Hercules Against the Barbarians (1964)

HERCULES AGAINST THE BARBARIANS (1964)
Article #202 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 10-4-2001
Posting date: 2-17-2002

Hercules faces off against Genghis Khan’s hordes in the thirteenth century.

I’ve taken to writing notes whenever I watch a sword and sandal movie, because if I rely on my memory, I’m lost. Sword and sandal movies are a sort of mental chinese food; an hour after watching them, you forget what they are about. I haven’t forgotten everything, though; I remembered enough of the plot to write the above description without having to consult a reference book. What I remember the most about watching the movie was that a nagging question popped into my mind; what is the Greek hero Hercules doing facing off against Genghis Khan? I discovered two possible answers; one is that, at a certain point in the movie, someone refers to the hero as having been called Hercules because he’s so strong, thereby implying he is not the REAL Hercules. The other is the fact that the Italian title of this movie has the name “Maciste” prominently displayed in the title; this is therefore really a Maciste movie retitled in the states to cash in on Hercules’ popularity (Maciste must have a real bad press agent out here). Despite the change in time periods, this is pretty standard sword-and-sandal shenanigans, with Mark Forest playing the bogus Hercules.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Gruesome Twosome (1967)

THE GRUESOME TWOSOME (1967)
Article #201 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 10-3-2001
Posting date: 2-16-2002

A mad woman who runs a toupee shop has her idiot son scalp women for their hair.

Could there be a more inauspicious way to start this next run of one hundred movies? When I first conceived of this movie-watching project, I almost set a limit to include only movies from 1962 backwards. Why 1962, you may ask? It’s because I could have then avoided having to cover Herschell Gordon Lewis and the rise of gore, a development that went a long ways towards taking the fun out of horror and turning these movies into dare games. Nonetheless, there is a lot of great horror after this year, so I didn’t set that limit. Unfortunately, HGL popped up all too quickly on my viewing list, and I found myself having to watch this.

The problem with the use of gore in this movie is that he dwells on the scenes for so long that you not only figure out how the effect was done, but whatever initial shock you may have had dissipates into a sort of tedious boredom long before he cuts away. Another thing I noticed was how bad the sound was throughout this movie, even on DVD; he must have been using the cheapest equipment available. Actually, I found myself less embarrassed by the gore than by some of the other scenes; there is a long sequence here where a college girl tails a janitor carrying a package which is one of the most amateurish things I’ve ever seen committed to celluloid. There’s also a scene in a drive-in where he demonstrates that he doesn’t even know how to show people watching a movie on a screen; he just cuts back and forth between the character and what they’re watching (a pointless film with lots of eating) without any indication that what they’re seeing is on a movie screen.

Some people may admire this movie for its comedy; they might even think the opening scene with two talking dummy heads (put into the movie for no other reason than to add running time) is brilliant cinema. But for comedy to be effective, it has to be funny; it certainly doesn’t tickle my funny bone as much as appal me. It’s obvious that all Lewis really wants is to gross me out, and I have no use for this kind of movie.

Well, let’s see. With this movie, I’ve now covered at one time or another Herschell Gordon Lewis, Phil Tucker, Edward D. Wood, Jr., Larry Buchanan, and Al Adamson. Can Andy Milligan be far behind? Sometimes it’s best not to look too far into the future.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Godzilla Vs. the Thing (1964)

GODZILLA VS. THE THING (1964)
(a.k.a. GODZILLA VS. MOTHRA)
Article #200 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 10-2-2001
Posting date: 2-15-2002

When a giant egg washes up on the shore of Japan, an entrepreneur buys it and plans to build a tourist attraction around it. The egg belongs to Mothra, however, and when Godzilla rises from the earth, the failure of Japan to return the egg to Mothra impedes plans to have Mothra save the world from this threat.

First of all, where did they get this title? When I was a kid, I thought this movie would pit Godzilla against James Arness; instead, I find “The Thing” is a euphemism for Mothra! Well, having him fight Mothra does make more sense, anyway, as they’re both Toho creations (and roughly the same size); in fact, this is the first movie to pit two pre-existing Toho creations against each other (King Kong was not originally a Toho creation, and Angilus was created specifically for GODZILLA RAIDS AGAIN). It retreats from the comic aspects of KING KONG VS. GODZILLA to mark one of the more serious entries in the field, though its commentary on greed owes a little to that movie. In many ways, it’s even more of a sequel to MOTHRA, in the sense that it embodies many of the same elements of that movie, with the egg being the victim of greedy promoters rather than the Alilenas.

At any rate, a quick note about how much I enjoy the music of Akira Ifukube in the Godzilla movies. I’m not a particular fan of movie music, but I’ve always loved his scores, especially some of those familiar pieces that appear again and again in these movies. Both the Godzilla theme and the lovely Mothra song are particular favorites of mine.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Svengali (1931)

SVENGALI (1931)
Article #199 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 10-1-2001
Posting date: 2-14-2002

A music instructor with hypnotic powers takes over the will of the fiancee of a friend in order to make her a famous singer.

When I saw this as a child, I found myself caught up in the movie, despite the fact it wasn’t the usual horror fare I enjoyed at the time. Strictly speaking, it isn’t a horror movie at all, despite the hypnotism angle; Svengali isn’t a cardboard villain, but a fully-developed character with weaknesses, comic moments, and the ability to recognize that with all his power, he can’t get what he really wants. The sets were designed in the style of THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI, and John Barrymore does an excellent job in the title role. The cast also features Marian Marsh and Donald Crisp. Still, I always find myself wondering what Bela Lugosi might have done with this role; he was rarely given roles this complex, and many ways the role would have been a natural for him, so I like to speculate on how it would have come out.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Revenge of the Creature (1955)

REVENGE OF THE CREATURE (1955)
Article #198 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-30-2001
Posting date: 2-13-2002

Scientists remove the Gill Man from his native habitat and place him in a tank in an aquarium.

The sequel is not up to the level of the original movie of the series, but it’s not too bad for all that. The only recurring character (outside of the creature himself) between the two movies is Nestor Paiva’s Captain Lucas, and he only appears in the first twenty minutes of the movie. There’s a lot of uninteresting romance to pad out the proceedings, but that was pretty much common for the period. It’s hard to actually feel much for the “heros” in this movie, as the tests that they make the creature undergo seem somewhat cruel and mean-spirited; my sympathy ends up very much with the creature, which is actually something the original never quite accomplished for me. Part of the credit goes to Ricou Browning, who plays the creature in the underwater scenes; he actually does some fine acting while holding his breath and wearing a costume that obscures his face completely.

John Agar and Lori Nelson lead the cast, but the real treat is the celebrity that appears uncredited in a small role; I am referring, of course, to Flippy, the educated porpoise, who would later make a name for himself on “Sealhide”, and then appear in several spaghetti westerns as the dolphin with no name, sitting astride his horse with no name and balancing a ball on the end of his nose. It’s fun to see him in his early years.

Oh, and Clint Eastwood makes an appearance, too.

1 CommentLeave a comment

Murder by Television (1935)

MURDER BY TELEVISION (1935)
Article #197 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-29-2001
Posting date: 2-12-2002

Well, let’s see. . . Hmm, can’t remember this one very well. . .I remember people standing around and talking . . . someone dies. . . there’s someone lying on the floor (I think it’s Bela Lugosi). . . another man who looks like Bela Lugosi shows up. . . the movie ends.

This movie was made by Cameo Pictures, most likely with an assist by Sominex. Let’s see how it stacks up to several other movies.

The action scenes are almost as thrilling and exciting as anything in MY DINNER WITH ANDRE.

The cinematography almost reaches that same energetic fluidity of motion to be found in the 1931 DRACULA.

The plot is almost as enticingly mysterious as that of THE MAGIC LAND OF MOTHER GOOSE.

The dialogue is almost as sparklingly witty as that of ONE MILLION B.C.

And the movie is even longer than SHOAH or BERLIN ALEXANDERPLATZ (I may be wrong on this one, but I’m going by feel).

All in all, one of the most effective cures for insomnia I’ve ever had the pleasure to sleep through.

And I don’t think it’s just a coincidence that the movie industry released a movie with the word “television” in the title that would make us associate that word with mind-numbing boredom.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Miracle Man (1919)

THE MIRACLE MAN (1919)
Article #196 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-28-2001
Posting date: 2-11-2002

All right, I’ll fess up from the beginning that I have not actually seen this lost movie in its entirety. This is somewhat against the rules I set down for these Musings and Ramblings, as I have heretofore only included movies I’ve seen; however, since I have seen the only five minutes that are known to exist of this one, I’ve decided to let it count. The movie appears to be about some criminals who get in involved in a faith healing scam, with Lon Chaney portraying a fake cripple who “gets healed” by the faith healer. The clips that survive appear to have been part of a running series of sound shorts that gave capsule descriptions of classic silent movies while running clips from said movie. The extant clip largely involves the moment in which Lon Chaney is healed, and then a real crippled boy comes forward in the hope of being healed himself, and amazingly enough, is healed.

Though I’ve let this one count, I’ll try not to make a habit of it. With so many lost movies out there, sometimes we just have to be grateful for those clips that do exist.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Hands of Orlac (1925)

THE HANDS OF ORLAC (1925)
Article #195 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-27-2001
Posting date: 2-10-2002

When a concert pianist loses his hands in an accident, he has them replaced with the hands of a murderer.

There are several versions of the French novel “Les Mains d’Orlac”, and I would like to read it some day, if for no other reason than to find out which of the movie versions is closest to the source materials. At this time, I suspect it is this one; it’s the only one of the three versions I know in which the pianist is actually the main character; the other versions have a villain of some sort as the primary focus of the story. Orlac is played in this movie by the great Conrad Veidt, who in my mind was one of the best horror actors of the silents; he gives a gripping performance here of a man who is keenly aware that his hands are not his own, and he is a joy to watch.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

The Ghost of Slumber Mountain (1919)

THE GHOST OF SLUMBER MOUNTAIN (1919)
Article #194 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-26-2001
Posting date: 2-9-2002

A man tells a story to his two sons about his trip to Slumber Mouuntain, where he dreamed he met the ghost of Mad Dick and saw dinosaurs through his special viewing mechanism.

There’s really not a whole lot to this eleven-minute short; the above description tells you pretty much all that heppens. Still, I find it has a real charm to it. The special effects are by Willis O’Brien, and I think this may be the first time he tried for realistic dinosaurs in contrast to some of the more comic types of his earlier stop-motion shorts. Overall, it’s a strange little film with some bizarre moments, such as when the man asks his guide to undress and pose like a faun. This is an interesting oddity.

0 CommentsLeave a comment

Gigantis, the Fire Monster (1965)

GIGANTIS, THE FIRE MONSTER (1955)
(a.k.a. GODZILLA RAIDS AGAIN)
Article #193 by Dave Sindelar
Viewing date: 9-25-2001
Posting date: 2-8-2002

Two giant prehistoric monsters are discovered, which then set out to attack the city of Osaka.

Once again, I wish to point out that all comments are based on the American version of the movie, having not seen the original Japanese version, whose title roughly translates as GODZILLA’S COUNTERATTACK. I’m not sure why Godzilla’s name was changed in the U.S. version; perhaps they couldn’t get the rights to use the Godzilla name. The movie itself is pretty disappointing; it lacks both the full-blown horror of the original movie and the goofy charm of later entries in the series. There is entirely too much narration throughout, the vast amount of which is totally unnecessary. I also feel that there was some confusion during the dubbing; if I didn’t know Gigantis was Godzilla and Angilus was the big hedgehog, I might have had a lot of trouble figuring out which name went with which monster, as it seems to switch around at certain points in the movie. In fact, the trademark cries of the monsters also seem to switch around on occasion, unless my imagination is playing dirty tricks on me. The structure is also pretty strange; the destruction of Osaka should occur much later in the movie; as it is, this sequence occurs about halfway through, and the rest of the movie suffers from a number of unexpected dead spots where the monsters appear to vanish from the picture. I don’t consider it the worst Godzilla movie, but it may well be the least interesting of them.

0 CommentsLeave a comment