What (1963)

WHAT (1963)
(a.k.a. THE WHIP AND THE BODY)
Article #671 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 1-15-2003
Posting Date: 6-14-2003

The sadistic son of a nobleman returns home and is murdered. A woman then finds herself haunted by his ghost.

Yes, this movie did actually go out under the truly awful title of WHAT, a move that most likely resulted in failing to capture the public’s attention, but ultimately may have confused it with a similarly titled movie by Roman Polanski movie released the same decade. The other title, THE WHIP AND THE BODY, is not only better, but more descriptive. In fact, this is a pretty amazing movie. One of the common qualities of Italian horror that has the potential to drive me away is their emphasis on sadism; some of them dwell so much on the torture of women they become nearly unwatchable. This is one of the exceptions, and this is partly because the sadism is so strongly a part of the characters and the story that it feels essential rather than exploitative; it defines the characters and the way they behave, and it adds a surprising amount of substance and depth to the story. This, plus Mario Bava’s usual visual touches, make the movie a unique, fascinating horror movie, and it even contains a certain amount of Lewtonesque ambiguity. Some people think it may be Bava’s finest movie; I haven’t seen all of his work to be sure, yet, but I would go so far to say that this one is definitely in the running. It features Christopher Lee and Daliah Levi (in great performances).

0 CommentsLeave a comment

War of the Colossal Beast (1958)

WAR OF THE COLOSSAL BEAST (1958)
Article #670 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 1-14-2003
Posting Date: 6-13-2003

The sister of the Amazing Colossal Man believes him to still be alive in Mexico.

About halfway through this movie they run a six-minute montage of the most memorable scenes from THE AMAZING COLOSSAL MAN, the movie to which this is a sequel, and despite that movie’s flaws, there’s no doubt it has some quite memorable scenes. Unfortunately, it also made me realize how unnecessary this sequel is; it spends about half of its time turning him into a standard giant-monster threat (though the rampage is even less substantial than the one in the original) and the other half trying to work up sympathy for his plight. Unfortunately, the actor playing him is stripped of both voice (he utters one word at the end of the film) and facial expression (the hideous makeup is shocking, but leaves him little to work with as an actor), and this gives us little chance to really care about him as a character other than our memories of the first film. None of the other characters in the first movie appear in this one, with his fiancee having been replaced by a sister, though I do notice some of the actors in the original are back in this one; unfortunately, almost all of the new characters are uninteresting and bland, with the possible exception of the Mexican police official who vanishes from the story at about a third of the way through in a sequence that fades out too soon. This would be the second one-eyed giant that Bert I. Gordon would give us, the first being in THE CYCLOPS, which, in all honesty, is not as good as this one.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Voodoo Woman (1957)

VOODOO WOMAN (1957)
Article #669 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 1-13-2003
Posting Date: 6-12-2003

A mad scientist tampers with voodoo in order to create an invincible monster.

It’s serious lapse-of-taste time on my part, folks; I actually like this silly voodoo movie, despite the ridiculous story and the fact that it’s sitting on IMDB with a 2.7 rating (at this point). It may be nothing more than the fact that there were enough fun characters and energy to keep my attention throughout; maybe it was because the print I was watching was very good in comparison with the murky print of the serial episode I watched with it. Whatever the case, I found it plain dumb fun, and far less boring than some of the other voodoo flicks I’ve seen. Maybe I should also credit Edward L. Cahn, a director who on occasion reminds me sometimes of the philosopher’s stone (the legendary element that was able to transform lead into gold). And though I would hardly say that this story was transformed into gold, I will go so far as to say it was transformed into more interesting lead.

2 CommentsLeave a comment

The Vampire’s Coffin (1957)

THE VAMPIRE’S COFFIN (1957)
Article #668 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 1-12-2003
Posting Date: 6-11-2003

A doctor and his suspicious assistant steal the coffin and body of a vampire in order to run tests, and end up resurrecting the vampire.

Ahh, some good old-fashioned Mexican monster scares! This is a sequel to THE VAMPIRE (a Mexican movie not to be confused with an American movie of the same title made the same year), and like that movie, it features two of my favorite Mexican horror actors; Abel Salazar (who played Baron Vitalia in THE BRAINIAC) and German Robles (who played the title role in the Nostradamus movies). At least, they’re my favorites inasmuch as I can say, since I’ve only heard their work via dubbed movies; nonetheless, they are comfortable horror presences and seem to be decent actors. Salazar’s character seems to have a comic streak here; granted, the dubbed dialogue is amusing anyway, but there’s something in his body language and reactions that tells me the character was comic on purpose. It’s all pretty silly, and I find it a little irresistible. It also includes a scene where a person running from the vampire chooses to hide in the absolutely worst place imaginable; I would say more, but that would ruin the fun.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Undead (1957)

THE UNDEAD (1957)
Article #667 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 1-11-2003
Posting Date: 6-10-2003

A hypnotist regresses a street-walker back to a former life where she is a woman falsely accused of witchcraft.

The above description makes this Roger Corman movie sound like another stab at the Bridey Murphy story, but that description just doesn’t do this movie justice. In fact, I’m not sure any description could; this is unlike any movie ever made, and certainly may be the most original to come from Corman and Charles B. Griffiths. At first, the past-life angle seems like a frame to tell a story of witchcraft, but it isn’t; it ends up playing an unexpectedly active part in the storyline at about the halfway point, and from there the movie veers off into some fascinating directions. The medieval spectacle is pretty pallid, but that’s forgiveable; they just didn’t have the money. It’s peopled with interesting characters and familiar faces; Mel Welles practically steals the movie as Digger Smolkin, who spends most of his time singing nursery rhymes with changed lyrics (usually about coffins), but Alison Hayes is also on hand, as well as Bruno Ve Sota, Billy Barty, Dick Miller and Richard Garland. I wasn’t quite sure what I thought of it all until the final twist at the end of the movie, and I found the final twist so clever it won me over. This is definitely one of the oddest horror movies ever made.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Manos, the Hands of Fate (1966)

MANOS, THE HANDS OF FATE (1966)
Article #666 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 1-10-2003
Posting Date: 6-9-2003

A family gets lost on the road and stays at a strange house with a demonic master.

Eleven thoughts on this one.

1. This movie, like PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, has gained a reputation in certain circles as the worst movie ever made.

2. Unlike PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, I would never recommend the movie to a bad film fanatic looking for a good laugh. Not that it’s not bad; it is. It’s just not bad in a laughable way.

3. Part of the reason it’s not funny is that it gets under your skin in ways that make it hard to laugh off. Like it or not, the movie does get to you on certain levels.

4. One of the ways it gets to you is through the character of Torgo. His twitchy, big-kneed character with the bizarre speech patterns gives such an unsettlingly strange performance that you wonder whether it is actually a performance at all; you get the feeling he may have been like that in real life. I don’t know one way or the other, but the very fact that the question arises is enough to make me a little queasy.

5. The ending of the movie has a plot point (concerning the couple’s child) that also has impact. It may also leave you with the feeling that you’ve just seen the sickest movie ever made.

6. Imagine that your most boring neighbors insist on showing thirty hours of vacation footage shot while they were driving through the dullest section of the world. Imagine they’ve decided to enhance these cinematic endeavours with the most appallingly tepid elevator music they’ve been able to find. This will give you a good idea of the first fifteen minutes of this movie.

7. I don’t consider this movie the worst I’ve ever seen. What is? Don’t get me started…

8. Even if I don’t consider it the worst movie ever made, it certainly has the most awesomely bad post-production tinkering I’ve ever heard; it is rife with missed sound effects, stupid editing, and horrendous dubbing, and it’s already in English.

9. There is a scene here where several women have a catfight while wearing see-through negligees that allow you to see their bras and panties. It doesn’t help.

10. It’s merely a coincidence that this movie came up in the numerical order it did (check the number above).

11. I’m not entirely sure about number 10.

1 CommentLeave a comment

Hand of Death (1962)

HAND OF DEATH (1962)
Article #665 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 1-9-2003
Posting Date: 6-8-2003

A scientist experimenting with a combination nerve gas/hypnotic agent becomes poisoned with it and develops a lethal touch.

This movie was out of circulation for years and only recently began making the rounds again. I’m glad it has, but that’s largely because I’m a bit of a completist about these things, not because it was particularly good. It’s a pretty pallid affair; it’s reminiscent somewhat of THE INVISIBLE RAY or THE 4D MAN, but it has more the feel of THE HIDEOUS SUN DEMON. The most interesting moment is when John Agar has a nightmare about scientific paraphernalia and white rats, and it has a certain amount of curiosity value in that one of the victims is Joe Besser (as a gas station attendant) and an almost-victim is Butch Patrick (Eddie Munster). John Agar also wears the monster outfit himself. Other than that, it’s standard and predictable low-budget fare.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Pursuit to Algiers (1945)

PURSUIT TO ALGIERS (1945)
Article #664 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 1-8-2003
Posting Date: 6-7-2003

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are bodyguard escorts to a prince who is the target of assassins.

The criteria by which I include movies in this series is that the movie is listed in one of my movie guides that purport to cover Horror, Fantasy and/or Science Fiction movies. So far, all of the movies I’ve covered have some slight connection to these genres (and in some cases, very slight indeed), but the connection is there. This is the first movie that leaves me baffled as to why it would be included in a book that covers those genres. I’ve covered one other of the Rathbone Sherlock Holmes movies (SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE SPIDER WOMAN), and there was enough of a real horror element there to make it qualify; that is not the case here. It’s not even really a mystery; it’s more of a thriller than anything. This is not to say that the movie isn’t entertaining; both Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce had a lot of fun with their roles, and there is also some nice work from Martin Kosleck here. I also spotted John Abbott (THE VAMPIRE’S GHOST) in a smaller role. Entertaining, but I’m afraid it doesn’t even qualify as fantastic cinema marginalia.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Eternal Return (1943)

THE ETERNAL RETURN (1943)
(a.k.a. L’ETERNEL RETOUR)
Article #663 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 1-7-2003
Posting Date: 6-6-2003

A man finds a wife for his uncle, but ends up falling in love with her himself when he drinks a love potion.

Though it’s directed by Jean Delannoy, the script was written by Jean Cocteau, the man responsible for LA BELLE ET LA BETE, and though it lacks the visual splendor of that classic, it still does well enough. It also features Jean Marais from that movie as one of the lovers. It is based on the story of Tristan and Isolde, but I have to confess to not being familiar with that story, so I can’t make any comparisons at all. It’s a beautiful, moving and sad love story, and the only fantastic element is the love potion (the bottle is marked “Poison”) that figures into the plot, so its fantastic element is rather slight. The most memorable character, though, is the unpredictable dwarf son of the relatives, played by Pieral, who also appeared in the 1956 version of THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Scoundrel (1935)

THE SCOUNDREL (1935)
Article #662 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 1-6-2003
Posting Date: 6-5-2003

An unmitigated cad destroys the lives of those around him, but when he dies…

For those waiting around for the fantastic elements in the story, you’ve got a ways to go; they don’t manifest themselves until about three-quarters of the way through. Still, it was a little easier for me to be patient while accompanied by the likes of Noel Coward, Stanley Ridges, Alexander Woollcott, and especially Lionel Stander, one of the most distinctive character actors of all time. The real star, though, is the wonderful witty script by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur, who also directs. The acidic humor in the dialogue goes a long way towards alleviating the fact that you’re dealing with a singularly unpleasant character throughout the movie, and since the ultimate message of the movie is pretty simple when you consider it, it’s a good thing getting there is half the fun. This is another example of some of the odd areas that an exploration of fantastic cinema can take you.

0 CommentsLeave a comment