SHERLOCK HOLMES’ FATAL HOUR (1931)
(a.k.a. THE SLEEPING CARDINAL)
Article #1147 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-5-2004
Posting Date: 10-2-2004
Directed by Leslie S. Hiscott
Featuring Arthur Wontner, Ian Fleming, Philip Hewland

Sherlock Holmes investigates a murder that takes place in the strongroom of a bank in which no money has been stolen.

As this movie was based on the tales “The Final Problem” and “The Empty House”, I found myself scanning the cast list to see who was playing Moriarity, and was somewhat surprised not to see the name appear. The reason is actually quite clear; the identity of Moriarity is a mystery for most of the movie. However, you should have no trouble figuring out his identity as it seems fairly obvious. This would be the first of five movies to feature Arthur Wontner as Holmes; Ian Fleming appears as Watson and would do so in most of the others as well. It’s fairly creaky, and the sound is bad on my print, but it’s also got a fairly entertaining story (which involves cheating at bridge, gold fillings, counterfeit money, criminal bootmakers and a talking painting) which should hold your interest. The fantastic elements are fairly slight; basically, there seems to be a bit of science fiction in the presence of one of those new-fangled weapons that may not exist in real life.

As a side note, here’s a little trivia quiz. I saw a gadget being used in this movie that surprised me, not because I’ve not seen it before, but rather because it has popped up in three times in the last month. I don’t know if the gadget is just a prop or an item that’s used in real life, but since it looks the same and has the same function in all three movies, I’m willing to bet it’s real and used commonly in the making of movies. Given the following clues, can anyone tell me what it does?

– It appears not only in this movie, but in THE CRIMSON CULT and THE MIRACLE RIDER.

– It’s a hand-held item with rotating fan-like blades.

Answer: It’s a machine that makes cobwebs.

THE STARLOST: DECEPTION (1980)
Article #1141 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-29-2004
Posting Date: 9-26-2004
Directed by Ed Richardson and Joseph L. Scanlon
Featuring Keir Dullea, Gay Rowan, Robin Ward

Three adventurers on a quest to save a giant spaceship from destruction encounter resistance from various residents of the isolated pods on the ship.

Hey, this video has the exact same cover art as THE STARLOST: THE ALIEN ORO. In fact, if you haven’t read my review of that video, go ahead and do so now; this video is just more of the same as that one. Once again, two episodes of “The Starlost” are mashed together to make what’s supposed to pass for a movie. The first episode involves a tyrannical munitions manufacturer; the second involves an insane computer. Both episodes suffer from the same problems; the cheapness of the production, the lousy and repetitive synth music, the fact that each of the self-contained cultures on this gigantic spaceship appear to consist of no more than ten people each (if that), the turgid and bland talkiness of each episode, and the fact that none of the three lead characters appear to have anything in the way of a personality all combine to render invisible whatever interesting ideas or concepts that might exist somewhere in these episodes.

Now let’s do some calculating. The original series had sixteen episodes. Between these two videos, I’ve seen four of them. That means there may be six more “Starlost” movies to watch.

Suddenly, I’m depressed.

SKY PARADE (1936)
Article #1140 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-28-2004
Posting Date; 9-25-2004
Directed by Otho Lovering
Featuring Jimmie Allen, William Gargan, Katherine DeMille

This is the story of the trials and tribulations of a group of World War One pilots attempting to find their place in the world after the war. It also recounts the mythic origins of that legendary teenage pilot, Jimmie Allen.

At the outset I’ll point out that the fantastic elements in this tale are slight; they don’t appear until the latter half of the movie, and they involve the creation of an automatic pilot and the attempts of spies to acquire the secret. If this doesn’t fire your interest, than it may interest you to know that this is the sole movie appearance of Jimmie Allen (who is billed above the title and plays himself); apparently, “Jimmie” was a character in a popular radio drama of the thirties who was played by John Frank, though since John Frank was over forty when he played the part on the radio, I highly doubt that he’s playing “Jimmie Allen” here. If the movie still doesn’t appeal to you, you should know it also features the comedy stylings of Syd Saylor. If that doesn’t trip your trigger, then I’ll just mention that the movie has lots of airplane footage. If you still find the movie less than enticing, then you’re out of luck; the tepid and uninvolving story really doesn’t make for a memorable cinematic experience. Personally, the most interesting thing I found about the movie (other than the “Jimmie Allen” story) is the presence of Bowery-Boy-to-be Benny Bartlett as a younger version of Jimmie Allen; it’s been only two days since I encountered him as an ersatz Bowery Boy in THE GAS HOUSE KIDS IN HOLLYWOOD. It’s a small world.

SPACESHIP TO THE UNKNOWN (1966)
Article #1135 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-23-2004
Posting Date; 9-20-2004
Directed by Frederick Stephani
Featuring Buster Crabbe, Jean Rogers, Frank Shannon

Flash Gordon goes to Mongo to battle Ming the Merciless.

The original serial (FLASH GORDON) was 245 minutes. This 97-minute feature-length version made for television tries to tell the whole story. Granted, much of what was cut included the opening credits, plot summary and repeated footage of each episode, but it still comes across like trying to read a comic book by skipping every other frame. It has its uses for those who don’t like to watch entire serials, but as always with this sort of thing, the pacing is rushed and awkward and the nonstop action gets repetitive. I would prefer to set aside thirteen days over which to watch the original.

A SHOT IN THE DARK (1935)
Article #1127 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-14-2004
Posting Date: 9-11-2004
Directed by Charles Lamont
Featuring Charles Starrett, Marion Shilling, Robert Warwick

When a college student is found hanging from the fire escape of his dormitory, an investigator looks into the matter and discovers that it was not a suicide.

I hope you’ll excuse me for going into this one expecting another “old dark house” movie; most of the plot descriptions I’ve seen tend to describe it that way. I myself don’t think the shoe fits in this case. Yes, we have a killer who appears in a hooded costume at one point, the plot involves an inheritance, and there is a sequence in a dark deserted house, but these are incidental rather than central. Instead, this movie is really a straightforward mystery; it’s really not the horror elements that move it into the realm of the fantastic but rather the existence of some slight science fiction elements surrounding the method of murder that make it qualify. It’s also a very good mystery; the discovery of the first body is memorable, an actual investigation takes place rather than having people wait around for the next murder, and most amazingly, it takes itself quite seriously indeed. Despite the fact that the sheriff and his deputy are performed with a fairly light touch, there really is no comic relief character in this movie, which would be de rigeur for an “old dark house” movie. It does have some problems, particularly in having a rather stiff and static presentation, but outside of that, this is one of the more pleasant discoveries I’ve made in this journey through fantastic cinema. Edward van Sloan has a pivotal role, and it’s directed by the man who would later do many of the monster comedies for Abbott and Costello.

THE SHADOW (1933)
Article #1126 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-14-2004
Posting Date: 9-11-2004
Directed by George A. Cooper
Featuring Henry Kendall, Elizabeth Allan, Filix Aylmer

Detectives try to track down and capture a blackmailing fiend known as The Shadow in an old dark house on a foggy night.

Those who pick up this movie hoping for something involving Lamont Cranston will find themselves disappointed; what we have here is another take on the “old dark house” genre, this one with a strong British feel that IMDB lists as being from both the United Kingdom and the United States. It’s pretty typical of the genre, with a shadowy figure lurking around the house, two subplots destined to throw you off track, and an extremely British comic relief mystery writer who stutters and jolly well uses the words “frightfully” and “jolly” too frightfully much. This being said, I can’t tell you what the best thing about this movie is, since it involves the ending, but I will go so far as to say that for once the identity of the villain is exactly who I hoped it would be. At any rate, I’ve come to the conclusion that no matter how far along I come with this series of reviews, I’m sure there will always be another “old dark house” around the corner somewhere.

A STUDY IN TERROR (1965)
Article #1118 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-6-2004
Posting Date: 9-3-2001
Directed by James Hill
Featuring John Neville, Donald Houston, John Fraser

Sherlock Holmes finds himself on the trail of Jack the Ripper.

The fact that someone would come up with a story in which Sherlock Holmes meets Jack the Ripper seems inevitable to me; both are icons of their own types inhabiting roughly the same milieu, and the appeal of the greatest fictional detective of them all matching wits with the most notorious perpetrator of a series of unsolved murders is an irresistible concept. This isn’t the only time they’ve been set against each other, but it’s a good one. The story feels legitimately Holmesian, and the casting is exquisite; John Neville makes for one of the finest Holmes I’ve ever seen, Donald Houston plays Watson with just the right amount of stuffiness without descending into the comic antics of Nigel Bruce, and it is a treat to see Robert Morley take on the role of Mycroft. In fact, the whole cast does beautifully, especially Anthony Quayle and Frank Finlay. If the movie has any real weakness, i’d say it would be that it can’t resist the exploitational nature of the story; it spends a little too much of its running time dealing with prostitutes plying their trade in low cut gowns (which has its appeal, I will admit, but it does slow down the story). The movie’s executive producer was Herman Cohen, and it may be the finest movie he was ever involved with.

SON OF TARZAN (1920)
(Serial)
Article #1102 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Day: 3-21-2004
Posting Day: 8-18-2004
Directed by Arthur J. Flaven and Harry Revier
Featuring P. Dempsey Tabler, Karla Schramm, Gordon Griffith

Tarzan and Jane decide to keep their son from inheriting the jungle spirit of Tarzan, but the call of the jungle becomes too strong when their son meets an ape friend of Tarzan’s and is kidnapped by one of Tarzan’s old enemies.

If you think about it, Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Tarzan tales would make ideal serials with minimal changes to the stories. Since they’re packed with incidents and cliffhangers, you could just follow it closely and not have to worry about finding a cliffhanger moment; there’s going to be one handy. Nonetheless, I have to say that none of the Tarzan movies or serials I’ve seen up to this point have really given me the same feel as one of the novels, which I remember having read many years ago. This one is the exception, and I’ve had confirmation that it does indeed follow the Tarzan novel of the same name very closely. This makes it somewhat more interesting than your usual Tarzan serial; in particular, I like the fact that rather than a single enemy to pit against Tarzan and his son, at least three enemies are present, and they are apt to fight amongst themselves as they are to fight Korak and Tarzan. This makes for a greater variety of situations. Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to judge the serial, as the only extant print is a mess; it’s hard to tell if the jumpy and confusing scenes are the result of print damage or just plain bad editing. Nonetheless, I would recommend that Tarzan enthusiasts hunt this one up, as it’s quite interesting to see a faithful adaptation of a Tarzan tale.

THE SPECTRE OF EDGAR ALLAN POE (1972)
Article #1093 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-12-2004
Posting Date: 8-9-2004
Directed by Mohy Quandour
Featuring Robert Walker Jr., Cesar Romero, Tom Drake

When Lenore goes into shock after almost being buried alive, Edgar Allan Poe takes her to an asylum to recover, unaware that the head of the asylum is performing snake venom experiments on patients.

Title check: Shouldn’t there be a spectre in this movie?

I remember reading somewhere that the reason Andy Milligan made his horror movies as period pieces was so he could re-release them over several years without people knowing when they were really made, which I must admit is a clever bit of low-budget exploitation thinking. The problem is that you need a fairly decent budget to create a convincing period environment. This movie features Edgar Allan Poe as the main character, so I can only assume it takes place in the nineteenth century, but the sets are singularly poor in conveying the period convincingly, and while watching it, you would probably guess it was made some time in the early seventies (which it was). It also puts forth the idea that it was these events in Poe’s life that caused his mind to turn to the subjects of death and decay that pervaded his works, a concept that the movie itself undermines when Poe’s friend introduces him to the head of the asylum as a writer of the macabre. I haven’t read a full biography of Poe, but when I do, I’m willing to bet that I find nothing about this episode of his life, though I suspect the movie isn’t really trying to convince us that it’s biographical. The movie has some eerie moments, but it’s sluggish, badly lit, indifferently acted for the most part (though it is fun to see the familiar faces of Cesar Romero and Carol Ohmart), and not particularly original. This is the sole movie by director Mohy Quandour.

SIX HOURS TO LIVE (1932)
Article #1089 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-8-2004
Posting Date: 8-5-2004
Directed by William Dieterle
Featuring Warner Baxter, Miriam Jordan, John Boles

When a representative of the country of Sylvaria becomes the sole dissenting voice in the adoption of an economic treaty, he is targeted for murder by his foes. When he is murdered by strangulation, he is brought back to life by a scientist testing a new machine, but he discovers that he will only live for six more hours.

For some reason, I like reviewing a movie that lends itself to comparison with several other movies, and this one does; it exists at that point where the movies D.O.A, THE WALKING DEAD and CHARLY meet. The idea of a man tracking down his own murderer while suffering under a time constraint dictated by his own mortality is certainly similar to D.O.A., though this movie throws in a science fiction angle that movie does not have. Like THE WALKING DEAD, our protagonist returns to life with knowledge he did not possess at the time of his death. In some ways, however, the similarities to CHARLY are the most striking because of the surface differences in the plot; for one thing, this movie is more drama then melodrama, and it’s also another movie in which a man undergoes a medical experiment and finds his life bound inextricably with that of the test animal that also underwent the experiment (in CHARLY it was a white mouse, here it is a white rabbit). The fact that this movie predates the other three signifies that if any of these works were influenced by the others, it’s they that would have been influenced by this one.

On its own terms, this movie is a standout. It has an excellent script in which practically every character has greater depth and dimension than you might imagine and dialogue that always sounds fresh and real. It also has top-notch performances by everyone, though special notice should go to Warner Baxter as the man brought back to life. Furthermore, it has exemplary direction by William Dieterle; I can somewhat tell that this movie was brought to us by the same man who gave us the 1939 version of THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME and PORTRAIT OF JENNIE, because it has some of that some visual flair. I love the subtle portrayals of some of the characters; in particular I like the way that the Professor’s big hulking deaf-mute assistant is not portrayed as a monster (though some people definitely react to him with fear), and the character of the butler, who tries to give the protaganist two very different items at two separate points in the story (his item is rejected both times, but one of them is eventually kept). Like DRACULA, this movie has no musical soundtrack; unlike that movie, I find the drama so breathtakingly powerful at every point of the story that I never once feel like nodding off. In my opinion, this science fiction drama with mystical overtones should be recognized for the classic it is rather than to lie forgotten in the mists of cinema history. This one is worth tracking down and checking out.