SOLITARE ATTACKS (1966)
(a.k.a. LE SOLITAIRE PASSE A L’ATTAQUE)
Article #1025 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 1-4-2004
Posting Date: 6-2-2004
Directed by Ralph Habib
Featuring Sophie Agacinski, Teresa Gimpera, Gisele Grandpre

Spies must recover a suitcase with a bomb and the tape recording that can open the suitcase so the bomb can be disconnected.

This French/Spanish entry in the superspy category was a little difficult to track down, since my reference book gave a title (THE SOLITARY GOES TO THE ATTACK) that brought up nothing on IMDB; I eventually matched it up with LE SOLITAIRE PASSE A L’ATTAQUE by matching cast and director information, but the listing gave no English title. I eventually found it under the title SOLITARE ATTACKS, though the print I found is actually missing the title of the movie; fortunately, the cast list does appear to match the one I’m looking for, so I’ll say I found it. A handful of gadgets makes this marginal science fiction. Other than that, it’s a pretty ordinary European Bond imitation, mostly notable for having a somewhat sharper sense of humor than usual; in particular, I like the response of one of the spies when a woman overhears them defeating two men who are good shots and concludes that they are indeed spies. And don’t ask me who or what Solitare is; the name isn’t mentioned once during the course of the movie.

THE SAVAGE GIRL (1932)
Article #1020 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-30-2003
Posting Date: 5-28-2004
Directed by Harry L. Fraser
Featuring Rochelle Hudson, Walter Byron, Adolph Miller

A safari discovers a wild white woman living in the jungle.

All right, a quick description of the characters.

First, we have the hero who leads the expedition. He will protect any white goddess found in the jungle from the machinations of those who wish to take advantage of her.

We have the villain, who has plans to take advantage of the white goddess, and is good friends with the local headhunters; if anyone stands in his way, he can ask them for favors.

We have the white goddess, whose main act of savagery seems to be hugging the kittens of a jaguar. Despite having lived by herself in the wild for years, her main defense against those who attack her is to scream and try to run.

We have the comic relief drunken millionaire who goes to Africa to gather a menagerie and see if elephants are really afraid of mice. I’ll leave it to you to find out the result of that experiment.

Take these characters, add ten minutes of plot, ten minutes of comic relief and lots of stock footage of safaris, and you have an idea of how this movie goes.

Oh, and how does it end? I won’t say, but I will give you a couple of clues –

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

Heroes by there very nature are not allowed to kill villains no matter how villainous they are; that’s how heroes are (in the movies, anyway).

Unrepentant villains can not be left alive at the end of a movie.

Wandering gorillas are not subject to the same moral code as heroes.

****END OF SPOILER*********

Summary. Given the choice between watching this movie and doing the laundry, keep these things in mind.

1) It takes about as long to do a load of laundry as it does to watch this movie.

2) Both tasks are equally entertaining.

3) After doing one of these things, you have a nice stack of clean clothes. After doing the other, you still need to do your laundry.

Make your choices accordingly.

THE SCARLET CLAW (1944)
Article #987 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 11-25-2003
Posting Date: 4-23-2004
Directed by Roy William Neill
Featuring Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce, Gerald Hamer

Sherlock Holmes investigates the death of a former actress who was supposedly killed by a monster.

As I’ve stated before, there is a certain bond between horror cinema and mystery cinema, and that is especially noticeable when dealing with Sherlock Holmes, whose stories have a fair amount of horror atmosphere to them. Of course, one of the differences between the two genres is our expectations; if we’re presented with a straight vampire story, for example, we expect to not be disillusioned about the existence of the creatures at the end of the movie, and we are disappointed if the movie does so. However, if Sherlock Holmes is on a case where there are supernatural aspects, we fully expect that the denoument will safely put any supernatural explanations aside and that a more rational explanation will prevail, so we aren’t disappointed. This is one of the basic differences between the genres; in one we want our irrational fears to be realized, in the other we want them to be explained away. Nonetheless, the mood and the scary touches may be very much the same.

So far, I’ve covered several of the Holmes movies, but most of them have only the slightest of horror touches to them. This is a marked exception; though it doesn’t take place in London (it’s one of the modern Holmes stories), there is plenty of fog and atmosphere in the Canadian town where this one takes place. It’s a truly satisfying movie as well, one of the best of the Holmes series that I’ve seen so far. I highly recommend this one to any horror fan who wants to check out an effective horror-themed mystery. Fine performances from all, especially Rathbone, Bruce and Hamer.

SHOCK TREATMENT (1964)
Article #985 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 11-24-2003
Posting Date: 4-22-2004
Directed by Denis Sanders
Featuring Stuart Whitman, Carol Lynley, Roddy McDowall

An actor is hired to pretend to be mentally disturbed so that he will be committed to an asylum where he is supposed to find out where one homicidal patient has hidden a million dollars.

If I had to make a list of actors who would make ideal mental cases, I’m sure my top ten list would include Roddy McDowall, whose characters have always left me with the feeling that even if they weren’t out-and-out insane, their relationship with reality was fragile to say the least. Here he plays a homicidal maniac, and he’s the best thing about this movie. The rest of the mental patients don’t fare quite as well; though I’m no expert on mental illness, I don’t find the rest of them particularly convincing. Nor do I find the performance of Stuart Whitman’s character as a mental patient convincing, but since he’s supposed to be faking it, that’s not really a criticism; I just don’t understand why everyone else is fooled. Actually, I take that back; one person is not fooled, and once we reach the point of the story where this is revealed, the story settles into a fairly predictable groove. It’s an interesting try, and may have been actually somewhat inspired by Samuel Fuller’s SHOCK CORRIDOR from the year before, but I ultimately found it rather disappointing, especially with an ending which must have looked good on paper (especially for those into poetic justice) but which in actual execution goes so horribly wrong that I found myself actively embarrassed for Lauren Bacall. Worth catching for Roddy.

SHERLOCK HOLMES (1922)
Article #974 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 11-14-2003
Posting Date: 4-12-2004
Directed by Albert Parker
Featuring John Barrymore, Roland Young, Gustav von Seyfertitz

Sherlock Holmes matches wits with the arch-criminal Moriarty.

A very interesting cast is to be found here, with Barrymore as Holmes, Roland Young as Watson, William Powell (his first screen role, as well as Young’s), Seyfertitz as Moriarty, and Hedda Hopper. Like the much later YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES, this version puts forth the idea that Holmes and Watson met long before the events of “A Study in Scarlet”, though this marks only the first third of the movie. The story itself borrows from several Holmes stories, though A SCANDAL IN BOHEMIA is its most noticeable source. All in all, it’s not bad, but it’s a little disappointing; the story is confusing at times, and Moriarty is probably somewhat scruffier than I usuually think of him. Many of the Holmes’ movies are marginal horror, but other than a few of the supervillain trappings dealing with Moriarty, there is precious little fantastic content here. It’s definitely more of a curiosity piece than a must-see.

A SCREAM IN THE NIGHT (1935)
Article #965 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 11-5-2003
Posting Date: 4-3-2004
Directed by Fred C. Newmeyer
Featuring Lon Chaney Jr., Sheila Terry, Manuel Lopez

When a valuable jewel is stolen by a notorious thief who engages in strangulation, a detective disguises himself as a grog shop owner to track down the thief.

I don’t know if this was the first attempt to cash in on Lon Chaney Jr.’s father’s name; almost all of his credits up to that point had been as Creighton Chaney, but here he definitely goes as Lon Chaney Jr., and the credits spotlight him as such. I wouldn’t be surprised, though; since he’s playing two roles, one in ugly makeup, it does come across a little as trying to follow in his father’s footsteps. Unfortunately, the story is pretty ordinary, and neither of Chaney’s roles are particularly interesting; the detective is a fairly typical bland b-movie leading man role, and he tries a little too hard to be memorable as the deformed grog-shop owner to be really effective. This was before he made either THE WOLF MAN or OF MICE AND MEN, so this was before Hollywood really knew how to make effective use of his talents, but it’s really no surprise that he would remain in minor roles for a while yet. Incidentally, the character’s deformity and Chaney’s presence are the only factors in the movie that would cause it to be classified as horror on any level, so this is another one that belongs in the realms of marginalia.

SHE DEVIL (1957)
Article #959 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-30-2003
Posting Date: 3-28-2004
Directed by Kurt Neumann
Featuring Mari Blanchard, Jack Kelly, Albert Dekker

A scientist develops a serum from fruit flies that allows the body to increase its adaptive abilities so that it can fight disease. When he tests it on a woman with a fatal illness, she not only recovers but becomes evil and murderous.

Stanley G. Weinbaum may well have been the best science fiction author of the thirties; his “A Martian Odyssey” is rightly considered one of the great science fiction short stories of all time. Unfortunately, he died in 1935, and this movie is to date the only cinematic adaptation of any of his works, specifically of his story “The Adaptive Ultimate”. It’s been years since I read that story, but I do remember the immense charm of his work; that charm is to be found nowhere here. Instead, it takes the central idea and surrounds it with the usual collection of science fiction cliches of the era, particularly that of scientists tampering in God’s domain and thwarting the wishes of the almighty. This is not to say these cliches don’t have a charm of their own; it’s just sad that the only movie adaptation of his work totally fails to do him justice (though there may be more successful TV or radio adaptations out there somewhere). On the plus side, Mari Blanchard is quite attractive, it’s always fun to see Albert Dekker, and the central special effect (a woman’s hair changes color before our eyes) is well done. On the down side, it’s lethargically directed, indifferently paced, and puts forth its cliches without any sense of subtlety or creativity. Fans of low-budget science fiction movies of the era will probably like it; Weinbaum fans would be better off rereading his stories.

SHADOW OF THE CAT (1961)
Article #958 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 10-29-2003
Posting Date: 3-27-2004
Directed by John Gilling
Featuring Conrad Phillips, Barbara Shelley, Andre Morell

When an old woman is murdered for her fortune, her cat witnesses the event and exacts vengeance on the murderers.

It’s easy to understand why cats figure prominently in horror movies; there is something a little unnerving about their display of fierce independence in the face of their much larger owners. Nonetheless, the idea that people might be frightened at the thought of vengeance from a cat is a little silly, and even though there are moments here that play up the humor of the situation, there are other moments that are unintentionally funny. Nonetheless, there are enough interesting touches here that it makes for a decent watch; in particular, I like the fact that the floor of the attic is unstable, as it makes for an interesting climax to the movie.