Flesh and Fantasy (1943)

FLESH AND FANTASY (1943)
Article #651 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-26-2002
Posting Date: 5-21-2003

A man finds himself in a quandary after a fortune teller makes one prediction for him and his dreams make the opposite prediction, so a friend tries to help him by telling him three stories about precognizance.

This is the anthology from which the story that became the movie DESTINY (1944) was taken. The first story, about an ugly woman in love with a student wearing the mask of a beautiful woman during Mardi Gras is the weakest, with a fairly obvious ending and the annoying habit of pounding the viewer on the head with the meaning of the story. Thankfully, the other two stories, one of which deals with a man who is told by a palm reader that he will commit murder and the other about a tightrope walker who dreams he will have a fatal accident, are much better. I particularly like the one with about the fortune teller, as it features Edward G. Robinson, one of my favorite actors, but there are other familiar faces in these last two stories, such as Dame May Whitty, C. Aubrey Smith, Thomas Mitchell (instantly recognizable as the palm reader), Charles Boyer (as the tightrope walker) and Barbara Stanwyck. The second story has an almost dark and subtle humor to it, while the final story definitely takes some unexpected but satisfying twists. All in all, a solid anthology movie; it’s not as good as DEAD OF NIGHT, as the framing story is nowhere near as engaging as the one for that movie, but it is amusing enough and features Robert Benchley.

2 CommentsLeave a comment

Chamber of Horrors (1966)

CHAMBER OF HORRORS (1966)
Article #650 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-25-2002
Posting Date: 5-20-2003

A strangler escapes the police by cutting off his own hand, and then seeks revenge with a variety of implements that replace his missing hand.

This movie is most famous for using two gimmicks; the Fear Flasher and the Horror Horn. These devices manifest themselves at certain times during the movie to warn the audience to close their eyes so they won’t witness the horrifying scenes that subsequently appear. Well, unless there are more complete prints than the one I’ve seen, there’s precious little during those scenes from which sensitive viewers need shield their eyes; in fact, these gimmicks are particularly useless. What the movie really needs are couple of other gimmicks; the Beer Flasher will start flashing whenever there is ample time for you to run to the refrigerator to get something to drink, and the Snorer Horn will warn you whenever there is a scene that will leave you in grave danger of falling asleep. Unfortunately, these two warning signals would be going off perpetually. Apparently, this was originally made for TV, but was deemed too gruesome to broadcast. I suspect it was a pilot for a tentative series (the final moment of the movie ends with the type of cliffhanger you’d expect from “Lost in Space”) that was padded out to feature length, which is why the movie drags and contains scenes that seem redundant. It gives hints of having been more interesting in concept (proprieters of a wax museum solve real-life mysteries) than it turns out to be in practice; the only time it shows much energy is during a fight scene near the end. This one is primarily for fans of ballyhoo.

1 CommentLeave a comment

Swamp of the Lost Monster (1956)

SWAMP OF THE LOST MONSTER (1956)
Article #649 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-24-2002
Posting Date: 5-19-2003

When a body mysteriously disappears from a casket during a burial, a cowboy detective and his sidekick are called in to solve the mystery.

If you’ve ever wondered how the Mexicans would fare in making a movie that crossed THE CREATURE FROM THE BLACK LAGOON with a B western, here is the answer in all its awful glory. Our hero’s gimmick is that his horse does a bizarre prancing routine (a talent which proves virtually useless in helping the hero during the length of the film). The monster looks like a lanky frog, and the comic relief sidekick sings (correction: tries to sing) and says lines like “You’re wetter than tomato soup!” Conclusion: the monster is funnier than the comic relief and the comic relief is scarier than the monster. The plot (such as it is) involves a woman fooling people for several months into thinking that she’s not blind. It also asks the cinematic question; how many henchmen can you drop into a hayloft? The story is incredibly muddled. Even by Mexican standards, this is bottom of the barrel, unless you really want to see that prancing pony.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Death Takes a Holiday (1934)

DEATH TAKES A HOLIDAY (1934)
Article #648 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-23-2002
Posting Date: 5-18-2003

Death manifests himself in human form for three days to try to discover why man fears him so.

I’ve heard DRACULA was advertised with the tag line “The Weirdest Love Story ever told!” (this is probably a paraphrase), but at heart, I’ve never felt that you could honestly call that movie a love story. The tag line would be much more appropriate for this one, since it ultimately boils down to what amounts to a love story. This movie is very good indeed, particularly if you consider that it is built around a concept that could have easily been handled in a cute or facile manner. Instead, it is handled as seriously as possible, with some real thought put into how death would try to come to terms with a life and an outlook that was to that point totally unfamiliar to him; much of the credit does go to Fredric March in the title role. It’s quite scary when it needs to be, particularly during the first twenty minutes. From then on, it deals with its themes with subtlety, a quiet wit, an enduring sadness, and an everpresent tension on how Death might react if crossed. It’s not perfect; some of the dialogue is self-conscious and artificial, as if the writers knew they were dealing with weighty issues and were trying to be profound. But I am certainly glad they didn’t try to turn it into a musical comedy of sorts.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Strange Confession (1945)

STRANGE CONFESSION (1945)
Article #647 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 12-22-2002
Posting Date: 5-17-2003

A chemist explains to a lawyer the events that led up to him committing a murder.

What’s strange about it? Well, for one thing, about five minutes into the movie I started to get intense feeling of deja vu. It was more than the fact that this was an “Inner Sanctum Mystery” starring Lon Chaney Jr., or that it featured both J. Carrol Naish and Milburn Stone, both of whom had appeared in other Inner Sanctum mysteries as well. It was that the plot itself seemed extremely familiar, though not to the other movies in the series; instead, it bore a strong resemblance to THE MAN WHO RECLAIMED HIS HEAD. The similarity is more than coincidence; both movies were based on the same play; the main difference is that this one is somewhat shorter, and the profession of the main character has been changed from a writer to a chemist. Like the other movie, this isn’t really a horror movie; it’s a drama with marked horror elements during the denoument, so you shouldn’t go in expecting a horror movie throughout. The change of profession of the main character also adds a touch of science fiction not present in the original, as the plot at least partially revolves around a new drug designed to cure the flu, but the science fiction aspect of this idea may be too slight to be of any significance. It’s not really a mystery, either; there’s no search for a murderer, and everything is told in a very straightforward fashion. This is not to say the movie is weak; it may be one of the strongest of the Inner Sanctum movies, in fact. And though Lon Chaney Jr. isn’t quite as strong an actor as Claude Rains (the star of the original), he still does all right. And as this one is more readily available than the original, it might serve as a temporary substitute for those who have been frustrated in the search for the original.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Strait-Jacket (1964)

STRAIT-JACKET (1964)
Article #646 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-21-2002
Posting Date: 5-16-2003

A woman is placed in an asylum after she kills her husband and his lover with an axe. She is released twenty years later, and soon the axe murders start up again.

Much as I love William Castle’s movies, there are some of them that don’t appeal to me at all. This is one of them. Part of the reason may be that I am simply not a Joan Crawford fan. In this movie, I sense that I’m supposed to feel sympathy for her plight, but in truth, I never do; this may be because she is so vehemently unpleasant when she’s not playing for sympathy. It’s no surprise she took the part, and in some ways she’s a good choice for someone with an unhealthy mother/daughter relationship (which goes a long way to explain this movie and BERSERK!). Another part of the problem is that subtlety is not Castle’s strong suit; it doesn’t bother me that neither THE TINGLER nor HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL aren’t subtle, but here it does; the movie is way too ham-fisted in the way it constantly reminds Crawford’s character of her past murders (two passing comments about animals being slaughtered in one minute is one comment too many). The movie also features a seedy-looking George Kennedy as a hired hand.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Laughing at Danger (1924)

LAUGHING AT DANGER (1924)
Article #645 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-20-2002
Posting Date: 5-15-2003

A lovelorn man accidentally happens upon a missing piece of a death ray machine, and becomes the target of criminals intent on using the machine.

This silent action/comedy with science fiction elements (the death ray) has a fun idea at the center of it; our hero laughs at danger not because he’s so brave, but because he believes he’s in the middle of an elaborate practical joke set up by his father to raise his spirits after he is rejected by the woman he loves. Therefore, he never really believes he’s in danger, and that is the joke of the situation. The movie is amusing enough, but it never really takes this premise to its ultimate possibilities; it’s never quite as funny as it could be. However, it works well enough in its short running time, though I’m sure the idea could be resurrected again with better results.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Aladdin and the Wonderful Lamp (1917)

ALADDIN AND THE WONDERFUL LAMP (1917)
Article #644 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 12-19-2002
Posting date: 5-14-2003

Aladdin is tricked by an evil wizard into retrieving a magic lamp, and is then trapped in the cavern where the treasure is hidden. However, he discovers the lamp is the home of a genie.

Apparently, only four of the eight reels of this work survive; however, the story seems complete and I see no real gaps in the narrative. Apparently, it was part of a series of movies in which most of the main parts were played by children; Aladdin, the sultan’s daughter, her maid, the wizard, and his sidekick are all played by children (the Sultan, Aladdin’s father and the genie are all adults; the genie is played by Elmo Lincoln). They are all good performers, though the villain actually twiddles his moustache, showing it’s all not to be taken too seriously. Also, they show a lot more in the bathing scene than they would have had the performers been adults. The most interesting point in the narrative, though, is when the sultan (an adult, as said before) engages in the most childish behavior to get his daughter to marry the evil wizard. An entertaining oddity, this.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Spider Baby (1964)

SPIDER BABY (1964)
Article #643 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing Date: 12-18-2002
Posting Date: 5-13-2003

A family of degenerates is visited by relatives intent on getting their hands on the family fortune.

Lon Chaney Jr. not only plays Bruno, the family chauffeur in this movie, but he sings the theme song, too! Chaney is excellent, by the way; this is one his best latter-day performances. In fact, we get fine performances from everyone in the cast, which includes Carol Ohmart (Price’s wife in HOUSE ON HAUNTED HILL), Sid Haig, and Mantan Moreland(!). The story itself is the darkest of dark comedies. I’ve heard it described as being like the Addams family with a bent towards real depravities such as inbreeding, murder, rape and cannibalism, and the description is apt; the movie is quite amusing even with the horrible events going on, but it could prove a little revolting if you’re not ready for it. This is pretty strong stuff, though not gory or particularly graphic in any way.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Son of Dr. Jekyll (1951)

THE SON OF DR. JEKYLL (1951)
Article #642 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 12-17-2002
Posting date: 5-12-2003

The son of Dr. Jekyll attempts to prove his father’s innocence by recreating his experiments.

This movie starts out with a bang; enjoy it while you can. As for the rest of the movie, however, I could live without it. Not that it’s badly acted; actually, the acting throughout is quite good. The problem is that the movie promises certain types of thrills and then substitutes a series of mediocre and disappointing mundanities in their place. Quite frankly, given the choice, I’d forgo Jekyll’s son for his daughter any time; at least that one had the good sense to supply a real monster when one was needed. There are far better ways for you to spend seventy-seven minutes.

1 CommentLeave a comment