THE TESTAMENT OF DR. CORDELIER (1959)
Article #696 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 2-9-2003
Posting Date: 7-9-2003
Directed by Jean Renoir
Featuring Jean-Louis Barrault, Teddy Bilis, Jean Topart

A lawyer investigates a strange will in which a psychiatrist leaves his fortune to a savage man known as Mr. Opale.

****NOTE**** This is a slightly amended version of the original review.  One of my readers noted a spoiler in the original version of the review, so I’ve removed a few details to make it less of one.

If it doesn’t occur to you fairly early on in the proceedings, you will finally figure out that this is nothing more than a retelling of the well-known story with changed character names, updated to modern times and moved to Paris. Those who know the story from the original novel will probably figure it out right off the bat, as this version seems to follow the progression of the novel more closely than any of the other cinematic versions I’ve seen. Granted, once you’ve figured this out, you’ll know some of the plot twists. Nonetheless, I really liked this version of the story; in particular, I like the character of Mr. Opale. He’s almost a comic character here, from his bizarre jerky walk to the silly music that plays when he appears; however, his savage and impulsive brutality is indeed no laughing matter, and it’s almost scary to watch this guy terrorizing people, as he almost always takes on people obviously weaker than himself (he attacks a little girl and kicks the crutches out from under a cripple); he is definitely an unpleasant character. He also seems well thought out, and it is sometimes fascinating to try to figure out what is going through his mind. Actually, this may be one of my favorite takes on the source story.

TERROR ISLAND (1920)
Article #692 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 2-5-2003
Posting date: 7-5-2003
Directed by James Cruze
Featuring Harry Houdini, Jack Brammall, Lila Lee

An inventor helps a woman to save the life of her father who is stranded among savages.

This is probably the most entertaining of the movies I’ve seen that feature Harry Houdini; it’s not complete, though. My print is missing two of the reels, so there is a gap of action in the middle of the film. Nonetheless, what remains is pretty entertaining, with Houdini doing his own stunts, including a good escape from a trap made by cannibals and some underwater swimming that involved him holding his breath for quite a while. The cannibals are probably the only horror elements in the movie; the science fiction element is a little more striking, as Houdini has a specially designed submarine to help him in his endeavors. The movie also features a very young (and very thin) Eugene Pallette.

TORMENTED (1960)
Article #658 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 1-2-2003
Posting date: 6-1-2003

A jazz pianist fails to save the life of a jilted lover who is blackmailing him to come back to her, and then finds himself haunted by her ghost.

This Bert I. Gordon-directed ghost story has some very interesting ideas, but despite that and an interesting island setting, there’s something about the way the whole thing unfolds that strikes me as rather dull and dreary. It could be really wonderfully ambiguous if it had decided to take the tack that the ghost may be merely a figment of the pianist’s imagination; this would make it fit in better with the subplots having to do with his attempts to cover up the incident that only result in him actually turning to murder to do so. In fact, I sometimes wonder if the ghost part of the story was tacked onto a somewhat noirish melodrama; I certainly find that part of the story more interesting than the somewhat silly ghost antics. With all the remakes being made these days, I wish they would take more time looking at movies like this; ones with good ideas but that never quite worked out the first time are the ones that most need to be remade rather than already established classics. Unfortunately, they would also be harder to market, so it’s highly unlikely that would happen. Richard Carlson plays the pianist.

THE 3 WORLDS OF GULLIVER (1960)
Article #657 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 1-1-2003
Posting date: 5-31-2003

Gulliver gets lost at sea and ends up at the kingdoms of Lilliput and Brobdingnag.

I’ve covered several Harryhausen movies so far, and even if I haven’t always liked the movies as a whole, I’ve always enjoyed Harryhausen’s creations (I was going to say creatures, but the word really doesn’t appy to EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS) and they have been the best things about the movies. I would imagine that Harryhausen fans wouldn’t be disappointed by any of those movies. This one, however, is the first Harryhausen movie that might disappoint them. It’s not that the stop-motion work is bad; it’s that there is so little of it in the film. Outside of a crocodile (or alligator; I’ve never been able to tell them apart) which Gulliver fights late in the movie, the only other stop-motion creation is—a squirrel. And he has only about twenty seconds of screen time. This could hardly be satisfying for those tuning in expecting the usual Harryhausen fare.

As for the movie itself, I have to give it a little credit. Most adaptations of the Gulliver story seem satisfied with covering the Lilliput story and ending there; this one at least gets to Brobdingnag (though I notice only one attempt to pronounce the name occurs in the movie). The third world of the title appears to be his home land of England, which might be a little disappointing to those expecting a third voyage. The original Gulliver story had four voyages in all, but I suspect part of the reason they are rarely filmed is that they can’t be made into children’s stories as well as the Lilliput story. “Gulliver’s Travels” is not a children’s book; it is a savage satire, and the farther you get into the book, the more uncompromising and misanthropic it is.

Also to its credit is that the movie retains some of the satirical touches. On the down side, I don’t think it really knows what to do with them. In fact, I’m not sure the movie really knows what it is; it tends to swing back and forth between satire, children’s story, adventure, and preachy moral lesson. The gigantism special effects look very nice, but the movie’s lack of focus causes my attention to wander too much. This may be Harryhausen’s most disappointing movie.

THE THING FROM ANOTHER WORLD (1951)
Article #656 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 12-31-2002
Posting date: 5-30-2003

An alien spaceship crash lands in the arctic regions, and scientists recover the body of one of the residents. However, the resident is not dead…

Despite the director credit to Christian Nyby, it is commonly believed the real director of this movie is Howard Hawks, and I fully believe this to be the case; however, I do think it’s a bit of a shame that one of that director’s only forays into fantastic cinema isn’t officially credited to him. If there’s any one thing I love about this movie, it’s how the rapid-fire dialogue keeps things moving even in scenes where there is little plot development; the wit and cameraderie behind the dialogue is enough to hold your attention. It also knows how to build suspense; characters deep into important conversations are repeatedly interrupted by news of new developments or hints of an imminent attack by the alien in much the same way these things might happen in real life. There are some wonderful performances here, particularly from Kenneth Tobey, Robert Cornthwaite, and Douglas Spencer. Quite frankly, I could blather on endlessly about how much I love this movie, so I’ll just list some of my favorite moments: the scene where the men on the ice figure out the shape of the spacecraft, the unexpected and jarring appearance of the alien at the door, the scene where Carrington shows the scientists the result of his planting the seeds, and the discovery that the temperature is going down in the base that is mistaken by the reporter for a slur on his breath. For me, there is no alien invasion movie that I have loved as well as this one.

TERROR IN THE CRYPT (1963)
Article #654 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 12-29-2002
Posting date: 5-28-2003

A witch/vampire lays a curse upon the Karnstein family upon her execution.

If there’s one thing this movie has a lot of, it’s atmosphere. It also has a lot of foreshadowing. What it doesn’t have is an interesting storyline, a sense of pace (every scene feels like the one before, and it never builds to any satisfying pitch), or characters that serve any purpose beyond being mere plot devices. This is why this one puts me to sleep; it’s really hard to care whether the Count’s daughter is the reincarnation of the witch when she doesn’t have enough dimension to make her interesting in and of herself. The only time the movie roused me out the torpor it put me in was during a scene where it is discovered why the bells are ringing, and the following scene involving a severed hand. Other than that, there’s very little of interest here, despite the presence of Christopher Lee. This is not the place to start with Italian horror movies.

TEENAGE ZOMBIES (1959)
Article #653 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 12-28-2002
Posting date: 5-27-2003

Teenagers land on an island where an evil female scientist is making zombies.

Question and answer time, folks.

Q: Is that Jerry Warren’s name I see under the “Produced and Directed by” credit?
A: Yes, it is.

Q: Are there any teenage zombies?
A: Yes. Any teenager watching this movie will most likely have become a zombie by the time the movie is over.

Q: I mean, in the movie?
A: Despite the fact that I’ve seen several sources claim there are no teenage zombies in the movie, I would like to point out that the two girls are exposed to the zombie gas, and do indeed become zombies for a few moments, so, yes, there are teenage zombies in the movie. It might be a little hard to tell; outside of not saying anything for a couple of minutes, they don’t act any different than they did when they weren’t zombies.

Q: Are there any long, boring, talky static scenes in the movie?
A: It has Jerry Warren’s name in the credits; what do you think?

Q: Does Don Sullivan sing “Laugh, Children, Laugh” in the movie?
A. No. (See, I did have something nice to say about the movie.)

Q: Why is the sheriff’s office in an empty wood panelled room with only an uncomfortable looking window through which you can talk to one of his men?
A. Because it’s a Jerry Warren movie.

Q: Why does the movie go on for another six minutes after it’s ended?
A: See the above answer.

Q: Just how exciting is horseback riding?
A: Considering that this comment elicits more energy out of the cast than anything else in the movie, I’d say plenty; however, it could be they were just celebrating the movie being over.

Q: Why is my print three minutes short?
A: Don’t ask; just be thankful that there are forces of mercy in this world.

TARANTULA (1955)
Article #652 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 12-27-2002
Posting date: 5-26-2003

Scientists experimenting with a nutrient accidentally unleash a giant tarantula in the desert.

In the wake of THEM!, several big bug movies were made in the fifties, though none of them lived up to their model. They all have their good points, though. Yet, sadly, this is the one that I’m least likely to watch when I’m in the mood for a big bug movie. Despite certain elements that are quite good (the back story involving acromegaly is quite interesting), and the occasional very nice scene, I find the movie fairly dull on occasions. A lot of it has to do with the lack of interesting characters; the only two characters who capture my interest is Leo G. Carroll’s scientist and Hank Patterson’s comic-relief character role. Way too much of the running time is made up of a romance between John Agar and Mara Corday. In truth, I would have liked to see the story told from the point of view of the scientists working on the nutrient rather than from the point of view of the country doctor; they seem a much more interesting bunch. There is one absolutely great scene in this movie, though; an attack by the tarantula on a bunch of horses in a corral emphasizes the fear and the terror of the animals, and the scene is absolutely gripping. Make sure you’re not rummaging through the fridge when this moment comes.

THE TWO FACES OF DR. JEKYLL (1960)
Article #572 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 10-8-2002
Posting date: 3-3-2003

Dr. Jekyll experiments on himself with a drug that turns him into a handsome but evil man named Edward Hyde.

One of these days I’m going to sit down to one of the Hammer horrors that will grab my attention from square one and not let go of it until the last reel ends. Actually, this has happened, but only with those movies that either bear the Quatermass name or are reminiscent of Quatermass (X THE UNKNOWN), but as far as their standard horror fare, I always seem to come up a little short. This one is certainly no exception. One of the problems is that it feels more churned out than inspired, as if someone decided they needed to do the Jekyll and Hyde story, and felt it was good enough just to move some of the plot elements around and throw in some sex and violence. Ironically, the use of sex and violence is a lot more effective in the 1931 version of the film than it is here. I think the problem is that I really got caught up in the characters in that movie; in this one, I really don’t care one way or another about any of them, including the one played by Christopher Lee, and that tends to make the experience of watching the movie to be a rather unengaging (if not completly dull) task. Once again, I wonder if I’m missing something, but if I am, I don’t know what it is. Maybe someday I’ll find out…

TOWER OF LONDON (1939)
Article #559 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-25-2002
Posting date: 2-18-2003

The story of Richard, the Duke of Gloucester and his rise to the throne of England via the use of machiavellian machinations and murder.

This historical drama covers the same ground as Shakespeare’s RICHARD III (“A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse”); it’s fairly entertaining and well-acted throughout. I think it falls just short of greatness because it isn’t really very memorable, and the final battle scene is a bit of a disappointment, though it does feature a good death scene for Karloff. It’s not a horror film despite the presence of Karloff and Vincent Price, though it does contain certain slight horror elements (Karloff is a torturer and executioner, and both him and Basil Rathbone’s Richard have physical deformities), but the presence of the three aformentioned actors does give it enough interest to horror fans to sneak the movie in through the back door, so to speak.