The Mad Genius (1931)

THE MAD GENIUS (1931)
Article #751 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-5-2003
Posting Date: 9-2-2003
Directed by Michael Curtiz
Featuring John Barrymore, Marian Marsh, Donald Cook

A puppeteer with a clubfoot has dreams of becoming a dancer, and decides to experience it vicariously by taking a young man under his wings and making him a great dancer.

A basic rule of movie-making in Hollywood is that if it worked once, it will work twice. This is why the above plot has more than just a little resemblance to SVENGALI, in which Barrymore also played a mad genius trying to make a woman a great singer. It’s less of a horror movie this time, as the hypnotism angle of that movie plays no role here, and the main character’s clubfoot is used less for horror effect and more for plot development; it is his deformity that made the Barrymore character unable to become a dancer himself. Boris Karloff is also on hand in a small role, but you would be excused if you didn’t notice him; not only is he speaking with an accent, but the camera never gives us a close look at him. In fact, I found it curious that Barrymore talks about Frankenstein at one point in the proceedings.

Barrymore does a great job, but the movie is stolen by Charles Butterworth as Barrymore’s comic sidekick; his dialogue is absolutely priceless, particularly when he narrates the story of the ballet he’s written. I also thought it was odd that whereas Barrymore’s role in SVENGALI made me think of Bela Lugosi in DRACULA, his role here reminds me of Lionel Atwill’s in THE MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM; seeing as how both this movie and THE MYSTERY OF THE WAX MUSEUM were directed by Michael Curtiz, this may be more than just a coincidence.

Sadly, the movie is marred by a contrived ending; it comes out of left field, and though it does add one real horror element to the mix, it’s also a deus ex machina of the worst kind. This is a shame; despite the fact that it’s largely a retread of SVENGALI, it was a very good movie up to that point.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

I Love a Mystery (1945)

I LOVE A MYSTERY (1945)
Article #750 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-4-2003
Posting Date: 9-1-2003
Directed by Henry Levin
Featuring Jim Bannon, Nina Foch, George MacReady

Two investigators look into the situation of a man whose head is being sought by an oriental cult.

I like mysteries, too, especially when they’re as loaded with odd plot twists, interesting characters, exotic atmosphere, and dark, horror-like touches as this one. This was the first of a short-lived series of movies based on a radio series, and it caught my attention from square one, with one of the primary plot elements involving a man being followed by an ugly peg-legged man carrying a bag (“just big enough to hold a human head”). Only time will tell whether I will cover any other movies from this series.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Time Machine (1960)

THE TIME MACHINE (1960)
Article #749 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-3-2003
Posting Date: 8-31-2003
Directed by George Pal
Featuring Rod Taylor, Alan Young, Yvette Mimieux

A man invents a time machine at the end of the nineteenth century, and takes a journey into the far future.

This adaptation of the H.G. Wells novel is much more faithful to the source story than Pal’s earlier WAR OF THE WORLDS was to its source. It has one of the all-time great props; the time machine itself is a wonderful and memorable creation, and the time travel sequences are breathtaking indeed. However, I usually emerge from the movie with an odd sense of disappointment, and it’s a little hard at times to say why. I had read the original story of Wells several times when I was young, long before I ever actually got to see the movie, and though I haven’t read the story closely in quite a while (I have a collection of H.G. Wells novels that I will be rereading in the near future), I always get the sense that the story has been “dumbed down” in subtle ways; just as an example, the scene where Weena asks the time traveller how women wear their hair in his time seems overly cute, false, and out of tenor with the story, and I don’t believe that would be a question Weena would actually ask.

This may sound like nit-picking, and perhaps it is, but it does seriously hamper my enjoyment of the movie. I also miss the omission of chapter 11 from the story, in which the time traveller goes even farther into the future into a time where Earth is nearing its last days, and this has always been the one chapter of the book that has most embedded itself into my memory; it’s omission from the movie tends to leave a fairly big emotional hole for me.

Still, even if I feel that the ultimate version of the story has yet to be made, I applaud George Pal’s attempt. I also really loved one final touch in the movie, and that is that it leaves it to the viewer’s own imagination as to which three books are missing at the end of the movie. It’s a subtle, effective touch that is entirely unexpected and thought-provoking, and I have to smile when we reach that point.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

R.F.D. 10,000 B.C. (1916)

R.F.D. 10,000 B.C. (1916)
Article #748 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-2-2003
Posting Date: 8-30-2003
Produced by Willis O’Brien

A mailman in prehistoric times uses underhanded means to steal the girlfriend of a rival.

Though it is nice that some of Willis O’Brien’s caveman comedies are still in existence, in all honesty I have to say they are more interesting historically than they are in and of themselves. As comedies, they’re fairly lame, and the characters are downright ugly; in fact, it’s hard to tell the men from the women sometimes (though if a character spends almost all of its time on all fours, you can say with some confidence it’s a dinosaur). As for the plot, I have a couple of comments; first of all, the mailman performs an act that would have been considered a federal offense had there been a federal government in those times, and in the denoument, a certain character implies that delivering mail is a very lucrative and prosperous profession, something that may well surprise an employee of the U.S. Postal System.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Tarzan Finds a Son! (1939)

TARZAN FINDS A SON! (1939)
Article #747 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 4-1-2003
Posting Date: 8-29-2003
Directed by Richard Thorpe
Featuring Johnny Weissmuller, Maureen O’Sullivan, Johnny Sheffield

Tarzan and Jane discover a baby who is the only survivor of an airplane crash, and the rear the boy as their own. Years later, the boy’s relatives come to the jungle in search of him.

Had I watched this movie after having seen the first three Weissmuller Tarzans only, I would have mourned what would have been another step in the domestication of the character; however, after having seen TARZAN AND THE AMAZONS, I really appreciate how this one still retains enough of the savagery that made the initial entries so appealing. The characters are more complex than in that later movie, there is still that wonderful chemistry between Weissmuller and O’Sullivan (this was supposed to be her last outing as Jane, but the ending was changed), and Africa is still inhabited largely by animals and fierce native tribes, an aspect that had almost vanished entirely in the AMAZON movie. There are some powerful scenes here, particularly a moving moment when Tarzan has to keep a baby elephant from running to his mortally-wounded mother who is making her way to the elephant’s graveyard. Yes, it pales next to the first three of the series, but it’s still a richer and more resonant experience than some of the later ones. Sometimes you just need to sit back and count your blessings.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Topper (1937)

TOPPER (1937)
Article #746 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-31-2003
Posting Date: 8-28-2003
Directed by Norman McLeod
Featuring Cary Grant, Constance Bennett, Roland Young

A stodgy and dull bank president finds himself haunted by two ghosts intent on getting him to enjoy life.

First, a rant.

Ever order a movie on the internet, and then wait with baited breath for it to arrive, and when it does, you discover to your horror that you got the COLORIZED version? ARRGGGHHHH!!!!! Not only that, but it was one of the very first movies to undergo colorization, so it’s done particularly badly. Double ARRRGGGHHHH!!!!!

Still, it was the only copy of the movie I had, so I watched it anyway. Fortunately, it’s a good one, with great dialogue and wonderful performances from Roland Young, Constance Bennett, Cary Grant, Billie Burke, Alan Mowbray and Eugene Pallette. Hedda Hopper and Doodles Weaver are also in there somewhere. It’s consistently amusing and fun to watch, but I do have a couple of minor quibbles (outside of the ghastly colorization); there’s a long stretch in the second half where Cary Grant is nowhere to be found (he’s one of my all-time favorite actors), and despite all the fun, it never quite cuts loose in the way you hope it might. Still, it was a joy to watch, and though I definitely plan to watch it again sometime, I will wait until I have a chance to upgrade my copy to one in which the predominant colors are various shades of grey.

1 CommentLeave a comment

Tarzan and the Amazons (1945)

TARZAN AND THE AMAZONS (1945)
Article #745 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-30-2003
Posting Date: 8-27-2003
Directed by Kurt Neumann
Featuring Johnny Weissmuller, Brenda Joyce, Johnny Sheffield

Tarzan tries to prevent a group of adventurers from discovering the secret home of the Amazons.

In TARZAN ESCAPES we saw how the Hays office had taken steps to declaw the Tarzan series and remove the savagery and the violence. Here we are, nine years later, and the series has been thoroughly domesticated. I don’t think there’s a single fight with a wild animal this time, and the emotional center of the plot is Tarzan’s relationship with Boy, which becomes strained when he takes a liking to the adventurers. Maureen O’Sullivan is long gone, and there’s a lot more talk than action this time around, and Tarzan’s most violent act is breaking Boy’s hunting bow. It’s not bad, but it’s a long way from what fans of the Tarzan character may expect. As far as the Amazons, they appear for a couple of minutes towards the beginning and then disappear from the story until the last third, so those watching the movie to catch those particular charms may be excused for taking a forty minute break in the middle of the movie. And even though Maria (Maleva, the old gypsy woman) Ouspenskaya is an excellent actress, the fact that she is playing the leader of the tall, statuesque, leggy and youthful Amazons is nothing short of anomolous.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Sunset Blvd. (1950)

SUNSET BLVD. (1950)
Article #744 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-29-2003
Posting Date: 8-26-2003
Directed by Billy Wilder
Featuring Gloria Swanson, William Holden, Erich von Stroheim

A down-on-his-luck writer hooks up with an actress from the silents intent on making a comeback.

The issue here is not the quality of the movie; it is recognized as a classic and one of Billy Wilder’s finest moments, and I plan to say nothing to the contrary. It is chock-full of memorable dialogue, fascinating characters and great acting from all concerned. It also has a priceless set of cameos of Hollywood personalities playing themselves (Cecil B. DeMille, Hedda Hopper, Buster Keaton, etc.), and gives Erich von Stroheim, the man you love to hate, one of his most sympathetic characters. No, the issue here is why I am covering this film noir in my survey of fantastic films. The answer is quite simple; the movie has several elements that bring it within shoulder-rubbing distance of the horror genre. The whole story is narrated by a corpse, to start with. Then the subplot about the interment of the monkey has a sense of grotesqueness that would not be out of place in a horror film. Norma Desmond’s decrepit mansion could very well make a fine setting for a horror movie, and finally, her inevitable descent into madness touches upon another horror theme. Not that it every really becomes a horror movie; it definitely remains in the realm of marginalia. But if you think about it, it really is only a couple of small steps away from WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE, which may mean that it is a little closer to horror than it would initially seem.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Sphinx (1933)

THE SPHINX (1933)
Article #743 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-28-2003
Posting Date: 8-25-2003
Directed by Phil Rosen
Featuring Lionel Atwill, Sheila Terry, Luis Alberni

The main suspect in a series of murders of stockholders is a deaf-mute; however, witnesses all claim he can talk when it has been proven medically impossible for him to do so.

I was able to think up at least four explanations as to how this movie would pan out before I reached the actual ending, and my first explanation turned out to be correct. I would have to say therefore that this mystery wasn’t really very mysterious. However, that doesn’t mean I wasn’t entertained; on the contrary, I found it quite enjoyable. Part of the reason is that the dialogue was quite witty at times, particular some of the lines of the reporter hero. Another big factor was Lionel Atwill’s strong performance in a role where he rarely speaks a word; except for the fact that his sign language looked less than convincing, he did a very convincing rendition of a deaf mute. However, the horror elements are perhaps too slight to qualify the movie as horror, so I have to consign this one to the realm of marginalia as well.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Sinister Hands (1932)

SINISTER HANDS (1932)
Article #742 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 3-27-2003
Posting Date: 8-24-2003
Directed by Armand Schaeffer
Featuring Jack Mulhall, Mischa Auer, Phyllis Barrington

Police try to solve the murder of a wealthy man who was killed during a seance.

There is a point in this movie where the rich man confronts the boyfriend of his daughter, who he has discovered is a gangster. The rich man says “You’ll marry my daughter over my dead body.” The gangster says, “Very well – I will marry your daughter over your dead body!” After the gangster leaves, the rich man turns off the recording machine that was running. It was precisely at this point that I realized several things:
1) This was a murder mystery.
2) The rich man was going to be a murder victim very shortly.
3) The recording would show up during the investigation.
4) I knew for sure of one suspect who was going to turn out NOT to be guilty.

In a very short period of time, I also figured out several other suspects who would also be innocent. I also knew that the police investigator’s assistant’s irritation at people calling him Watson (his name is Watkins) would be a running joke. In fact, I pretty much zeroed in on who the real murderer would most likely be, because if there is any rule one should keep in mind for murder movies of this ilk, it’s that the real murderer will be the one who doesn’t have a motive that was established in the first half of the movie. In short, there are no surprises here.

Yet, on one level, I enjoyed this cheap little movie, despite the cookie-cutter plot and the indifferent writing, direction and acting. It was so spare and so obvious that it almost seemed more like a template for a murder mystery. It reminded me of a comment I’d heard about the rock group The Ramones; that their early albums sounded as if they had wanted to see how much they could take away and still have music. In this movie, everything is perfunctory; the characters are developed only to the point that their motives are established and the facts that establish their guilt (or innocence) are displayed. Yet I felt that if I wanted to write a murder mystery, I might well use this movie as a model on which to build my story; in this way, the movie has its uses.

The fantastic elements are slight; in fact, Walt Lee omits this movie from his books do to the lack of fantastic elements. However, Don Willis does include the movie, and I think it is due to the seance sequences. At any rate, this one goes in the realm of marginalia.

0 CommentsLeave a comment