A Clockwork Orange (1971)

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971)
Article #801 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-25-2003
Posting Date: 10-12-2003
Directed by Stanley Kubrick
Featurning Malcolm McDowell, Patrick Magee, Michael Bates

A violent hoodlum in the future is sent to prison, and ends up taking part in an experimental behavior modification technique in order to get an early release.

Title check: Actually, I once read an article somewhere about the titling of movies that made specific mention of this one; the gist of the article was that the title makes no sense unless it’s explained to you. The book includes the explanation, but the movie does not. I’d say this pretty much sums up anything I might say about the title.

This is a tough movie to cover, at least partly due to the fact that I’ve read at least one essay about the movie (in Danny Peary’s Cult Movies book) that has had a huge effect on my own thoughts on the movie, and a great deal of what I would say about it has already been covered there; consequently, I can’t really claim that much of what I’ll say will be truly original, those who want to go to the article mentioned should feel free to do so.

I won’t argue about the brilliance of the movie; Stanley Kubrick has a sharp visual sense, and he actually does an amazing job of presenting the story in such a way that the repugnance doesn’t drive you away. However, he handles the movie in such a way that he tries to make you sympathize with Alex, a truly repellant character. He does this by making him the only character with many sides to his personality; for the most part, all the other characters are only shown at their least endearing. Unfortunately, this sets up some real moral conflicts for me as a viewer; I don’t want to sympathize or identify with this man, but he’s the only character for which I’m given this opportunity. As for the message of the movie, I’m not sure what it is or whether one even exists, though it is quite possible that I just don’t see it (or don’t want to see it). If there is anything I do get out of this movie, it’s that film can be a very powerful thing; not only are movies used as a crucial manipulative element in the Ludovico technique in the movie itself, but the movie’s strong attempt to try to get us to identify with the main character further bears that out. Still, it is important to realize that the movie is highly stylized; some of the characters are cartoons (the Michael Bates character in particular), and others are used in a purely manipulative fashion. Consequently, any messages the movie might deliver may have little relevance in the real world, and caution should definitely be used to apply them to a real world environment.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968)

CHITTY CHITTY BANG BANG (1968)
Article #800 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-24-2003
Posting Date: 10-11-2003
Directed by Ken Hughes
Featuring Dick Van Dyke, Sally Ann Howes, Lionel Jeffries

An inventor tries to raise money to save a car that turns out to be magical.

Title check: Personally, I think the title is perfect for a movie about an old car that turns out to be magical; it even has a nice rhythmic feel appropriate to a musical.

As a child I had really wanted to see this movie; I had the Big Little Book and a sticker coloring book about it, and I was really hoping to see the movie when it came around to my area. I never got the chance, and I didn’t see it until many years later, and was pretty dismayed by what I saw then.

Considering the role the movie played in my personal history and my ultimate disappointment, I found myself being quite curious to see what I would think about this movie when it came up on my viewing list. For about the first third of the movie, I really didn’t see any major problems, though seeing that the movie ran a good two and a half hours made me quite apprehensive; it actually had a nice charm to it. It’s only at the halfway point that it really starts screwing up; while the first half of the movie had a light, whimsical touch to it (all it really needed was some pruning), the second half is frantic, strident, loud, overbearing and full of desperate slapstick; it was at this point that the movie became actively annoying and unpleasant. I also felt queasy about the scene where the Baron (in his pajamas) flirts with the Baroness (in what I think are supposed to be some fairly elaborate Victorian undergarments) while trying to kill her; not only is the scene totally unnecessary to the story, I also had strong misgivings as to whether it was really appropriate for children. Some of the songs aren’t too bad, but there are way too many; I think the pacing of the movie could be improved immeasurably if a good half of the songs were axed and most of the rest abbreviated somewhat; unfortunately, even that wouldn’t quite save that second half. However, I do like the design of the car (though the special effects are pretty weak for what was supposed to be a big movie) and Dick Van Dyke’s performance.

On a side note, this movie is number 800 in the series, and I couldn’t help but notice that this movie has something in common with number 700 (DR. NO); the original story is by Ian Fleming, the creator of James Bond. The producer was Albert Broccoli, who was also responsible for the Bond movies, and Ken Hughes was one of the people who worked on the movie version of CASINO ROYALE.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Amazing Mr. X (1948)

THE AMAZING MR. X (1948)
(a.k.a. THE SPIRITUALIST)
Article #799 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-23-2003
Posting Date: 10-10-2003
Directed by Bernard Vorhaus
Featuring Turhan Bey, Richard Carlson, Lynn Bari

A woman who has begun hearing the voice of her dead husband hooks up with a medium in order to contact him.

Title check: “Amazing” is always a matter of opinion, but since we’re referring to a medium, it’s appropriate enough, though I do think that anyone known as Mr. X should have a last name that begins with an ‘X’. At heart, I prefer the quieter alternate title.

Though it really isn’t a horror movie, it certainly plays like one during the first third of the movie, enough so that it easily falls into the realm of fantastic cinema. It starts off pretty strongly, but loses a bit of steam during the middle section; however, there is a plot twist about two-thirds of the way through that definitely threw me for a loop and added a new factor to the story, and even though it left me with a few unanswered questions (I’m very unsure about why a certain character is doing what he or she is doing), I have to admit that I was quite satisfied with the movie as a whole. In particular, I think this is may be the best performance I’ve seen from Turhan Bey; it’s certainly a far more complex character than the ones he was usually given. I also like the final moments, which involve a crow. Horror fans may want to give this one a look.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Werewolf (1956)

THE WEREWOLF (1956)
Article #798 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-21-2003
Posting Date: 10-18-2003
Directed by Fred F. Sears
Featuring Steven Ritch, Joyce Holden, Dan Megowan

A werewolf is loose in a small village and the local sheriff tries to capture him.

Title Check: No problem; you want a werewolf, you got a werewolf.

In some ways, this generically titled movie is similar to the also-generically-titled THE VAMPIRE from a year later; they both feature sympathetic monsters, and they both add a science fiction angle to a usually-supenatural monster. Unfortunately, this one isn’t quite as good as that one; the screenplay never gels as well as it should, and the various elements (including the werewolf’s family and the two evil scientists who create him) feel thrown in rather than organic. Steven Ritch does as good a job as he can with a character that is not developed as well as he could be. The opening scenes, in which a seemingly amnesiac man is waylaid by a robber outside of a bar are the most memorable in the movie; you suspect one of these people is the werewolf, but you’re not sure which one. Not a bad movie, but one that could have been better.

1 CommentLeave a comment

Vertigo (1958)

VERTIGO (1958)
Article #797 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-20-2003
Posting Date: 10-17-2003
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
Featuring James Stewart, Kim Novak, Barbara bel Geddes

An ex-detective suffering from acrophobia is asked by a friend to tail his wife, who he believes may be possessed by the spirit of a woman who committed suicide.

Title check: Since the title refers both to the detective’s illness as well as to the somewhat giddy and queasy nature of the story, I would say the title is very apt.

I saw this movie for the first time years ago after endlessly hearing how great it was, and I was less than thrilled. Now, watching it many years later with more realistic expectations (and even more significantly, a greater sense of just what the movie is about), I can see it and enjoy it for what it is. Hitchcock’s direction is, as always, exquisite; I like in particular how he can use background noises and visuals to highlight and intensify the characters actions and emotions, and Bernard Herrman’s score is equally up to the task. It could be argued that this really doesn’t belong to the realm of fantastic cinema, since the possession angle turns out to have a more mundane explanation, but it plays such a powerful role in the first half of the movie that I for one have no desire to object to the movie’s inclusion on these grounds. Kudos to the whole cast, though I was especially impressed with both Stewart and Barbara Bel Geddes as his long-suffering girlfriend, who vanishes from the story much too early.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

A Study in Scarlet (1933)

A STUDY IN SCARLET (1933)
Article #796 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-20-2003
Posting Date: 10-17-2003
Directed by Edwin L. Marin
Featuring Reginald Owen, Anna May Wong, June Clyde

Sherlock Holmes investigates the murder of several members of a secret society.

Title check: Since the elements that explain the title of the Sherlock Holmes novel on which this movie was based are not present in this adaptation, the only relevance the title has to the story is telling you that it’s about Sherlock Holmes.

The opening credits says that the story of the movie was “suggested” by the events in the novel of the same name, which seems to me to be a nice way of saying that the movie isn’t going to follow the story of the novel, and sure enough, it doesn’t; we never even get near Utah. It takes place in the present (I can tell by the motorcars), so this is certainly not period Holmes either. The story itself seems more similar to TEN LITTLE INDIANS than any of the Holmes stories, as each member receives a verse of a poem that heralds his death; in fact, you should have no trouble figuring out the murderer as long as you’re familiar with an all-too-common mystery term that appears in one of the poems. Overall, it’s not too bad, with some fun scenes and a decent story, but Holmes purists won’t be pleased. The oddest liberty taken with the Holmes stories is that Holmes and Watson live at 221-A Baker Street instead of 221-B Baker Street. Complaining about a change like that is definitely picking nits, but it’s also such a pointless change from the original stories that it just calls attention to itself.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Show (1927)

THE SHOW (1927)
Article #795 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-19-2003
Posting Date: 10-16-2003
Directed by Tod Browning
Featuring John Gilbert, Renee Adoree, Lionel Barrymore

A lady-killer who works in a carnival falls afoul of both the police and the lover of his assistant.

Title-check: The title is pretty generic, as every movie is a show of some sort. Appropriate, but vague.

Like most of Tod Browning’s silent movies with Lon Chaney (who isn’t in this one), this movie is really a lurid melodrama with slight horror elements. And also like many of those movies, this one has a circus background; the show of the title is literally a freak show combined with a magic act, and includes a reenactment of the decapitation of John the Baptist. John Gilbert is in what would ordinarily have been the Lon Chaney role, but Gilbert is the more appropriate choice here, as he fits the look of someone who would be a ladykiller more than Chaney would, nor does the role require anything in the way of Chaney’s makeup expertise. Lionel Barrymore is at his most restrained in the role of violent gangster who is jealous of his girlfriend’s interest in Gilbert. All in all, this is a fairly entertaining entry in Browning’s oeuvre.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Seven Footprints to Satan (1929)

SEVEN FOOTPRINTS TO SATAN (1929)
Article #794 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-18-2003
Posting Date: 10-15-2003
Directed by Ben Christensen
Featuring Thelma Todd, Creighton Hale, William V. Mong

A man and his fiancee are kidnapped and taken to a house full of strange characters who serve Satan.

Title check: The title is a very direct reference to an incident that happens toward the end of the movie.

The above description can only give a vague sense of what this movie is like; after the kidnapping, the plot starts popping off into any number of directions, and a dizzying array of characters are introduced, leaving you with sense of disorientation in trying to figure out who can be trusted and who can’t. In fact, so many suspicious characters show up (an imposing housekeeper, an ugly man on crutches, a gorilla, a dwarf and a Fu Manchu-like oriental are only the most noticeable) that you start to wonder just how seriously you can take this movie, and that it may really just be a comedy of sorts, and certainly, the end of the movie bears this out. Certainly, the movie ends in probably the only way that could explain all that went before, even if it does feel slightly like a cop-out. Nevertheless, this is one of the odder “old dark house” movies you’re likely to see. Incidentally, the dwarf is played by Angelo Rossitto.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Secrets of a Soul (1926)

SECRETS OF A SOUL (1926)
Article #793 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-17-2003
Posting Date: 10-14-2003
Directed by G.W. Pabst
Featuring Werner Krauss, Pawel Pawloff, Ruth Weyher

A man who accidentally cuts his wife’s neck with a razor (he was shaving the back of her head) when he is startled by a cry of murder (also involving a razor) develops both a phobia of knives and a desire to kill his wife.

Title check: I suppose it depends on just how you define the word “soul”, but if it includes the human psyche, the title is quite appropriate.

G.W. Pabst is one of my favorite directors, and this movie certainly doesn’t change my feelings about that. The movie itself is a reenactment of a true story; it belongs only marginally to the genre of fantastic cinema, largely through the movie’s interest in madness, and a stunning and memorable dream sequence which is the centerpiece of the movie (and which is revisited during the psychoanalysis sequence). There is a great image of a city growing out of the ground during this sequence that is a particular highlight. This is a quite interesting movie, particularly for anyone interested in psychoanalysis.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Headless Ghost (1959)

THE HEADLESS GHOST (1959)
Article #792 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 5-16-2003
Posting Date: 10-13-2003
Directed by Peter Graham Scott
Featuring Richard Lyon, Liliane Scottane, David Rose

A group of college kids stay overnight in a castle to see if there are ghosts.

Title check: Yes, one of the ghosts is indeed missing a head.

There’s something amiable and unpretentious about this movie; I didn’t really expect much, but I was willing to go along for the ride. Nonetheless, it was a very slight affair as far as these movies go; for one thing, it takes forever to get started, and once it does, it never really builds up much momentum. The trouble seems to be that the movie is hooked on exposition; we learn far more about the history of the castle than we need (or want) to know, and we also meet characters who we don’t need to know. In particular, the wife of the castle’s owner appears for the first time fifteen minutes before the end of the film, and engages her husband in a long conversation about how she wants him to sell the castle and move to the city so they can live like normal people; she then disappears from the story and neither her nor the conflict is mentioned again. If this isn’t padding, I don’t know what else it is; it’s neither dramatically interesting nor amusing. The best scene in the movie is the ghost banquet, even though it exists primarily to introduce us to a character who also vanishes from the plot after the scene is finished; I really think the script for this one needed some major work. On the plus side, there is one of those scenes in which a woman puts on a sexy dance; I rarely find these dances sexy, but this one actually is. So much for counting my blessings.

0 CommentsLeave a comment