THE STRANGE MR. GREGORY (1946)
(a.k.a. THE GREAT MYSTIC)
Article #1697 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 11-6-2005
Posting Date: 4-5-2006
Directed by Phil Rosen
Featuring Edmund Lowe, Jean Rogers, Frank Reicher

A hypnotist-magician experimenting with suspended animation falls in love with a married woman. When she rejects him, he plots to fake his own death in order to frame her husband for murder.

This starts out pretty good; Edmund Lowe (who has played magician-hypnotists before in CHANDU THE MAGICIAN and THE SPIDER) is a lot of fun to watch in the title role. Unfortunately, the script isn’t quite as good as it could have been, and the movie loses steam in the second half. Part of the problem is that some of the story elements just don’t make much sense; in particular, I’m not sure what Gregory’s motivation is for his testimony at the murder trial (disguised as his own brother), or why he found it necessary to murder the one person he does. I’m also unsure of the extent of Gregory’s power; he apparently has a little ability with black magic, but he doesn’t appear to be using it in any consistent fashion. It’s at its best when Lowe is on the screen, but we see less and less of him as the story progresses.

SPOOK BUSTERS (1946)
Article #1696 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 11-5-2005
Posting Date: 4-4-2006
Directed by William Beaudine
Featuring Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall, Douglass Dumbrille

The Bowery Boys go into the pest extermination business, and are hired to clear out a haunted house.

When I mentioned the title of this movie to my wife, she guessed without looking that it was going to be a Bowery Boys movie. Then, out of curiosity, I looked it up in Leonard Maltin’s classic movie guide, and found it cradled right next to the entries SPOOK CHASERS (another Bowery Boys movie along the same lines) and SPOOKS RUN WILD (the East Side Kids (for all practical reasons an earlier version of the Bowery Boys). If you throw in GHOST CHASERS, THE BOWERY BOYS MEET THE MONSTERS and GHOSTS ON THE LOOSE, you get the definite impression that these guys just never got their fill of movies about haunted mansions and old dark houses. Usually, most comedy groups visited this territory only once or twice.

Nevertheless, this is a good one. It’s one of the earlier Bowery Boys movies, which means a) that Huntz Hall hasn’t developed the bad habit of incessant mugging that plagues the later episodes, and b) the Bowery Boys that are not Huntz or Leo Gorcey are given comic moments as well. Gorcey is still churning out the malaprops, of course, and I still love those. The narration that ties the movie together contributes to the fun, and the climactic fight in slow motion is pretty clever indeed. As I continue to watch the Bowery Boys, I’ve come to understand that I like them much better this way then when they were the East Side Kids; at least by deciding to clearly go the comedy route, their movies ended up being much more focused. Besides, I have a great deal of affection for Leo’s father Bernard in the continuing role of Louis Dumbrowski. The movie also features Charles Middleton and Maurice Cass, who played Professor Newton in the Rocky Jones movies.

SEVEN KEYS TO BALDPATE (1929)
Article #1695 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 11-4-2005
Posting Date: 4-3-2006
Directed by Reginald Barker
Featuring Richard Dix, Miriam Seegar, Arthur Hoyt

A writer takes a bet that he can write a novel in 24 hours in a solitary, deserted, and supposedly haunted inn on top of a mountain in the middle of the winter. He is given the only key to the building and begins work, only to find that he doesn’t have the only key….

A guy trying to write a novel in an empty inn in the middle of winter? It almost sounds like an early version of THE SHINING. Still, the movies are utterly different. For one thing, this one is only marginal; it’s not really haunted, and though a couple of the people are mistaken for ghosts at one point, there are none to be found. It’s something of a variation on the Old Dark House genre, though that doesn’t really capture it; in spirit, it’s a lot closer to SEVEN FOOTPRINTS TO SATAN, though nowhere near as wild as that one. It’s based on a novel by Earl Derr Biggers (the creator of Charlie Chan) which had been adapted into a play by George M. Cohan. It must have been incredibly popular; there were at least two earlier silent versions and four later talkie versions. It’s fun, but trying to figure out the central story about corruption and bankroll of money is enough to make your head swim. Still, figuring it out isn’t really necessary, and you’ll find out why near the end. Since the movie is an early talkie, it does suffer a little from the problems that plagued movies from that era, but much less so than others; in fact, it feels like it actually might have been made a few years later, and you don’t have to struggle with it. Marginal, but enjoyable.

THE SIN OF NORA MORAN (1933)
(a.k.a. VOICE FROM THE GRAVE)
Article #1690 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-30-2005
Posting Date: 3-29-2006
Directed by Phil Goldstone
Featuring Zita Johann, Paul Cavanagh, Alan Dinehart

A district attorney recounts the story of a woman whose affair with a noted politician results in her being executed for murder.

This movie made my list under its alternate title VOICE FROM THE GRAVE, which is one that makes it sound more like a horror movie than the more appropriate title under which the movie is generally known. The fantastic content does pop up near the end of the movie, when a man is visited by the spirit of Nora Moran just before and after her execution, though within the context of the story it may be nothing more than his over-active imagination. Horror fans no doubt remember Zita Johann as the object of Im-Ho-Tep’s affection in THE MUMMY; she only made a handful of movies. She does a fine job here, and the movie is surprisingly creative for the low budget movie company Majestic, the company which also gave us THE VAMPIRE BAT. The movie is more than a little strange, with most of the story told in flashbacks from the points of view of several different characters, and the results are rather surreal. The movie is rather engaging, but the scene of a circus performer who wrestles lions (which involves beating them with his hands while locked in a cage with him) may upset animal lovers.

THE STRONGEST MAN IN THE WORLD (1975)
Article #1664 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-4-2005
Posting Date: 3-3-2006
Directed by Vincent McEveety
Featuring Kurt Russell, Joe Flynn, Eve Arden

When an accident in a campus laboratory accidentally creates a potion that causes super-strength, the dean decides to pull the college out of its financial woes by selling the formula to a cereal company.

I used to love these Disney “shopping cart” when I was a kid, but when I watch them nowadays, I often find myself wishing that I hadn’t. In a sense, I can’t really be fair to them; they were meant for kids and are best enjoyed when you’re that age. I found myself quite bored with this one; I find it turgidly paced for what is supposed to be a wild and crazy comedy, the jokes are too obvious and often ill-conceived (why does Joe Flynn need to swing from the chandeliers to demonstrate he has super strength?). By the time this one was made, they were dated as well; the ages of the actors and the hairstyles of the students are the only clues you have that this movie wasn’t made in the early sixties. Furthermore, unlike an earlier film in the series (NOW YOU SEE HIM, NOW YOU DON’T), it really makes pretty weak use of the central gimmick. The greatest strength of the movie is having the chance to see so many familiar and likable actors all in one place; Kurt Russell, Joe Flynn, Eve Arden, Cesar Romero, Phil Silvers, Dick Van Patten, Harold Gould, Richard Bakalyan, William Schallert, Benson Fong and James Gregory are all on hand, and that’s not counting the familiar faces I can’t put a name to. Yes, I’d probably love it if I was a kid, but even then, I suspect that there would be a lot of other movies (of the “shopping cart” and “non-shopping cart” varieties) I would love a lot more.

STRANGE CARGO (1940)
Article #1646 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 9-16-2005
Posting Date: 2-13-2006
Directed by Frank Borzage
Featuring Joan Crawford, Clark Gable, Ian Hunter

Several convicts stage a daring escape from Devil’s Island. One of the escapees is a man who has seemingly appeared out of nowhere and may have supernatural powers.

On the surface, this appears to be nothing more than a prison melodrama, but even those who wish to enjoy it on that level will have to contend somewhat with the fact that it is a religious allegory as well. The character of Cambreau (Ian Hunter) is supposed to be Jesus Christ, and there are plenty of clues in this regard. Those who dislike religious themes in their movies may have little use for this one; for me, how I feel about religious themes in movies is dependent on how they’re used. If the religion is handled via the use of platitudes, doctrine and cute observations, I have little use for it. If it deals with resonant and powerful themes and the compelling symbolism that underlies much of it, I find it a lot more satisfying; it’s the difference between mere dogma and true spirituality. The theme of redemption is strong in this movie, and the movie gains much of its power from it. It is also full of symbolism, both verbal and visual, and it can actually be a lot of fun to observe various characters, events and statements in the light of the religious themes. Here are some touches I particularly like.

– The character of Telez (Eduardo Ciannelli), who has embraced a warped, selfish and angry religious viewpoint at odds with true spirituality.

– The thoroughly unrepentant character of Hessler (Paul Lukas); there’s a reason that Cambreau tells him that they won’t meet again.

– The fact that when Verne (Clark Gable) finally acqures a map of the escape route, it is drawn in the back pages of a Bible.

– The fact that the final scene is between Cambreau and a fisherman.

I find the movie fascinating and fun. It is well acted throughout, and other than the ones mentioned above, the cast also includes Peter Lorre (a character with the unflattering nickname of ‘Pig’) and Albert Dekker. I also do feel the need to make special mention of Joan Crawford’s performance. I’ve expressed more than once during this series my general dislike for Crawford and her performances, but this one makes me believe that I’ve not been watching her at her best. Here she is perfectly in character and works well in an ensemble fashion with the other actors, and she is wonderful. Incidentally, this will probably be the only movie with the wonderfully charismatic Clark Gable that I will be covering for this series.

SHADOW OF CHINATOWN (1936/II)
(Feature Version of Serial)
Article #1644 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 9-14-2005
Posting Date: 2-11-2006
Directed by Robert F. Hill
Featuring Bela Lugosi, Joan Barclay, Bruce Bennett

A Eurasian merchant hires a mad scientist to scare off her competition in Chinatown. Unfortunately, the scientist has plans of his own…

Yes, it’s the feature version of the serial of the same name. I’m no big fan of the original serial (despite the presence of Lugosi), and that attitude extends to this version as well. It tries to tell the whole serial in seventy minutes; it’s kind of hard to tell if this one succeeds, though, because the serial didn’t have much of a story to begin with. It does have a couple of advantages over the serial; for one thing, it cuts the whole fishbowl cliffhanger, and for the other, it’s a lot shorter. For that last advantage, I’ll return the favor and end my review now.

SUPERARGO (1968)
(a.k.a. IL RE DEI CRIMINALI / SUPERARGO VS. THE FACELESS GIANTS)
Article #1643 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 9-13-2005
Posting Date: 2-10-2006
Directed by Paolo Bianchini
Featuring Giovanni Cianfriglia, Guy Madison, Luisa Baratto

Superargo must solve a mystery in which robots have been kidnapping top athletes.

For those who like crosses between Chandu, Santo and James Bond, here’s another Superargo movie for you. This sequel to SUPERARGO VS. DIABOLICUS has him battling a bunch of robots called the Faceless Giants, so called despite the fact that they are neither giants nor particularly faceless (despite a generous use of stockings over the heads). With those bags under their eyes, they do look really tired ( I suppose they couldn’t have called the movie SUPERARGO AND THE NORMAL-SIZED SLEEPY GUYS), and sadly that description seems to apply to the movie as well. Though the earlier movie in the series got by via its novelty value and a sense of surprise, this one lacks those advantages. Still, if it sounds fun and you’re in an uncritical mood, you could do worse.

SHATTERED SILENCE (1972)
(a.k.a. WHEN MICHAEL CALLS)
Article #1627 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 8-28-2005
Posting Date: 1-25-2006
Directed by Philip Leacock
Featuring Ben Gazzara, Elizabeth Ashley, Michael Douglas

A divorcee begins receiving phone calls from her nephew Michael, who died fifteen years ago.

Despite a certain predictability to the proceedings, this isn’t bad for TV-Movie horror thriller; despite the cliches, it does an acceptable job of trotting out the thrills. It’s pretty easy to figure out if you follow the simple rule – “Whenever you watch a movie about a mysterious homicidal murderer whose identity is supposed to be a secret, make sure to pay close attention to whichever cast member is credited as ‘Special Guest Star’.”‘ This is also one of those movies where the psycho acts perfectly normal until the scene where you’re supposed to figure out he’s the psycho, and then acts crazy for the rest of the movie.

Now that that’s out of the way, let me get down to my real business today – reviewing the blurb on the back of the DVD. And I quote –

“SHATTERED SILENCE is a story of a torrid romance that takes on suspenseful overtones as Michael Douglas and the irresistible Elizabeth Ashley are driven to desire in this shocking love triangle. What sets out to be a romantic love affair, with Michael Douglas (Craig) using his irresistible charm to capture the heart of Elizabeth Ashley (Helen), becomes a triangle of horror and sheer terror as the son Helen believed she has lost 15 years ago returns to terrorize her acquaintances.”

Some observations –

“Torrid” and “shocking love triangle” – Just how torrid can an 1972 TV-Movie be? Well, I think Michael Douglas kisses Elizabeth Ashley on the forehead once. He does this not because he’s her lover; it’s because he’s her nephew! And no, this movie does not deal with incest; the fact of the matter is that there is no romance between Douglas and Ashley, and consequently, no triangle. So why did the blurb-writer claim there was? My guess was to make you buy it in the hopes of seeing something like FATAL ATTRACTION.

“..as the son Helen believed she lost 15 years ago…” – The last part of the blurb is the only part that is even remotely accurate, and even this gets it wrong; Michael is not her son, but her nephew.

Moral: Never trust a blurb writer.

SYMPTOMS (1974)
(a.k.a. BLOOD VIRGIN)
Article #1617 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 8-18-2005
Posting Date: 1-15-2006
Directed by Jose Ramon Larraz
Featuring Angela Pleasence, Mike Grady, Lorna Heilbron

A troubled woman invites a female friend to stay with her at a lonely, isolated country estate. However, mysterious noises and strange events begin to make the friend suspect that there is someone else in the estate as well.

This movie makes good use of sound, is quite creepy, and has a strong air of mystery to it. It’s a bit on the slow side, but as long as the mystery drives the story, it holds the attention. Unfortunately, a movie like this has to start delivering on some of the mystery, and sometimes the revelations aren’t quite as satisfying as the mystery itself, and such is the case here. In particular, I was disappointed by the revelations about the true intentions of the handyman, but pretty much all of the final revelations disappoint. It might have worked if Angela Pleasance had been able to make her character as compelling as Anthony Perkins’ in PSYCHO or Catherine Deneuve’s in REPULSION (two movies which this one will remind you of), but she never quite makes the character gel. In the end, the sheer simplicity and ordinariness of the characters’ motivations leaves me feeling slightly cheated, and I suspect that this is one movie that doesn’t lend itself to rewatching.