Night of the Demon.

Review #2459: Night of the Demon.

Cast: 

Dana Andrews (Dr. John Holden), Peggy Cummins (Joanna Harrington), Niall MacGinnis (Dr. Julian Karswell), Athene Seyler (Mrs. Karswell), Liam Redmond (Professor Mark O'Brien), Peter Elliott (Professor Kumar), Maurice Denham (Professor Harrington), Reginald Beckwith (Mr. Meek), Rosamund Greenwood (Mrs Meek), and Brian Wilde (Rand Hobart) Directed by Jacques Tourneur (#998 - I Walked with a Zombie, #1898 - Cat People, #2280 - The Leopard Man)

Review: 

"The real horror is to show that we all live unconsciously in fear. Many people suffer today from a fear that they don't begin to analyze and which is constant. When the audience is in the dark and recognizes its own insecurity in that of the characters of the film, then you can show unbelievable situations and be sure that the audience will follow. For another thing, people love to be afraid."

Naturally, this was a movie loosely based on an old short story. M. R. James wrote a handful of stories for More Ghost Stories of an Antiquarty in 1911, and "Casting the Runes" was one of them. Charles Bennett had the rights to the story and thus made a screenplay ("The Haunted") that loosely took inspiration from the short story. He sold the story to producer Hal E. Chester (much to Bennett's regret, because he later found that people like Robert Taylor and Dick Powell were interested in being in the film*) who ended up making changes that resulted in him getting a co-credit, although it was really blacklisted writer Cy Endfield who crafted significant parts of the screenplay. For whatever reason, the movie was called "Curse of the Demon" in the States (often with a double feature pairing with 20 Million Miles to Earth) with a runtime of 82 minutes that cut certain sequences from the original 96-minute cut. This was the last horror movie Tournier made as a director (famously, he apparently rejected the term "horror movies", stating once he made "films on the supernatural" because he believed in it). Tourneur was involved in the project because Ted Richmond (the producer of his prior film Nightfall) gave Chester a recommendation, which in turn got Tournier to show the script to Andrews.  Apparently, the demon was a contentious aspect of the movie for the filmmakers. Hal E. Chester and his co-producer wanted to show the demon at the start and end of the film, but Tourneur and Bennett weren't happy about it, with the latter being once quoted as saying that if Chester was up at his driveway, he would shoot him (a book about the making of the film by Tony Earnshaw contends including the demon was planned from the start anyway). Tournier claimed that the movie was "ruined" by showing the demon from the beginning, stating that he shot just one scene with the idea of a demon in the cloud sequence. Tourneur did five further movies as a director: The Fearmakers (1958), The Giant of Marathon (1959), Timbuktu (1959), The Comedy of Terrors (1964), and City Under the Sea (1965).

Let's get one thing out of the way: of course you show the damn demon on screen. This was the 1950s man, you can't go with the power of suggestion and "maybe" seeing something, at a certain point you're going to do something when "Demon" is in the film title (showing a cloud only for a movie like this would be silly, arguably). At any rate, what we have here is a solid little movie, managing to evoke a sense of dread through mood and atmosphere, one that arguably is Tournier's best horror movie when compared to Cat People (why anyone would reject the term horror movie is beyond me). It lurks in the shadow of noir that gradually makes you wonder just what may be beyond what eyes and ears can sense. It helps that Andrews (who apparently wasn't a fan of Chester either) is the right type of rigid for this role, one whose skepticism can only come from a place of flustered vulnerability that we understand that some can look mystery in the face and see a bottomless pit. Sure, we know there's something lurking beyond the wind rustling, but it helps to have a movie that is patient in the push-and-pull of belief and devotion. MacGinnis is practically the same in that regard when it comes to vulnerability, mainly because he is not merely a mad magician but is instead one who is consumed by a force greater than one could imagine, one who could play tricks for the youth but instead plays tricks on himself and those around him. The rest of the cast do a pretty fine job in that usual dignity of a horror movie that isn't about body counts or creature effects (the demon does look good, in close-up anyway) but instead of the terror of imagination going awry. My one little gripe is with the ending, specifically the very last scene. After spending a whole movie getting his ideas about the supernatural all mixed up, complete with seeing a cloud of smoke and something that may be a demon inflict fear on someone else for the climax...he doesn't go to inspect the body, instead leaving with the girl. I don't know man, I know these movies love to make sure to set the guy up with the girl at the end but c'mon, some things really are better to know. In general, what we have is a pretty neat movie involving the power of belief and what comes from those who are engulfed by it to subservience and those who know exactly where the road leads. It's one of those esteemed old movies that definitely deserve a look, that's for sure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Oh who cares about Taylor and Powell when you have Dana Andrews?

20 Million Miles to Earth.

Review #2422: 20 Million Miles to Earth.

Cast: 

William Hopper (Robert Calder), Joan Taylor (Marisa Leonardo), Frank Puglia (Dr. Leonardo), John Zaremba (Dr. Judson Uhl), Thomas Browne Henry (Maj. Gen. A. D. McIntosh), Tito Vuolo (Police Commissioner Unte), Jan Arvan (Contino), Arthur Space (Sharman), and Bart Braverman (Pepe) Directed by Nathan Juran (#613 - Attack of the 50 Foot Woman)

Review: 

Sure, here's a monster movie in Italy. This was the fifth film (not including work for the documentary The Animal World) that had effects provided by Ray Harryhausen, coming in between Earth vs. the Flying Saucers (1956) and The 7th Voyage of Sinbad (1958). This was the first of four movies Harryhausen helped write the story for (strangely, the other ones he did were all Sinbad movies). He didn't get credit for the story in the film itself, but it was his initial idea that made it all come together eventually with the initial working title "The Giant Ymir" (the funny thing is: the resulting movie never names the creature because of fears people would confuse it with the title "Emir", as opposed to the real "Ymir" that refers to Norse mythology*). He worked with Charlott Knight (a regular in appearing on television) in what became a working script, with Harryhausen being the one who set it in Italy because he wanted to have a vacation there (yes, he did get a few days in Rome for the production of this film). Robert Creighton Williams and Christopher Knopf then wrote the screenplay for the movie. Harryhausen made the film with producer Charles H. Schneer (who went on to produce all but one of Harryhausen's ventures starting with It Came from Beneath the Sea [1955]): it was the first of three features with Harryhausen-Schneer-Juran (the Academy Award winning art director-turned-director, starting with The Black Castle [1952]) together, as they did the aforementioned 1958 Sinbad movie together and First Men in the Moon (1964). In the late 2000s, a colorized version was released on home media with the help of Harryhausen, who had originally wanted the film to be shot in color.

It never hurts to watch a creature feature to remind yourself of the fun you can have with the craftsmanship at hand. And it goes double for a movie that reminds you that some creatures aren't even straight up monsters but merely animals reacting to the environment around them (interestingly, the sound effects for the creature here are actually elephant sounds played at a higher speed), with sulfur being the big one in particular. It's the kind of Space Age movie that could have a rocket resemble a V2 rocket because hey, it wasn't quite time to know what a ship for travel would really look like (the Sputnik launch occurred just a few months after this film was released). In a sense, if you're the kind of person who likes seeing a take on King Kong (1933), you'll have a fun time here with another "Dynamation" effort that works out pretty well regardless of if the effect is seen in the dark or not. This was actually one of Hopper's last film appearances (having come back a few years prior due to William A. Wellman), as 1957 saw him do The Deadly Mantis, this film and Slim Carter...and a television show called Perry Mason that resulted in him appearing regularly on the show for nine years. He makes a solid lead in staid calmness, one who has the look of a guy who actually does try to corral the creature rather than straight up killing it. The rest of the cast is relatively satisfactory to what you expect from ones ranging from nurses to authority figures and so on. Sure, the setup for how a container creature comes up from a crashed spaceship (spoiler: beware children bearing things to sell) is a bit on the flimsy side, but you get what you want with an 83-minute feature that is spry on setting up mayhem with a few sights (such as an elephant fight!) that are welcome. As a whole, if you like creature features with a neat look and lean execution to boot, you will find plenty to adore here in a movie fit for a creature of the night.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Interestingly, the movements of the Ymir influenced musician Gene Simmons for his persona for Kiss.

The Bachelor Party.

Review #2380: The Bachelor Party.

Cast: 

Don Murray (Charlie Samson), E. G. Marshall (Walter), Jack Warden (Eddie Watkins), Philip Abbott (Arnold Craig, the Bachelor), Larry Blyden (Kenneth), Patricia Smith (Helen Samson), Carolyn Jones (The Existentialist), and Nancy Marchand (Mrs. Julie Samson) Directed by Delbert Mann (#136 - Marty)

Review: 

"My method of working is to try to rehearse before filming if we can. It's not often possible with filmmaking, but I try to get a big of rehearsal. Even just sitting around a table talking a day or two with the actors and writer saves an enormous amount of time when you're on the set and the costs are mounting."

You might remember that Delbert Mann became a feature film director with Marty (1955), which you might the "Little Best Picture winner that could". Mann actually had studied political science at Vanderbilt (at the time, there was no dramatic arts curriculum there, but he did community playhouse) before serving with the Army Air Corps as a bomber pilot; after the war, he attended the Yale School of Drama and got a master's degree in directing. He worked in community theater and later television, whereupon he directed hundreds of live television dramas in the golden age of television. Anyway, with Marty (1955), it came around as an adaptation of the teleplay of the same name that had been broadcast on The Philco-Goodyear Television Playhouse in May 1953 as written by Paddy Chayefsky with the intent of making "the most ordinary love story in the world" (among other things); it was Chayefsky who insisted Mann come along with him in making the movie. Chayefsky wrote a number of scripts for television, and wouldn't you know it, the one that came out after Marty was the one that would be adapted by Mann for a movie: The Bachelor Party.* Originally broadcast in October of 1953, The Bachelor Party featured a quintet of men in Eddie Albert, Bob Emmett, James Westerfield, Joseph Mantell, and Douglas Gordon. Harold Hecht and Burt Lancaster, who had formed their own production company that had been involved with the aforementioned Marty, served as producers here (alongside James Hill). With the film adaptation, apparently the character played by Jones was among the striking additions done. Apparently, folks at the time thought the movie was just as incisive (if not more) than Marty, but folks seem to remember Marty best nowadays. Mann would maintain consistent work in directing for both movies and television all the way into the 1990s, which included works such as Separate Tables (1958), Lover Come Back (1961) and Fitzwilly (1967). Chayefsky would be busy in writing, following Bachelor Party with The Goddess (1958) before doing one more collaboration with Mann (albeit without Hecht as a producer) with Middle of the Night (1959).

Admittedly, it is a starkly strange movie. Sure, it might be a bit glib in its overall message when driving the movie down in the end, but it is the kind of movie you could believe in more often than not in the wayward road of revelry that comes with people who are weird as you or me at night. Sure, I wouldn't know the first thing about a bachelor party**, but I do know that there are plenty of foolish decisions that lurk within insecurities with people, whether that involves guys who think the grass really is greener on the other side or people who dwell on what lies ahead or, well, self-realization. Incidentally, this was the second feature film for Murray, an actor who honed his work in television before making his film debut with Bus Stop (1956), which garnered him an Academy Award nomination. Bachelor Party was the movie he made right after this one (along with one of two movies he did in 1957 next to A Hatful of Rain). His worries and doubts do make for a fairly balanced performance to hold a good chunk of the ship together, one that doesn't aim for pity but rather the understanding that comes in the cloying trouble that could be summarized as "is that all?" Abbott makes for an adequate shell to play the doubts as the, well, bachelor in the story that seems lighter in troubles when one considers the party might as well resemble a dirge. Marshall plays the worry in his middle-aged doubts with resolute effectiveness that you would expect from him, but it is Warden who likely shows his might in terms of illusionary bluster that sure drives a hard sell when you last see him in the heat of another chase, where any girl with a pulse is fair game because of what could be up next. The darndest thing is that the one award-nominated role[***] came from Jones, with a performance that comes out to less than ten minutes. But she sure makes it count in the pit of loneliness and ones with their own illusions in what it means to want and to be wanted. Even just hearing words is better than hearing nothing at all (crowded room or not). Apparently, Chayefsky was quoted later as saying later that he is unsure just where the "basic approach was wrong" with the film, and the climax does strain a bit in actually justifying itself to landing where it believes it has to land, where it is just a bit too easy, but that can be just enough for some people anyway, especially when one is merely peeling the curtain a bit at a specific set of people (call it people with not enough to do in the city). Overall, this is a decent ensemble piece that will fit nicely within the confines of looking at a sobering movie about people trying to make sense of their surroundings at night in the guise of a party that works in parts with its staging for a relatively fine time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Funny enough, the next of his scripts to be adapted in a movie after Marty was actually with The Catered Affair, where he was nearing the end of TV scriptwork - it was televised in May 1955 and turned into a film the following year with a script by Gore Vidal that had the star from Marty in it: Ernest Borgnine.

**I either know (read: associate with non-betrayers) people who are already married or aren't getting married anytime soon. This isn't a sidenote to anything meaningful, I thought it was funny.

***That year, Jones lost to Miyoshi Umeki for Sayonara. 

The Undead.

Review #2113: The Undead.

Cast: 

Pamela Duncan (Diana Love/Helene), Richard Garland (Pendragon), Allison Hayes (Livia), Val Dufour (Quintus Ratcliff), Mel Welles (Smolkin), Dorothy Neumann (Meg-Maud), Billy Barty (The Imp), Bruno VeSota (Scroop), Aaron Saxon (Gobbo), Richard Devon (Satan), and Dick Miller (The Leper) Produced and Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters, #1039 - Five Guns West, #1042 - War of the Satellites, #1136 - Gas-s-s-s, #1147 - X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes, #1186 - A Bucket of Blood, #1423 - The Wild Angels, #1425 - The St. Valentine's Day Massacre, #1674 - Machine-Gun Kelly, #1684 - Creature from the Haunted Sea, #1918 - House of Usher, #2030 - The Trip)

Review: 

Somehow, I think I am a bit generous with Roger Corman. He managed to make films in a variety of genres as either a director or a producer that later saw him receive a variety of nicknames such as "The King of Cult". 1957 alone saw him direct/produce eight films. He was not above using a few familiar actors from film to film, as this and Attack of the Crab Monsters (released a month apart from each other) share three key actors (Duncan, Garland, Welles). Apparently, the inspiration for the film came in the wake of the Bridey Murphy craze, in which a series of articles written by William J. Barker told about a woman who was put in a trance of "hypnotic regression" that had her speak about her alleged past life. The hypnotist, Morey Bernstein, wrote a book that was published in 1956. That book would be turned into a film that very same year, but I'm sure you don't need me to invite mockery upon the idea of "past reincarnation". The film was written by Charles B. Griffith and Mark Hanna, with the former remarking that it was "in iambic pentameter" before having to rewrite it upon the time of shooting because Corman (who had sent it out to various people on the street) was worried that folks wouldn't  understand. Griffith was the co-writer on It Conquered the World (1956), Gunslinger (1956), Not of This Earth (1956), and Flesh and the Spur [1956], with all but the first being written with Hanna, and people familiar with Attack of the 50 Foot Woman (1958) will note that Hanna wrote the film that had the same star from this one. This sets of the film were done in a converted supermarket (along with a few things shot in a house nicknamed "The Witch's House" in Beverly Hills) and shot in less than two weeks. 

Okay, so here is how they get to the whole "past lives" thing: a psychic researcher is so damn curious about past lives that he hires a prostitute for $500 to undergo a trance (for 48 hours) to access her past life all while his former teacher stands there. This trip turns out to be one of the Middle Ages (an English-speaking place, specifically) in which her past self is set to die as one accused of being a witch, and the idea of escape attracts the attention of both good and bad witches and a few others such as, uh, Satan. It may all sound like a good deal of hooey, and, well, it kind of is, but if one knows what they are getting into with Corman and his crafty hands, you may actually have an odd and offbeat time with this to enjoy. This is the kind of movie that features a dance in a graveyard to go with an absolutely silly portrayal of Satan that might as well be fit for the dinner theater, where at least one expects a loose wall for a set. The film is loopy and just barely over an hour to throw whatever what one does to try and throw the book against lapses of logic that perhaps would make a wonky double feature with, say, The Terror (1963). Most of the people here have their foibles with this dialogue (or in the case of Barty, having a ball in playing it silly), but there is a sort of weird state to it all that seems entertaining regardless, as if acting on a cloud is more suitable than trying to lean all the way into iambic pentameter. Duncan at least makes the effort of worried tension, which only results in amusing sequences such as the one near the end about one should stay or go within an execution. At least Hayes seems suitably rough-and-tumble for the part. I'm not even sure what the deal is supposed to be with Dufour when it comes to the buildup to the climax, because even the best sci-fi mumbo jumbo probably wouldn't explain his motivations (perhaps you are curious: he goes back to the past under the same hypno-whatever as the prostitute had and in the commotion over whether the past girl will head to the chopping block didn't think to wonder what would happen that link to the past wound up dead with him still there). When it comes to ratings, eh, a 6/10 hereisnt a positive review, but it matches what I feel about the film. As a whole, it isn't a particularly good winner, but I did find some curiosity with the idea of doomed fates and weirdo motivations in half-baked hokum that comes out in the early years of Roger Corman and company trying to play trends to the masses. It barely ranks in horror, but it makes curious spectacle all the same.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next: Dracula 2000...and something else for Thursday.

I Was a Teenage Frankenstein.

Review #2098: I Was a Teenage Frankenstein.

Cast: 

Whit Bissell (Professor Frankenstein), Phyllis Coates (Margaret), Robert Burton (Dr. Karlton), Gary Conway (the teenage Frankenstein monster/Bob), George Lynn (Sergeant Burns), John Cliff (Sergeant McAfee), and Marshall Bradford (Dr. Randolph) Directed by Herbert L. Strock.

Review: 

...Well, you already know that Aben Kandel and Herman Cohen wrote the film, because what better way to do a double feature of teenage monsters for the circuit than to have the same writers and director for both films? To be fair to Strock, he had a handful of experience in being efficient with the job required, whether that involved serving in the U.S. Army Ordnance Motion Picture Division or directing television in the 1950s (imagine going from directing Fox Newsreel footage to directing for AIP). How to Make a Monster would be directed by Strock with scripting by Kandel and Cohen that featured the return of the werewolf and Frankenstein makeup that dealt with youth actors (such as Conway) being hypnotized into being tools to kill. Unlike before, we have a film that lessens the teen angst present in the previous two films, because it ventures more into the familiar grounds of eccentric scientists, complete with lines that talk about one having a civil tongue to speak if only because they sewed it themselves and alligator pits. Yes, I am serious. There is a sequence of roughly over a minute in the final moments to show the monster in color after, well, the climax has already happened in a flash. Cohen sure loved his formula of a weary world where teenagers are beaten down in life by adults with cynical motivations of manipulation.

In some ways this serves as the better film of the three teenage monster films, if only because it is too lurid for words in the bold idea of just re-using Bissell in another wonky scientist role that he already did for the aforementioned Werewolf film. Technically speaking, it probably intends just as much interesting sympathy for its begotten teenage monster, mostly because it doesn't have much of a face for all but a fraction of its 74-minute runtime. And yet, the result is the same in another mediocre movie that is not nearly as interesting as it thinks it is when it comes to the horror of monsters in youth because it never passes the line beyond camp to actually generate useful interest for "good" moments. Both Blood of Dracula and this film are rushed, and it shows, but there were other AIP films of past and future that ended up being better than "mediocre" despite being a patch job, so why does this one not pass mustard? Well, I think it is because the film lacks general tension to do anything other than be stuck in one room, and the fact that The Curse of Frankenstein was released by Hammer (in full color!) in the same year this film was released doesn't particularly help its case. At least Bissell is interesting for such a run-over role of trying to sell you on the idea that progress is all that matters when it comes to the human process. Coates is almost amusing in just how much she is devoted to such a flake like Bissell, right up until she meets a dubious end before the climax even gets to happen. Burton wanders in and out and does exactly nothing as an accomplice, go figure. Conway is barely worth mentioning as the monster, mostly because he seems more of a pouting dolt more than anything. I wonder what would have been happened if one had tried to make a film about, say, raising a young Frankenstein with a normal face and weird psychological problems rather than the whole "hiding in the basement" thing. The death scenes in setup are probably the most interesting parts of the film. As a whole, if you've seen Werewolf, you haven't really missed much here besides having more of a goofy scientist rather than the monster. But hey, if you like the AIP circuit, you might find something to go with for a bit.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Blood of Dracula.

Review #2097: Blood of Dracula.

Cast: 

Sandra Harrison (Nancy Perkins), Louise Lewis (Miss Branding), Gail Ganley (Myra), Jerry Blaine (Tab), Heather Ames (Nola), Mary Adams (Mrs. Thorndyke), Edna Holland (Miss Rivers), Thomas B. Henry (Mr. Paul Perkins), Jeanne Dean (Mrs. Doris Perkins), Don Devlin (Eddie), Malcolm Atterbury (Lt. Dunlap), and Richard Devon (Det. Sgt. Stewart) Directed by Herbert L. Strock.

Review: 

It did not take long for American International Pictures to come up with another teenager film involving monsters. I Was a Teenage Werewolf (1957) was released in June before two further films involving teenage-infused monsters came as a double-feature in November: this film and I Was a Teenage Frankenstein. The films were spearheaded by Herman Cohen when it came to production. The Detroit native had worked his way up from a janitor at a movie theater when he was 12 to running it by the time he was 18 in Detroit. He became an indie producer in the 1950s with a share of mainstream stuff coming with Crime of Passion (1957). The failure of the film, combined with the invitation of James H. Nicholson from AIP, saw him work there as producer. This went hand in hand with Cohen's new-found theory that over 70% of the audience was around the ages of 12-26, which obviously meant that a cast of teenage characters or monsters would maximize the potential for box office dollars. Not surprisingly, Cohen co-wrote the film with Aben Kandel, as was the case with Werewolf and I Was a Teenage Frankenstein. I'm not particularly sure how the title of the film seemed that much better than calling it "Teenage Vampire", because, well, the film isn't about Dracula or talking about blood, but in the United Kingdom it was called "Blood is My Heritage". Scientist-headed films involving the lightest of relations to the usual vampire myth were familiar to those who saw The Vampire earlier in 1957.

I'm sure you can see the similarities to the Werewolf film: a teenager with angst is used by an eccentric scientist that wants to change the world with their experiment (in this case, her idea of finding the evil in us) that ends up being used as a tool to become a monster, for which the ending sees the monster rebel against the scientist to see them both perish. Oh, and both films feature someone talking about the "Carpathians" (here it is a cop who knew an exchange student there) and feature an ending line about "messing with God". At least one thing can be sure of a film that has women for the lead character and villain, one can make a crappy film of any gender, particularly one that thinks a sequence dedicated to the song "Puppy Love" is anything short than ill-advised. It snoozes through the opportunities that could have come with making a film about someone who must confront themselves a growing youth when it comes to uncertainty about who they really are. Instead, it is just a mild and all-together bland experience that only gets good once it actually gets to the nitty gritty of silly effects with a monster. This is the only film appearance for Harrison, who appeared in a handful of one-episode appearances on TV until the 1960s. Probably the only noteworthy thing to say about her performance is that I cannot imagine that the time spent being under the makeup of fangs (and what have you) was any more fun than the paycheck. At least Lewis and her funky motivation to bring about the end of the atomic experimentation (no, seriously, she thinks writing a thesis of the beast in man being shown will do it) seems about on edge for loony confidence, even if her only "power" is being really good at hypnotism (or maybe she is so alluring in manipulation that it worked on the teacher's pet who told her about the new kid in the first place). At least the dialogue is a bit amusing at first with the new kid being grouchy at the people around her, until she becomes inhabited by the joys of monsterhood where she isn't really there, yadda yadda you get the idea. Somehow, I doubt killing teenagers in the school you work in is going to be looked upon favorably for a thesis, but whatever. In conclusion, the fact that the cops don't even realize just who is going around picking students off at the school is probably the most amusing quality of the film, unless characters getting killed by a random piece of furniture isn't up your alley. That alone says all that is needed to say about a film best sat through for those who need the horror fix that looks old enough to run for the season with vague name value that ultimately will prove incredibly average to those who sift through this, or I Was a Teenage Frankenstein...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Wild Strawberries.

Review #2078: Wild Strawberries.

Cast: 

Victor Sjöström (Professor Isak Borg), Bibi Andersson (Sara - Isak's cousin / Hitchhiker), Ingrid Thulin (Marianne Borg), Gunnar Björnstrand (Evald Borg), Jullan Kindahl (Agda, Isak's housekeeper), Folke Sundquist (Anders, hitchhiker), Björn Bjelfvenstam (Viktor, hitchhiker), Naima Wifstrand (Isak's Mother), Gunnel Broström (Berit Alman), Gunnar Sjöberg (Sten Alman / The Examiner), Max von Sydow (Henrik Åkerman), Ann-Marie Wiman (Eva Åkerman), and Gertrud Fridh (Karin Borg) Written and Directed by Ingmar Bergman (#777 - The Seventh Seal and #1427 - Hour of the Wolf)

Review: 

"One thread goes through the story in multiple variations: shortcomings, poverty, emptiness, and the absence of grace. I didn't know then, and even today I don't know fully, how through Wild Strawberries I was pleading with my parents: see me, understand me, and - if possible - forgive me."

Okay, so sometimes you pick a film because of its reputation. I had a feeling that it was about time again to return to watching an Ingmar Bergman film, particularly one that happens to involve the last performance of another noted name and happens to be a really, really well known film. Bergman wrote the film while spending time in the Karolinska Hospital for problems related to the stomach and general stress. One can only imagine the qualities that come out in writing when also dealing with divorce and shaky relationships with their parents. Bergman stated different things upon the ideas that formed his film, with one book of interviews (Bergman on Bergman, released in the 1970s) relating a detail about a sudden impulse to visit his grandmother's house and experience the idea of going back into his childhood...only for him to say in a later book (Images: my life in film, written by Bergman in 1994) that in reality, he is "forever living in my childhood...living permanently in my dream, from which I make brief forays into reality." At any rate, being released on the cusp of films such as Smiles of a Summer Night (1955) and The Seventh Seal (1957) heightened the attention given to this film, which is considered by some to be one of his most moving films. As you might expect, this was the swan song performance for its lead actor in Sjöström, who as you may remember was an acclaimed director in his native Sweden (Bergman loved The Phantom Carriage (1921) enough to see it at least once every summer and noted its influence on his own work) before he reverted back to acting on a fulltime basis, particularly within the theatre. Regardless of how he came to be in this film (whether as one that came to mind from the screenplay or on the suggestion of a producer), he was on the cusp of turning 78 with this film, which was actually his second collaboration with Bergman, who directed him with To Joy [Till glädje] (1950). Bergman had his doubts about the reliability of Sjöström when it came to his age, but things eventually went well for all involved (interestingly, Bergman's parents seemed to enjoy what they saw when it came to Sjöström, because a letter exists detailing the gratitutde sent by his father about his career). Sjöström died at the age of 80 three years after the release of this film.

What can only really say about certain films of world cinema that other people of better qualification can say? Well, the only words worth saying are the ones you come up with after seeing it for yourself, particularly when it comes to interpretations and what you find from certain imagery. Right and wrong only matter when it comes to watching it in the most comfortable setting possible, not really so much about interpretation (unless you think all films are part of some sort of deep lobbying group, of course). To me, this is a basically a two-sided road movie, since we are talking about a film detailing the road of a man's life and the road to get to an actual location with a group of folks on the road. The road involves contradictions and complications because that is how life goes for people, regret or no regret. Being stuck with the images and memories of the once-lived moments is far more interesting than being stuck in the same ways of the "because it is". Undeniably, Sjöström is the best actor in the film, one with such a commanding presence that runs the gamut of the qualities that come through a great flawed man in contradictions that come in icy coldness (well, the name is a pun, but that doesn't make it corny), one that has to reckon with who they are and what that has created for themselves in the people around them and that in the end, all things must pass. Andersson makes a useful double role of a sweetheart of the would-be past and a hitchhiker sweetheart with their own suitors that is warm and obviously useful comfort to remember in the long run (judging by that final sequence that sees the pilgrimage reach its end). Thulin and her own part to play in this pilgrimage is one of persistence, one of moving confidence in who they are and how that strikes different when matched with Sjöström in nature and in practice that makes the eventual ending all the more useful. What seems obvious for some viewers in looking upon symbolism may seem elusive for others, but as long as one gets an actual feeling emanating from these films of existential questioning, they are on the right track, because the answers that matter are ones that are found in clarity, much in the same way that peace is found only through looking inward rather than running from affirming one's existence. The journey to Lund is not really one for ceremony but instead one for meaning beyond simple ceremonies. There is more to journeys beyond the milage and that involves people beyond words. In short: wild strawberry patches of one's youth in one thing, having the peace of mind to reach for closure is another. The man or woman with a long life to live will have one full of memories to look back upon in pain and pleasure, but the thing that matters most is the fact that we have the choice to move where we want to go with it in affirmation. All things will pass and we have the choice to go where we want to go on the multi-sided road.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Next time: Germany and 1924.

She Devil (1957).

Review #2022: She Devil.

Cast: 

Mari Blanchard (Kyra Zelas), Jack Kelly (Dr. Dan Scott), Albert Dekker (Dr. Richard Bach), John Archer (Barton Kendall), Fay Baker (Evelyn Kendall), Blossom Rock (Hannah, the Housekeeper), and Paul Cavanagh (Sugar Daddy) Produced and Directed by Kurt Neumann (#618 - Rocketship X-M, #710 - The Fly, and #832 - Kronos)

Review: 

You may or may not be surprised to hear that this falls under the web of film producer/cinema chain owner Robert L. Lippert. In 1956, he struck up a deal with 20th Century Fox that saw his Regal Films company make films that would be distributed by Fox. Lippert and Fox would do countless films together, and She Devil was released as a double bill with Kronos that had the same director in Kurt Neumann, who directed four features with Lippert as a producer (contrary to what it says in the film, which lists just Neumann as producer/director, since Lippert was trying to escape a rule about residual payments and TV). Both films happen to share the same cinematographer in Karl Struss, who shot various productions over the decades that ranged from Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927) to The Great Dictator (1940). Regal managed to convince Fox to let them use their CinemaScope format for their films (which were in black-and-white), which they did under the name of "RegalScope". The film is based on the short story "The Adaptive Ultimate", written by Stanley G. Weinbaum, which first appeared in print in November of 1935, one month before Weinbaum's death from lung cancer at 33. Prior to this film, it had adapted to radio (1949) and television (1949, 1952, 1955). Kurt Neumann and Carroll Young wrote the screenplay together. The story and film are a bit different in little details. Her first act of trouble is killing an old man in a park for money that she gets away with by changing her hair color before the trial begins. Also, she apparently can intensify her beauty as a mode of adaptation, which she either uses on a politician (story) or a millionaire (film). Of course, the mode of trying to take her down is the same in story and film: carbon dioxide.

It really isn't a horror film as it sometimes is labeled with being "sci-fi horror". It seems a bit too closed in to be anything other than a mild thriller, mostly because they have established a threat so clear that the only way to win is basically cheating. I mean, you've created someone who is probably immune to getting diseases worse than tuberculosis that can heal from bullet wounds and change their hair color, so the fact that she has a small body count seems more of a surprise than anything. Sure, you could interpret the film as one of attempted liberation, because she really is someone who is given newfound power (by men) that simply takes what she wants. But really it is just the doomed idiocy of two folks who should know better than to look away at the threat that grows until it has gone on a bit too much (such as admitting to bonking someone on the head when asked). The movie can't really pull a dilemma that you haven't already thought you saw in "insert Frankenstein feature/ripoff". Hell, what's the point of having "devil" in your title? Blanchard had been cast in various supporting roles throughout the 1950s, such as Abbott and Costello Go to Mars (1953) along with various B-movies such as Son of Sinbad (1955). Sadly, she was diagnosed with cancer in 1963 and passed away in 1970 at the age of 47. Blanchard might be pegged as the femme fatale type if this was actually meant to be a noir, because she does prove quite entertaining in a role that overshadows everyone around her, one that sees her as both brunette and blonde in hair (truth be told, dark hair always looks better) while finding just how much it means to be alive and ready to get what they want. Undeniably, having the ability to take on a leopard and not have a lingering wound could make an interesting god complex, and yet the movie can only find the smallest of threats to establish with the destruction of a marriage, but Blanchard still shines in watchability right down to the end. Kelly and Dekker are just too ordinary in their foolishness to really make them interesting beyond the fact that they made the simple choice to not murder people and that's it. Granted, the killer is supposed to be interesting when it comes to stuff like this, but man, you need even the tiniest bit of tension or interest when they aren't on screen, which is surprising when one of the actors ended up starring in Maverick that same year and the other was known for various adversarial roles such as The Killers (1946). It probably seems a bit too convenient that the 77-minute run-time comes with an ending where the threat is basically neutered without much trouble (of course, they include a reference to religion within the last few minutes when wondering just what will happen to the neutered she-devil, which is rich when it is revealed that she has tuberculosis again). As a whole, the movie falls just a bit short to really make a consistent enjoyable time, but it surely would be a decent double feature with another B-movie where one can sit back and look upon the wide frames and see for themselves how much a lead performance matters for both good and terrible films.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

I Was a Teenage Werewolf.

Review #1912: I Was a Teenage Werewolf.

Cast: 

Michael Landon (Tony Rivers), Yvonne Lime (Arlene Logan), Whit Bissell (Dr. Alfred Brandon), Malcolm Atterbury (Charles Rivers), Barney Phillips (Detective Sgt. Donovan), Robert Griffin (Police Chief Baker), Joseph Mell (Dr. Hugo Wagner), Louise Lewis (Principal Ferguson), Guy Williams (Officer Chris Stanley), Tony Marshall (Jimmy), and Vladimir Sokoloff (Pepe, the janitor) Directed by Gene Fowler Jr.

Review: 

Admittedly, making a movie about teenagers in horror could be an interesting time, if only because the 1950s had plenty to work with for audiences to enjoy, as evidenced by the output generated by American International Pictures. There were plenty of successes and failures with this studio, where a week was all one needed to make a movie like this, made on a budget of $82,000. This would be the first of a teenage craze with AIP, with Blood of Dracula and I Was a Teenage Frankenstein being released in November 1957 as a double feature that saw teenagers transformed into a vampire and a Frankenstein's monster, respectively. How to Make a Monster (1958) featured teens being hypnotized to kill while in werewolf and Frankenstein makeup. The film was directed by Gene Fowler Jr. He was more known as an editor, participating in films such as Tales of Manhattan (1942) and It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963). Fowler directed dramas and Westerns in his seven-film career of directing (1957 to 1959), with two exceptions: this film and I Married a Monster from Outer Space (1958).

Meh, it's not particularly interesting when compared to the slew of teenage-infused movies that came in its wake such as say, The Blob (1958), but there are a few nice things to say about its 76-minute runtime. It is at least a movie that tries to say something about teenagers and anxiety: kids sure get weird when you get on their case. In a way, it might remind one of another oddball werewolf movie in The Werewolf (1956), which had a werewolf transformation different from the usual full moon terror. In this case, the werewolf is triggered by some sort of "scopolamine serum" that helps someone in reverting their personality to primitive instinct (so yes, the doctor gives him a serum, then gradually convinces a teen that he was once a werewolf because somehow it will be good for the future of mankind...okay). This film just happens to have a janitor from the Carpathian Mountains who recognizes the threat, too. Honestly, the movie is also like the other one in not really knowing what to do with its creature (besides having both villain and victim be the same person), seemingly trapped in not doing anything more with its lead beyond the occasional line about being an ultra-aggressive dude. Landon would actually become a noted presence in television for three decades beginning in 1959, having been discovered by an agent while working as a gas service attendant near Warner Bros. (after hurting himself out of an athletic scholarship for javelin throwing at USC). He does okay with what is needed for impulse before the inevitable effects happen. After that, he kind of falls by the wayside when it comes to true dilemmas, as the movie doesn't really go farther than that when it is talking about someone being a wolf and being weird about it. Well, that or being a guy who can't control his temper, I guess. Bissell is the only other presence to focus on, since he plays the mad scientist type to about what you would expect, which basically means that if there was no mad scientist, the movie might even be more boring. So yeah, it is inevitable to see where these two go once they meet up, but you could only imagine how worse it could get. The teenagers are pretty stock, while the only noticeable support comes from future TV star Williams or the exposition-heavy Sokoloff. Besides, the body-count is pretty light, probably because the werewolf makeup comes and goes to varying effect. As a whole, it is a movie that has the blueprint for drawing a certain audience that ends up being a middling curiosity relic of its time, one that will either work out for those who desire something light and quick or not. For me, I can't quite recommend it as a good movie, but I recognize the staying power generated by an AIP flick like this one.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Delinquents (1957).

Review #1890: The Delinquents.

Cast: 

Tom Laughlin (Scotty White), Peter Miller (Bill Cholly), Richard Bakalyan (Eddy), Rosemary Howard (Janice Wilson), Leonard Belove (Mr. White), Helen Hawley (Mrs. White), James Lantz (Mr. Wilson), Lotus Corelli (Mrs. Wilson), and Christine Altman (Sissy Wilson) Directed by Robert Altman (#900 - Nashville and #1433 - M*A*S*H)

Review: 

"The danger of writing a script is that everybody has the same voice. I think when they don’t have the same voice it makes the film better. So when you have five different sources in there, five different voices, it seems closer to reality. I’m trying to push the actor into becoming a real creator—creating that part. Bringing things to it that the writer and/or myself couldn’t bring."

Here we have a couple of firsts. This was the first feature film in work of Robert Altman. The Kansas City native returned from service in the Thirteenth Air Force with the interest of writing, but his minimal success in that field (one film script got sold) had him move back, and his next assignment was with the Calvin Company, an advertising, educational, and industrial film production company. He directed many industrial shorts for the company before he got his first foray beyond that with television in the early 1950s. This was the first starring role for Tom Laughlin. Yes, before he got into the act of trying to write and direct his own films, Laughlin was an actor, starting in 1955 with a handful of television appearances and one film to his name before this feature. If you can believe it, Laughlin and Altman did not get along during production, mostly because of the way that Laughlin wanted to do the film (Laughlin described himself as a "Stanislavsky actor", not a Method actor), complete with actually preparing for a tired moment by running laps, and Altman later called him a "pain in the ass" while finding the best way to settle things: he simply told Laughlin what he wanted in a certain scene; for his part, Laughlin described the film as "very amateurish" along with expressing a dislike of Altman's lack of organization, and at one point he started rolling the cameras to shoot a scene rather than wait for Altman to arrive (because he felt guilty given whose money it was). Tying this all together is the debut production of Elmer Rhoden Jr, a Kansas City-born exhibitor of films that was president of a theater chain that encompassed six states. Wanting to tap into the teen market in an era where there was plenty to go around from rock and roll to hot rod features, Rhoden Jr made his first effort into producing, complete with using the theater chain as a way to get his film regional success. With a budget of roughly $63,000, he recruited Altman, who would write along with recruit the people required for said production in terms of casting and location picking, complete with recruiting people from his industrial films and a mix of California talent (including cooperation from the Kansas City Police Department) to go alongside Altman's wife at the time (Corelli, who divorced him when he began having Hawley as his mistress) and Altman's daughter as actors in the film. Rhoden would make two further features as a producer before he died in 1959, dying a couple of months after suffering a heart attack (owing to his alcoholism) at the age of 37.

Admittedly, if you did not know that Altman was the director or that Laughlin was the star, you might not be inclined to pick it out among the oodles of delinquent films. But the film is a decent one in the ways that matter most from folks making their first attempt at breaking into features, regardless of how they thought of the other. Laughlin would get his chances to act and direct by 1960 while Altman would get to direct on a regular basis in television before he got his next chance to direct in features again with Countdown (1967) before hitting the big time in the 1970s. The Delinquents isn't exactly anything special, but it was a modest success that did all the things one might see from seeing people (not quite teenagers but not quite just 30-year olds) try to play juveniles and do the mildest form of "bad things" (you see a mildly involving switchblade fight to go with robbery hijinks and partying). You can see the idea of Altman wanting to have loose and free dialogue go with his favoring of trying to not go through all of the Hollywood channels. One can see the seeds of the observer of chaos even in a movie that Altman might have been only loosely fine with in the long run. He got to make a movie on his terms but saw it changed with voiceovers to start and end the movie that present it as a tale of violence and immorality...that sees delinquency as a disease that could be treated with either more attention from parents or youth groups. I think Altman just wanted to make a movie where teens just go around on a cruise about town without an easy endgame, and in that sense, it is a neat little movie, efficient in 72 minutes in going where it wants without seeming stifled by boredom. The parental figures present their cases of thinking they know what is best for their kids in this age (which isn't like when they were kids, obviously). Laughlin may have the screen presence of a rock tumbling down a well, but it is a graceful presence that handles what is required in someone trapped in expectations on all sides without becoming just a Method punching bag while Howard maneuvers panic with mild success. Bakalyan and Miller won't exactly set a new presence as "hoods of tomorrow" like the poster might say, but they are capable threats that you would expect from a film like this that keeps things firmly on the level. As a whole, things come, things go, but some things are forever, whether that involves actors or directors getting their first true chance to make an impression mean something. Regardless of how the experience went, The Delinquents is a solid feature for its headliners that makes quite the curiosity for those who wish to seek it out as an average but fascinating piece of chaos.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Nine Lives (1957).

Review #1396: Nine Lives.

Cast: 
Jack Fjeldstad (Jan Baalsrud), Henny Moan (Agnes), Alf Malland (Martin), Joachim Holst-Jensen (Bestefar - Grandpa), Lydia Opøien (Jordmoren - Midwife), Edvard Drabløs (Skolelæreren - Schoolteacher), Sverre Hansen (Skomakeren - Cobbler), Rolf Søder (Sigurd Eskeland), Ottar Wicklund (Henrik), and Olav Nordrå (Konrad) Directed, Written, and Produced by Arne Skouen.

Review: 
World cinema can take the shape of many faces and places, having their own ambition to reach an audience that can be both home and abroad, particularly if it comes to awards and attention, with Kon-Tiki (1950) being the first (and so far only) Norwegian feature film to win an Academy Award, doing so as a documentary. In terms of firsts, this film (known as Ni Liv) was submitted and nominated for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, the first from the Kingdom of Norway. Although it did not win any awards, the film has endured today as a key film from a country that had its first film produced in 1908 that has found a place for itself in cinema with recognition with its own group of directors and stars alongside use for international productions. This was adapted from the 1955 novel We Die Alone: A WWII Epic of Escape and Endurance by David Howarth, which was based on the real-life adventures of Norwegian resistance fighter Jan Baalsrud, who endured months of escape in the cold after the failure of Operation Martin to blow up a German airfield control tower. It is acknowledged in the credits that there were numerous people (turned into composites for the film) who helped in his attempts to escape capture and gangrene in his toes, for which most of them were cut off to save his feet, which he did himself. A further film on him was done recently with The 12th Man (2017). It should only prove fitting that it was a journalist and fellow Norwegian Resistance member in Arne Skouen that directed a film like this, with this being one of seventeen that he did in a period from 1949 to 1969. He received a few honorary awards for his contribution to journalism and film before his death at the age of 89 in 2003. This is a fairly interesting action drama, filled with plenty of chilly tension through 96 minutes that attracts plenty of attention while having most of its time spent in an extended flashback, bookending itself through sequences in a hospital. Fjeldstad does a fine job with playing a man on the run, weary but with capable honor, whether when dealing with escape or delirium. The film keeps itself busy with the elements seeming to dominate the conversation, which is particularly true for a film with plenty of ice to go around. The other actors accompany the film just as well, crisp to a film that has quite an interesting time with displaying harrowing events regardless of how much one knows about the final outcome, with the transition to him hobbling himself around as the camera pans away to end the film sealing the film as a capture of enduring spirit no matter the odds. It serves as a fair example of world cinema worthy of checking out for its look within its own culture and history that can serve the curiosity well if one is in the mood for something riveting and capable for its decade.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Gunfight at the O.K. Corral.

Review #1395: Gunfight at the O.K. Corral.

Cast:
Burt Lancaster (Marshal Wyatt Earp), Kirk Douglas (Doc Holliday), Rhonda Fleming (Laura Denbow), Jo Van Fleet (Kate Fisher), John Ireland (Johnny Ringo), Lyle Bettger (Ike Clanton), Frank Faylen (Sheriff Cotton Wilson), Earl Holliman (Deputy Sheriff Charlie Bassett), Ted de Corsia (Shanghai Pierce), Dennis Hopper (Billy Clanton), Whit Bissell (John Clum), George Mathews (John Shanssey), John Hudson (Virgil Earp), DeForest Kelley (Morgan Earp), Martin Milner (James 'Jimmy' Earp), Lee Van Cleef (Ed Bailey), and Jack Elam (Tom McLowery) Directed by John Sturges (#427 - The Magnificent Seven)

Review: 
"Take one for spontaneity."

Everyone needs an entertaining picture. John Sturges could do an entertaining picture when given the chance to do so. He had started in the film business with RKO through a connection to his brother in their Art department, gradually rising from bluebrints to editor in a period of seven years. He subsequently served in World War II under the US Army Air Corps (where he did direction on training films and documentaries with William Wyler such as Thunderbolt) before returning to Hollywood with Columbia Pictures, who gave him his shot at directing with The Man Who Dared (1946), the first of a bunch of b-movies for them, with The Walking Hills (1949) being his first Western. A move to MGM in 1949 led to films with a bit more prominence, where he continued to make dramas, noirs, and Westerns. His most significant film through the studio before he turned independent was Bad Day at Black Rock (1955). Ultimately, Sturges (who favored just one take to get a scene done) would direct over 40 films in a 30-year career before his death in 1992 at 82 years old.

Making a film about the Old West can be an interesting time when there is some historical precedent to it, which has been the case for numerous Westerns about the legend of Tombstone, although most of those films probably didn't have a ballad to them. Of course one isn't going to particularly learn all there is to know about a famed gunfight in a movie like this (particularly an event that in reality lasted less than a minute and had just three people killed), where even an acclaimed Western on the subject like My Darling Clementine (1946) had tinges of inaccuracy (which also featured Ireland), with the formerly considered factual novel Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal having risen the late Earp into a famed Old West icon. While this film is not as particularly good on the subject as say Tombstone (1993), this is a solid Western for its era, building itself with quiet ambition and a capable duo in Lancaster and Douglas for a useful climax. Lancaster, the circus performer-turned-war veteran-turned actor (along with occasional producer) resonates with calm authority, which goes well when acting alongside Douglas, as they worked together on several films together. Douglas (another fellow war veteran turned actor, albeit with a rough childhood) commands attention each time he is on screen, a forceful presence even when coughing as the film goes on that showcases plenty of discipline that he was known for. They click the most together, with scenes of the Earp family together being second and everything else being okay at best. Fleming (who had "Queen of Technicolor" as a nickname by others) does okay, but a film with a fictional character to make a romance (Earp married three times, each common-law) doesn't prove to have much structure anyway since she doesn't have as much screen-time anyway, while Van Fleet delivers a few weary wicked moments. Ireland and the other adversaries do fine with stoking tension, which includes a young Dennis Hopper in just his fourth film role. On the whole, while the film can sometimes seem a bit too pedestrian at 122 minutes, there is a fine quality to follow along with its two leads and the conflict which work to serve an action-stuffed climax just the same. It isn't a great Western by any means, but it will serve its purpose of entertainment just the same with its own particular grip of a legend of the Old West for its time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

An Affair to Remember.

Review #1394: An Affair to Remember.

Cast: 
Cary Grant (Nicolò Ferrante), Deborah Kerr (Terry McKay), Richard Denning (Kenneth Bradley), Neva Patterson (Lois Clark), Cathleen Nesbitt (Grandmother Janou), Robert Q. Lewis (Himself), Charles Watts (Ned Hathaway), and Fortunio Bonanova (Courbet) Directed by Leo McCarey (#085 - Duck Soup and #1350 - Love Affair)

Review: 
Do you ever feel like you're watching the same film twice? Honestly, the only things that really need a remake are films that were clunkers the first time around, not movies that were good enough once already. But hey, maybe one really did want to see another version of a love affair with the same director and nearly the same script 18 years later. At least this time around I knew what to expect when it came to the climatic point of the film, since not only had I seen the original only two months ago but it happened to be prominently referenced in another overrated tearjerker that I saw years ago in Sleepless in Seattle (1993). Of course this particular film happens to be longer at 115 minutes, with the second easiest difference being that it has a steeper fall in its second half than its predecessor after it leaves the boat. This is a film that has the luster of starpower to try and hide its mediocrity that makes it quite a frustrating film to sit through, because one knows that it is going to be completely fine and nothing else, complete with CinemaScope to hit that final shiny mark to play for its audience (this of course is not meant to be a iconoclastic jab at films of that era). Grant and McCarey had done two previous films with each other, while Kerr and Grant were in their second of three collaborations with each other. As was the case with numerous McCarey films, improvisation was something to be encouraged when on camera, with some improvised lines finding their way into the film. The movie does seem to flow better when it focuses on just these two together, with a slow-but-fruitful chemistry that makes a majority of the film fairly palpable. One always has a fine time with Cary Grant when it comes to seeing him on screen, seeing how he never really seems to age too particularly as a leading man in terms of charm that is hard to resist to smile with. Kerr, a versatile actress if there ever was one (having been nominated six times for an Academy Award) catches up with Grant fairly well in elegance despite having to deal with silly stuff such as having to sing with a kid's choir or the end scene. Denning and Patterson, constricted in roles that firmly neutral in romantic chemistry that seem more fitting somewhere else, prove okay. Nesbitt provides a quietly sweet presence for the moments that bridge an interesting first half before it gets sluggish. Maybe one has more patience for its contrived turning point, where a lover suddenly hit by a car decides to not tell the other about their condition until that big scene at the end where Grant puts two-and-two together (any longer and he would've needed a picture book) that leads to an intended tearjerker scene that just makes me roll my eyes. There is passion present here, but there must've been a better way to do all of this (let's go full absurd and just have the lead go into a coma or fall into a manhole with alligator captors while we're at it) than the same thing again. I can't get mad at it being average for doing things again with a capable duo to back up material just like before, so I suppose that the nicest thing I can say is that this is a film comprised of fair and clunky attitudes about romance that will prove adequate for those who want an average crowd-pleaser for their time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Vampire (1957).

Review #1291: The Vampire.

Cast: 
John Beal (Dr. Paul Beecher), Coleen Gray (Carol Butler), Kenneth Tobey (Sheriff Buck Donnelly), Lydia Reed (Betsy Beecher), Dabbs Greer (Dr. Will Beaumont), Herb Vigran (George Ryan), Paul Brinegar (Willy Warner), Ann Staunton (Marion Wilkins), and James Griffith (Henry Winston) Directed by Paul Landres (#848 - The Return of Dracula)

Review: 
It does seem like a nice way to tie the month together with a generic-sounding horror film with a vampire, seeing how I started the month with another generic-sounding title film with a werewolf. The one thing that this film shares with that film (aside from being an independent movie) is its science-fiction take on a creature of the supernatural - in this case, a guy turned into a vampire because he accidentally took experimental pills dealing with vampire bat blood and regressing animal minds to a primitive state. The vampire himself doesn't show up for most of its 75 minute run-time (for good reason, as one might say), but at least it is somewhat compelling with its sci-fi/horror crossroad to make it a light curiosity. The acting does tend to do just fine, such as the vulnerable yet humble Beal, who one can at take at face value with his struggle, showing some anguish for a film that badly needs it. The other actors are okay, with Greer generally seeming the most interesting when interacting with our lead, especially when it comes to dealing with the possibility of a "vampire". It isn't so much that the film is boring or such, but it just doesn't have enough of a spark going consistently, particularly with scares. The addiction angle is at least an interesting take when it comes to vampires, but it is amusing to note that the same director, writer (Pat Fielder), and producers (Arthur Gardner and Jules V. Levy) would return to do another vampire film the following year with The Return of Dracula - that actually turned out a bit better when it came to handling its vampire lead, actually. The makeup for the vampire is a bit of a disappointment. It has a lumpy composition, where those big eyebrows and hands make it seem more of a take on Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde - of course it should be noted that this creature doesn't have any weaknesses that you would see in any other fictional vampires, where he gets taken down by bullets at the end. I suppose one can only do so much with a low budget (reported to around $110,000), but a tighter design would've gone a long way towards making this a bit more easy to take seriously. Actually, tighter pacing might have also been a big help as well, along with a better way to stage a climax that doesn't just have him just being shot in daylight (no, I am not saying a fight in a dark castle, although that amuses me more than suburban horror). On the whole, this is a film made on the cheap that will do the basic requirements needed that works best when found down the line on a dark cold night with not much else to do.

Happy Halloween. But the fun is not over yet...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Invisible Boy.

Review #1012: The Invisible Boy.

Cast: 
Richard Eyer (Timmie Merrinoe), Philip Abbott (Dr. Tom Merrinoe), Diane Brewster (Mary Merrinoe), Harold J. Stone (Gen. Swayne), Robert H. Harris (Prof. Frank Allerton), Dennis McCarthy (Col. Macklin), Alexander Lockwood (Arthur Kelvaney), John O'Malley (Prof. Baine), Robby the Robot (Robby), Gage Clarke (Dr. Bannerman) Directed by Herman Hoffman.

Review: 
Based on the short story by Edmund Cooper, The Invisible Boy is certainly an interesting science fiction film that has both wit and charm at times, being a strange little adventure that certainly wins over on its charm. It was the second appearance of Robby the Robot, who had previously appeared in Forbidden Planet (#199), with his character having been brought back from the future during a time travel experiment (not joking). Yes, the film has its tongue-in-cheek moments, but it is also a film that has scenes involving a supercomputer that goes berserk with power (which for the era was a pretty new thing) and then of course there is parts with the invisible boy. Eyer does an okay performance, though it may come off as a bit bratty, and he certainly isn't as interesting as Robby, although who can really say they are more interesting to watch on screen than him? In a film as oddly plotted and as oddly thought out, the Robot is one of the best parts of the film in part because of how interesting it is to watch the Robot move around, especially with that voice, which was delivered by Marvin Miller, although he was not given credit for the role. The parents (Abbott and Brewster) are decent, and they seem to be having a decent time. The rest of the supporting cast is nothing too special, but at least they serve their purposes well, whether it be for the plot or for some amusement. Made for a budget of $384,000, it certainly is a movie that has some cheap-looking moments, but the invisible effects are at least somewhat passable; aside from that, the biggest spectacle is the robot and the supercomputer, with the latter being somewhat amusing. While the film isn't anything too special, it has a strange charm to it because of amusingly entertaining it can get to with the narrative. At best, it is neat entertainment and even at its worst it serves as mostly harmless fare. Take it for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Attack of the Crab Monsters.

Review #1007: Attack of the Crab Monsters.

Cast: 
Richard Garland (Dale Drewer), Pamela Duncan (Martha Hunter), Russell Johnson (Hank Chapman), Leslie Bradley (Dr. Karl Weigand), Mel Welles (Jules Deveroux), Richard H. Cutting (Dr. James Carson), Beach Dickerson (Seaman Ron Fellows), Tony Miller (Seaman Jack Sommers), and David Arvedon (voice of Hoolar the Giant Crab) Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, and #931 - Not of This Earth)

Review: 
Giant radiation-mutated (and telepathic) crab monsters. What's there to say with a premise like that? Quite a bit, actually, although not much of it would be about the scientific accuracy of such a thing, because that spoils the fun in a movie that strives for entertainment and succeeds for the most part. This is a sci-fi horror film (released by Allied Artists) that also has injections of humor during the film, but the real star of the show is never too far behind, with action and suspense occurring at a fairly decent rate. The crabs themselves are pretty...ugly, but what does one expect other than what you get? They don't look too shabby, at least. The acting as a whole is fairly acceptable, nothing that would garner any sort of awards but also not something that would garner too much derision. It has the kind of characters you would expect, albeit with a voice of the giant crab that randomly pops up from time to time that is sometimes chilling but also sometimes ridiculous (if one thought about it too much anyway). This was made for around $70,000, with the film proving itself to be a big success that reportedly made around a million dollars, and it's not really hard to see why. It has an interesting title that it mostly lives up to while also being something you'd watch in a drive-in with company (or alternatively on the Internet on a lark). Unsurprisingly, the film has a run-time of 62 minutes, so that can make this seem like a fair breeze. It was released as part of a double bill with Not of This Earth, and while I will say they both fall under the same kind of quality, the former may be just a bit better, though they both could easily be fine films to watch for anyone looking for some good ol' ridiculous fun.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Throne of Blood.

Review #968: Throne of Blood.

Cast: 
Toshiro Mifune (Washizu Taketoki), Isuzu Yamada (Washizu Asaji), Takashi Shimura (Odakura Noriyasu), Akira Kubo (Miki Yoshiteru), Hiroshi Tachikawa (Tsuzaki Kunimaru), Minoru Chiaki (Miki Yoshiaki), Takamaru Sasaki (Lord Tsuzuki Kuniharu), Kokuten Kōdō (First General), Ueda Kichijiro (Washizu's workman), Eiko Miyoshi (Old Woman at castle), and Chieko Naniwa (The Spirit of Spider's Web) Directed by Akira Kurosawa.

Review: 
It is good to do another world cinema film, particularly one from Japan, with this being the sixth covered (#167 - Gojira, #711 - Mothra, #735 - A Page of Madness, #737 - House (1977), and #922 - Himiko). Throne of Blood (also known as Kumonosu-jō, which translates to Spider Web Castle) is based off the play MacBeth by William Shakespeare, with a few liberties taken (alongside a change of setting to feudal Japan), though one can forgive that in a movie as evocative as this movie is. It's amazing how long it has taken for me to cover a film directed by Akira Kurosawa, considered one of the most seminal filmmakers in cinema, with this being his 17th feature film.

There is just something so majestic about the movie, where the design along with the acting come together to make something so entertaining along with thrilling. Mifune (who starred in sixteen of Kurosawa's films) manages to convey his emotions and character without having to resort to having too much expression on his face; the final scene involving the arrows is the best example, in that you can clearly see the terror of having to dodge actual arrows (for the sake of realism), with his expressions being fairly clear. He does everything quite clearly and effectively, without any sense of dodgy intention. The scene where he is trying to rally his men during the climax is also a key manic highlight. Yamada is also excellent, doing a fine job at showing her ambition and her grip on Mifune's character, and the resulting aftermath. Her last scene with him is the most striking along with the most emotionally powerful to watch, especially with her not blinking throughout the film. The rest of the cast is also pretty good, with Shimura and Kubo being useful highlights, particularly when conversing with Mifune. The showcasing of emotions and themes is quite clear to see, from the consequence of human ambition to the power of fate. The cinematography by Asakazu Nakai is quite commendable, being great to look at and see executed on screen. The atmosphere of the movie is great, where the sets and design look quite realistic and the action has a sharp but incredible feel to watch. The music by Masaru Sato is also fairly striking, and the chants at the end are fitting for the tone of the film. It is easy for me to recommend this one, in part because of the core elements that make for a great film, from the way the film is constructed to the actors to the action and look of the movie.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.