A young man, fearful for the loss of his youth, wishes that a portrait of his would age instead of him. The wish comes true, as the picture starts reflecting the effects of time and debauchery instead of his own body.

Of all the famous authors I know of, Oscar Wilde seems to be one of the last ones I would have thought to have penned a classic horror novel: however, I am not surprised that the one he did write would have been along these lines. I don’t think the Dorian Gray story is quite as compelling to horror fans as certain other classics, and I think part of the reason is that it covers a lot of the same ground as the more adaptable Jekyll and Hyde story, in that they both deal with the seduction of man by his own innate evil, as well as taking place in the same basic milieu. Still, I was surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie, and though I haven’t read the novel in many years, I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that many of the witty nuggets of conversation voiced by Sir Henry Wotton (George Sanders—now that is exquisite casting) are from the original novel. It is fascinating watching the gradual transformation of Hurd Hatfield’s Dorian Gray from an innocent young man into a truly amoral cad. The use of occasional color (in the close-ups of the actual picture) is also a nice touch. Donna Reed, Angela Lansbury, and Peter Lawford also show up in the cast.

PSYCHO (1960)
Article #112 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 7-6-2001
Posting date: 11-19-2001

No plot description here: if you’ve seen it, you know the plot; if you haven’t, the less you know going in, the better.

With that in mind, I’ve come to the conclusion that any serious discussion of this movie will involve SPOILERS to some degree. Furthermore, PSYCHO is one of those movies that has been written about and talked about so much that I doubt that I will have anything novel or interesting to say about it. Nonetheless, I’ll touch upon a couple of things that came to mind while watching the movie.

I’ve heard it said that Hitchcock considers the movie a comedy. I think I see what he’s talking about, but I myself wouldn’t consider it a comedy as much as a joke; specifically, a practical joke played on an unsuspecting audience, and, as we know, practical jokes are always the most fun for the person who perpetrates them. Hitchcock’s joke involves setting up specific expectations in the mind of the audience, and then pulling the rug out from under them. After all, Janet Leigh is initally set up as the main character of the movie, and look what happens to her.

The sad thing is that this movie is so well known and so widely discussed that I think it is next to impossible to watch it with a fresh and innocent mind; the first time I saw it, I knew about the fate of Janet Leigh beforehand, and there’s no way that scene can have the same impact if you’re expecting it (I will admit, however, to having been caught off guard by Martin Balsam’s fate). As good as this movie is, I actually think obscurity would enhance it; it would preserve the sense of surprise that this movie really needs in order for it to have it’s full impact.

PREHISTORIC WOMEN (1950)
Article #111 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 7-5-2001
Posting date: 11-18-2001

A group of prehistoric women dance themselves to exhaustion during the full moon. The matriarch can tell by this that they need to get some men into the tribe (apparently their cosmetician and hairdresser, whose existences I merely deduce from the evidence I see, do not qualify). They capture some men and keep them prisoner using their pet panther to keep them in line. However, when one of the men kills the panther, the balance of power shifts, and the men rule the women. They decide to take them back to their caves, but on the way they have to join forces to fight a turkey (the narrator calls it a dragon, but I’m calling it as I see it) and a giant called the Gwadi.

SPOILER

At the end, they decide to join forces and form a tribe of their own, and much (offscreen) enjoyment is had by all. No dinosaurs appear, not even a slurpasaur (and the dragon/turkey doesn’t count).

END OF SPOILER

Usually, I don’t go into this elaborate of a plot description, but there are just some movies that are best described that way; it tells you more about the movie than any commentary by me ever could. The lack of dinosaurs should give you a clue as to what aspect of caveman movies this one is going to emphasize, but be aware that it would get no more than the mildest of PG ratings nowadays.

This is what happens when you make a caveman movie without dinosaurs.

Also, beware narrators; you know you’re watching a bad movie when the narrator is telling you things that you can see with your own two eyes.

THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925)
Article #110 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 7-4-2001
Posting date: 11-17-2001

An opera house is terrorized by a deformed man known as the Phantom, who tries to force the owners to put a specific singer in lead roles in their productions.

This is probably the most famous of Lon Chaney’s films. He was both a consummate actor and an inspired makeup artist, and this movie was certainly a triumph for him in the latter capacity; the make up for Eric is as famous as that of Jack Pierce’s for the Frankenstein Monster. Unfortunately, I don’t think it’s one of his best performances, largely because the Phantom as a character doesn’t really have a great deal of dimension; it’s not that I think Chaney was weak in any way in the role, it’s just that compared to his roles in WEST OF ZANZIBAR or THE UNKNOWN, for example, there’s simply not a whole lot to it. In fact, the whole movie is a bit of a disappointment to me; it’s too long for my taste, and there’s too much time spent with the side characters and not enough with the Phantom himself. And though its horror aspects are quite obvious, it plays more like a melodrama than a horror movie. Still, it has some wonderful moments; one of my favorites is…SPOILER COMING…

…towards the end when the Phantom is cornered, and he reaches into his coat, and everyone stops in their tracks, terrified of what he’s going to do, and then. . . well, if you’ve seen it, you know what happens; if not, I’m not going to spoil the surprise, other than to say it is indeed a bravura acting moment from Chaney.

PEEPING TOM (1960)
Article #109 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 7-3-2001
Posting date: 11-16-2001

A strange man finds himself compelled to murder women and photograph them at the time of their deaths to capture the look of fear in their eyes.

One of the benefits of trying to do a comprehensive review of fantastic cinema is that it causes me to finally get around to seeing certain films that up to now had been on my “I’ll watch it when I get around to it someday” list, and discovering a real gem. I’d read quite a bit about the film, but nothing I’d read prepared me for it. This is one amazing film, at least fifteen years ahead of its time. I’ve heard it described as a British PSYCHO, and even though it delves into a lot of Hitchcockian themes, I don’t think the description does it justice; the movie is playing an entirely different game than the one PSYCHO plays.

What is audacious about this movie is that it goes out of its way to make you really understand what this man is like as a human being, and why he does what he does. The movie is not exploitative; if it contains some elements of exploitation, it is only because these elements were essential in painting a portrait of the character. There is something deeply unnerving about getting this intimate with a character of this nature, and I think it was this intensity of experience which more than anything else contributed to the reception that the movie received upon its release, and its subsequent effect on the collapse of Michael Powell’s career; I don’t think people could handle the movie emotionally, and hated it for that reason.

I think this movie is a masterpiece, and I’m not surprised it had a real influence on the work of Martin Scorsese, whose work it most resembles. It will also, by its very nature, never be a popular favorite like PSYCHO.