THE SORCERERS (1967)
Article 2212 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-6-2007
Posting Date: 9-2-2007
Directed by Michael Reeves
Featuring Boris Karloff, Catherine Lacey, Ian Ogilvy

A hypnotist and his wife develop a method whereby they can control a young man’s actions from a distance. As a side effect, they discover that they can also feel his every sensation as if it were their own. The wife then becomes seduced by the idea that she can make the man commit criminal activities that she can vicariously enjoy.

With this movie I now complete the oeuvre of director Michael Reeves. Though it is the final one I’ve covered for this series, it is actually the first one I ever saw when it popped up many years ago on my local Creature Feature, and even though I believe WITCHFINDER GENERAL is the better movie, this is perhaps my favorite of his. At least part of the reason is the presence of Boris Karloff, who does a fine job here as the hypnotist who finds himself in a battle of wills with his wife. But the rest of the cast also does a fine job, especially Catherine Lacey as the wife, whose newfound power brings out her previously hidden sadistic side. I also found the premise unusual and interesting. The movie makes impressive use of editing and sound; some of the scenes in which we switch back and forth between Ian Ogilvy’s possessed young man and the controlling couple are marvelously done, and the way Michael Reeves uses silence to underscore much of the action (it is one of the quietest horror films I’ve ever seen) is noteworthy. As a side note, I can’t help but notice that in each of his four movies as a director (counting CASTLE OF THE LIVING DEAD, where he was uncredited) he managed to work with a separate horror star in each; Christopher Lee, Barbara Steele, Boris Karloff, and Vincent Price.

7 FACES OF DR. LAO (1964)
Article 2211 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-5-2007
Posting Date: 9-1-2007
Directed by George Pal
Featuring Tony Randall, Barbara Eden, Arthur O’Connell

The residents of a small western town are about to sell out to an unscrupulous land speculator when they are visited by a mysterious Oriental character known as Dr. Lao, who invites them to enjoy his circus.

This is one of the most charming fantasies I’ve ever seen, and it is one of my favorite George Pal films. For some odd reason, I don’t think the movie should work; with its shifting moods, I sense it should come across as unfocused, but this is not the case. For what seems on the surface to be a light-hearted movie, it occasionally shows a power and a darkness that is devastating; the scene where the vain middle-aged woman visits the fortune teller only to be told the naked truth about herself is so sad it’s hard to take, and the scene where the librarian encounters Pan is so overwhelmingly (but not explicitly) sexual that it’s hard to believe that it’s in a movie that is fit for children. Part of the reason it works so well is the excellent performance from Tony Randall, who plays most of the circus characters and whose accent changes with the situation; he’s breathtakingly energetic and a joy to watch. The movie is filled with other memorable performances from such familiar names as John Ericson, Noah Beery Jr., Minerval Urecal, John Qualen, and Royal Dano. The movie has a real magic to it, and sometimes the way events transpire is amazing; I love the scene where the audience is terrified by the parable of the story of a town that is destroyed by its own greed and then suddenly find themselves sitting at a town meeting in the library where they themselves must vote on the fate of their own town. Great special effects also help, some of which are the work of Jim Danforth. I do wonder about one thing in the story; each of the members of Dr. Lao’s circus has a strong effect on at least one of the townspeople, with the sole exception of the Abominable Snowman, who only appears in snatches. This makes me want to read the Charles Finney novel on which the movie is based to find out if something involving the Snowman was cut from the movie version of the story. At any rate, I consider this one of George Pal’s finest moments.

THE SHE-BEAST (1966)
aka La Sorella di Satana
Article 2210 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-4-2007
Posting Date: 8-31-2007
Directed by Michael Reeves
Featuring Barbara Steele, John Karlsen, Ian Ogilvy

A young married couple honeymoons in Transylvania. When they crash their car into a lake that served as the execution spot for a witch, the woman becomes possessed by the witch’s spirit, and sets out to kill the descendants of those that executed her.

Though he did some uncredited direction on CASTLE OF THE LIVING DEAD, this is the first feature fully directed by Michael Reeves, who is best known for WITCHFINDER GENERAL and for his untimely death at the age of 25. I’m not sure what I was expecting going into this one, but I will say this; I wasn’t expecting a comedy. For, despite a grisly execution sequence near the beginning of the movie, that is what this movie becomes, including odd characters such as John Karlsen’s eccentric nobleman named von Helsing and Mel Welles’ stupid voyeur (it’s the closest I’ve ever seen him to reprising his Gravis Mushnik character from LITTLE SHOP OF HORRORS ), and full of clearly comic situations (including a corpse kidnapping sequence / car chase). As a comedy, it’s only mildly funny at best, but there are times where it is visually interesting; some moments definitely recalled Roger Corman’s low budget comedies of the early sixties, while others even reminded me of German silent movies. The script is a mess and it’s rather hard to follow, but it’s certainly Michael Reeves’ most lighthearted effort. If anything, this movie makes me regret his early demise; even in this ragged film he showed some real talent, and had he lived, I suspect we would have seen some very interesting work from him. Though this is far from a great movie, I certainly found it interesting enough.

THE SPANIARD’S CURSE (1958)
Article 2203 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-28-2007
Posting Date; 8-24-2007
Directed by Ralph Kemplen
Featuring Tony Wright, Lee Patterson, Michael Hordern

A man framed for murder proclaims a curse on those responsible for his situation. Then the jury foreman who found him guilty dies in a freak accident. Some of the people involved begin an investigation into whether the sentenced man is innocent or not.

The basic vengeance motif of a condemned man seeking justice through a curse is pretty standard stuff, but the way the story unfolds is quite interesting, and for a while the movie looks like its going to be a better-than-average take on the story. Unfortunately, once the investigation gets underway, the movie becomes a disappointingly dull mystery, hampered by static direction and turgid pacing. Things do start to pick up again towards the end, but I didn’t think it really saved the movie. It’s a bit of a shame; there’s some interesting touches to the story, such as a subplot about a pickpocket and a good sequence involving a church cemetery. I just wish the movie had added some energy to the proceedings; it could have been a really decent thriller.

SOMETHING CREEPING IN THE DARK (1971)
aka QUALCOSA STRISCIA NEL BUIO, SOMETHING IS CRAWLING IN THE DARK
Article 2195 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-20-2007
Posting Date: 8-16-2007
Directed by Mario Colucci
Featuring Stelvio Rosi, Mia Genberg, Farley Granger

Various people become stranded in a spooky old house during a storm, and they decide to hold a seance. They end up calling forth the spirit of a woman who takes possession of their souls.

Any movie that opens with a man commenting about seeing someone’s new nose is doing something interesting, and for anyone who likes their horrors on the offbeat side, this one will work. The above plot description makes it sound more ordinary than it is, and indeed, it is built on some very ordinary elements; it starts out like a standard “old dark house” variant, but what happens in the aftermath is hardly routine. It’s filled with quirky touches, bizarre scenes, and offbeat moments. The blurb on the back describes the movie as “impenetrable”, and to some extent, it is, but it’s impenetrable in a rather attractive and fun way; I really found myself wondering just what the ghost was trying to do. At times, the movie reminded me a little of CASTLE OF BLOOD, not so much due to plot similarities, but because I often found myself having the same slightly disoriented viewing experience as I did with that one, though it isn’t quite as good as that one. Nevertheless, I was charmed and fascinated by this one, and it is really unlike most of the Italian horror movies I’ve seen so far.

THE SWIMMER (1968)
Article 2185 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-10-2007
Posting Date: 8-6-2007
Directed by Frank Perry
Featuring Burt Lancaster, Janet Landgard, Janice Rule

A man decides that there are enough swimming pools between him and his home so that he can swim across the county to his home, so he decides to do so. He is forced to face the demons of his past along the way.

The trailer for this film asks the question “When you talk about THE SWIMMER, will you talk about yourself?” Obviously, someone felt that this movie was such a powerful and universal experience that it would touch the nerves of all who saw it. And, given its rating of 7.6 on IMDB, it must have touched quite a few people in this way. Still, my answer to the trailer’s question is going to be no; I’m first going to talk about “The Motion Picture Guide”, that multi-volume movie reference set that came out in the mid-eighties that classifies this experimental drama as a fantasy. Yes, it’s got a bizarre premise, but it’s hardly a fantastic one, and the movie doesn’t try to paint it as such. In short, I consider this movie misclassified, and fantasy fans will find nothing here to satisfy them.

On its own terms, I’m afraid I’m not as taken with this movie as some others. Burt Lancaster does a fine job, and for a man in his late fifties, he was still in good enough shape to handle the physical demands of the role as well as spending the entire running length of the movie in a swimsuit. There is also some depth to the movie, and there are a few amusing moments, including his encounter with some nudists. But aside from him, I found the acting fairly uneven, and the extended metaphor that drives the movie just didn’t fascinate me enough to raise the movie above the level of pretentious for me. I put this in the category of non-genre oddities.

SPY IN YOUR EYE (1965)
aka BANG, YOU’RE DEAD, BERLINO – APPUNTAMENTO PER LE SPIE
Article 2184 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-9-2007
Posting Date: 8-5-2007
Directed by Vittorio Sala
Featuring Brett Halsey, Pier Angeli, Gastone Moschin

A spy organization tries to rescue a woman who knows a secret formula, but they are unaware of the fact that their boss has had a surveillance device implanted in his artificial eye by enemy spies and can figure out what they are going to do.

I thought this was going to be just another ordinary Eurospy adventure when I sat down to watch it, and in some ways, it is. It’s rather cheesy at times, the plot is quite confusing, and there are occasional glaring film flubs (my favorite has a car driving off before the engine has finished turning over). But some of the gimmicks are very clever (the rigged artificial eye and the hunchback’s hump which turns into a knife stand out), some of the set pieces are great (including a sequence in a train, a memorable escape through a mine field, a chase scene among displays on an elaborate float, a killer Napoleon Bonaparte statue, and an enormous shifting room). These are some of the most entertaining scenes I’ve ever witnessed in one of these Eurospy movies, and Dana Andrews and Brett Halsey are both fun in their respective roles. It even has a fairly clever hiding place for the formula everyone is searching for. For those who’ve never tried one of the Eurospy movies, this is a good one to start with.

STARSHIP INVASIONS (1977)
Article 2182 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-7-2007
Posting Date: 8-3-2007
Directed by Ed Hunt
Featuring Robert Vaughn, Christopher Lee, Daniel Pilon

Evil aliens plan to destroy all human life on earth. Good aliens try to prevent them. A UFOlogist helps the good aliens.

STARSHIP INVASIONS, huh? I wonder where they came up with that title? Yet, in all fairness, I have to say that at least they didn’t just lift the plot of STAR WARS, and had they done so, it would have most likely blown the budget. Yet, what they substitute in its place is hardly worth cheering about. As it is, this glum compendium of UFOs, spaceship battles, mass suicides, telepathy and robots ends up having the feel of watching bad news reports on a static-filled TV screen while suffering from a high fever; it’s woozy and unpleasant. The listless score is of no help, and the fact that this movie consists of the most depressing alien invasion imaginable (they shoot a ray onto the earth that causes mass suicides) just makes things worse. The star power does little to help, for that matter. Still, I did emerge from watching this movie with one big discovery; after having so many scenes of people talking telepathically, I discovered just how much I really liked seeing people’s mouths and lips move when I watch a movie. This movie is singularly lacking in fun. It made me really appreciate STARCRASH.

SPOOK CHASERS (1957)
Article 2180 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-5-2007
Posting Date: 8-1-2007
Directed by George Blair
Featuring Huntz Hall, Stanley Clements, Darlene Fields

When a doctor orders Mike Clancy to get some rest and relaxation, a salesman hoodwinks him into buying a rickety house in the country for an extended rest. He brings the Bowery Boys along to help him clean the place, but Sach discovers a stash of money. However, gangsters want the money and the place is rumored to be haunted, so…

This movie is not to be confused with GHOSTS ON THE LOOSE, SPOOKS RUN WILD, SPOOK BUSTERS, or GHOST CHASERS, all of which feature the Bowery Boys or one of its earlier incarnations, all of which predate this one, and any one of which you would be better off with. This one was made after the death of Bernard Gorcey and the departure of Leo Gorcey, leaving only one third of the attractions left – namely, Huntz Hall. Replacements for the Gorceys in the form of Percy Helton and Stanley Clements do little to compensate for the loss. To his credit, Hall keeps the energy level up, and he lets some of the other Bowery Boys share in the gags, but it doesn’t help much; the gags are abysmal, and they’ve gone down this route one too many times for there to be any hope of freshness. Director George Blair’s next two movies would also veer into fantastic territory, namely SABU AND THE MAGIC RING and THE HYPNOTIC EYE. This is the bottom of the Bowery Boy barrel.

SEANCE ON A WET AFTERNOON (1964)
Article 2177 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-2-2007
Posting Date: 7-29-2007
Directed by Bryan Forbes
Featuring Kim Stanley, Richard Attenborough, Judith Donner

A mentally unbalanced woman, convinced that she has powers as a spiritual medium, emotionally manipulates her weak-willed husband into kidnapping a young girl; the woman hopes that she will become a celebrity by solving the case.

The more things stay the same, the more things change. The concept of a spiritualist trying to gain fame by illegal means is the stuff of b-movies from the thirties, but this movie ups the ante considerably. It is more concerned with the psychological reasons that drive the various people involved than it is with the mechanics of the spiritualistic scam, though it doesn’t stint on the details of the kidnapping. Both Kim Stanley and Richard Attenborough give excellent performances as the dysfunctional couple, but it is Attenborough’s character that most fascinates us; it’s very easy to relate to this relatively normal man who finds that his love for his wife and his desire for her to live a happy and comfortable life end up causing him to commit crimes that would be unthinkable to him in other circumstances; we feel his every fear, frustration, and even his relief in the final moments of the story. It’s also interesting in that the woman truly believes she is psychic; she spearheads the kidnapping not to convince people of her abilities, but for the fame that will result in more clientele. It’s fascinating to watch how these people try to outthink the police in their investigation, and how they adjust the plan when things go awry. It is also fascinating to watch the woman descend deeper and deeper into madness as the story progresses. This is truly an excellent and memorable movie.