The Manster.

Review #2448: The Manster.

Cast: 

Peter Dyneley (Larry Stanford), Jane Hylton (Linda Stanford), Tetsu Nakamura (Dr. Robert Suzuki), Terri Zimmern (Tara), Jerry Ito (Police Supt. Aida), Norman Van Hawley (Ian Matthews), Toyoko Takechi (Emiko Suzuki), Kenzo Kuroki (Genji Suzuki), Alan Tarlton (Dr. H. B. Jennsen), Shinpei Takagi (Temple Priest), and George Wyman (the Monster) Directed by George Breakston and Kenneth G. Crane.

Review: 

Sure, you might think the title is a bit of a tell that things are going to be a bit off for the movie. Appearances can be deceiving, but I imagine it probably won't seem true for this oddball movie. It seems oddly appropriate that a movie about two heads has two directors. George Breakston was originally an actor in his young days, having moved to Hollywood from his native France. He served in the US Army Signal Corps with the Officers Candidate School for photography. He became a director with Urubu (1948), which he happened to produce and co-star in. He was the producer and contributor to the story of Tokyo File 212 (1951), the first Hollywood feature to be made all in Japan. He directed a variety of movies overseas, whether that was Geisha Girl (1952) in Japan or Golden Ivory (1954) in Kenya. Breakston would produce and direct all the way until 1966, whether that involved African Patrol (1958-59) or The Boy Cried Murder (1966); he died in 1973 at the age of 53. The screenplay was written by Walter J. Sheldon as based on "an original story" by Breakston. The movie was co-directed by Kenneth G. Crane, who is also listed as "supervising editor" in the opening credits. He started out as an editor for such movies as The Iroquois Trail [1950] and added directing to his foray for a brief time with such works as Monster from Green Hell [1957] and When Hell Broke Loose [1958] (he also directed English-language scenes for the American edit of Ishiro Honda's Half Human in [1957]). The Manster was his last work as a director. Crane continued to be an editor in films all the way to Soul Hustler in 1973; he died in 1995 at the age of 87. The movie had a mix of American and Japanese people working on the film, which was done in Japan; Shinpei Takagi worked on the effects of the "manster" (get it, man, monster, man-monster?). For whatever reason, the movie opened first in Japan in 1959 before being released abroad starting in 1960. Apparently, in 1962, it was enough to justify being on a double feature with Eyes Without a Face (you might remember that it was called "The Horror Chamber of Dr. Faustus" in some places).

In a sea of head movies such as The Incredible 2-Headed Transplant (1971), The Thing with Two Heads (1972) and How to Get Ahead in Advertising (1989), The Manster is probably not very high on the list. You might wonder what the significance of the movie being set in Japan with a handful of Japanese actors involved. Well, not much really, since the movie basically just cribs from Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde while featuring the local scene for about two minutes before finding ways to cut around the terror and the fact that the monster isn't even seen that clearly (particularly in daylight). Sometimes it reminds one of a sack, but the effect beforehand where it is just an eye on the shoulder is at least interesting to look at. Dyneley was probably better known for his work on Thunderbirds (yes, really) than this film. But at least there is a semblance of an idea in basically doing a midlife crisis horror movie. But it doesn't feel tragic enough to be anything more than a goofy ham-handed performance that happens to share time with a guy playing the monster. This was the only movie for Zimmern, a Macau-born woman of varying Eurasian heritage that happened to marry Breakston in 1959. Interludes spent with her would be more interesting if you really felt a sense of doom or anything other than "oh, hey, a woman", and that goes doubly for the mostly forgettable Hylton (who actually was married to Dyneley at the time). You would think Nakamura would have something to do as the mad scientist. But no, he only mildly shows up from time to time, talking about evolution and things that one does when living around a volcano that at least has one interesting thing: he tries to knife himself off before getting disposed of. The climax, for a movie that runs at 72 minutes anyway, does have some silly execution (everybody's got to get to the volcano, ready to erupt) but at least you get to see a fight on a volcano between a man and his manster self that is as delusional as it sounds. As a whole, The Manster is pretty cheesy and pretty crappy but altogether there are a few chuckles and curious moments to be had in watching the two-headed spectacle play out. In the bottom of the barrel, being middle-of-the-road is not as bad as it could be.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Tingler.

Review #2436: The Tingler.

Cast: 

Vincent Price (Dr. Warren Chapin), Judith Evelyn (Mrs. Martha Ryerson Higgins), Darryl Hickman (Dave Morris), Patricia Cutts (Isabel Stevens Chapin), Pamela Lincoln (Lucy Stevens), Philip Coolidge (Oliver 'Ollie' Higgins)

Produced and Directed by William Castle (#369 - House on Haunted Hill (1959), #1071 - 13 Ghosts, #1418 - The Night Walker, #1703 - Undertow, #2261 - Macabre, #2300 - Homicidal, #2301 - Strait-Jacket)

Review: 

Well, if you are going to try and give audiences a bit of a scare, you might as well try to make it a whole show of gimmicks to grab attention, I suppose. William Castle's Macabre (1958) had the life insurance policy for anyone dying of fright while House on Haunted Hill (released in January 1959) had an "Emergo" gimmick where a pulley system was rigged so a plastic skeleton could be flown over the audience at a certain point in the film.* Anyway, with The Tingler, released in July of 1959, Castle came up with a couple of ideas: Percepto, in which the underside of select seats would have electrical buzzers attached to try and provide a tingling sensation for moments (as one does when having surplus airplane wing dicing motors from the World War II days). As noted in the opening, said by none other than Castle himself, only certain members would get the shock because "some people are more sensitive to these mysterious electronic impulses than others." And then of course there is the other idea, which involves planted members of the audience for a certain moment in the climax. As with Castle's two previous horror movies, it was written by Robb White, who did two further scripts for him. It was the second and last time that Vincent Price was the star of a William Castle movie. Obviously, the movie was enough of a hit for Castle to continue on with gimmicks: his next film in 13 Ghosts had a gimmick where you could see the ghosts in "Illusion-O" (a trick involving red and blue filters applied to the footage when dealing with the ghosts).

Really if you accept the premise as, well, with tingling curiosity, you already are half-way to having some enjoyment with the film. You've got a guy thinking he can find a creature that looks like a (big) centipede all in the name of science, at least if one doesn't scream about it first. I suppose the real thing about the tingler is that it could be represented as anything that makes us shudder and how we try to cope with apparent fears ahead of us. It has a small cast that naturally is highlighted by Price, who glides through the movie in making you go for the material in a movie that is actually kind of weird. You have a small ensemble, a few weird relationship dynamics being explored for a bit and the use of lysergic acid, or, well, LSD. Since Price looks committed to the material (as opposed to eyerolling it or just playing to scream scream scream), we find ourselves gravitating to the 82-minute runtime as well. The most interesting sequence could be the bathtub sequence (as acted by Evelyn in her final film role - she actually was brought in at the request of Price, who worked with her on Broadway), since it was shot in color that saw the set painted white/black/gray to go along with gray makeup so that way you could see the blood stick out from an otherwise monochrome background. What is particularly strange is that it comes not too long after Price's character tries out some LSD (in an attempt to spook himself without screaming), but one really wonders if he also gave it to someone else, because where else would a scene of red blood in otherwise monochrome stuff come into play? The movie just plays it as he just gave someone barbiturates for a prescription and then they just happen to see weird stuff but really if this had been made a few years later, it probably could've actually implied more that it was really LSD that did her in more than "oh, scared to death" for a trigger to die. Of course, the mystery of the film is where the tingler is going to end up, since it only can reside in folks that are alive. This is where the climax aims for the astounding: the movie actually stops in the guise of the tingler "being loose" and you have to wonder just how it felt with audience plants being around to pretend the thing was around them, although it should be mentioned that for most of the film, all it really does is get set to choke just one person, and the end goal for our hero is...to sew it back into a dead body. Yep, the thing is just going to go right back in, one can't just shoot it but it will slip right in a corpse fine. At any rate, it is an interesting experience to get wrapped in, if you allow it to do so. I don't think it is better than say, House on Haunted Hill, but you can see where Castle could take showmanship a bit further down the road. As a whole, The Tingler is moderately interesting when it truly kicks into gear for the fun that comes out in remembering just what it means to scream, which may or may not make for one heck of a climax if one finds themselves in the mood for what it is selling in the overall experience. If you like the Castle strategy of playing to the horror audience, you've got a winner here.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Evidently, Alfred Hitchcock certainly took notice of the low-budget success of Castle's films prior to making Psycho (1960).

The Wasp Woman.

Review #2275: The Wasp Woman.

Cast: 

Susan Cabot (Janice Starlin), Fred Eisley (Bill Lane), Barboura Morris (Mary Dennison), William Roerick (Arthur Cooper), Michael Mark (Dr. Eric Zinthrop), Frank Gerstle (Les Hellman), and Bruno VeSota (Night Watchman) 

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, #2113 - The Undead, #2211 - The Intruder)

Review: 

Oh sure, a movie about a woman trying to deal with her fears of getting older in the eyes of the public by using strange substances. Wait, what year is this? Anyway, this was directed by Roger Corman in his fourth year as a director (which for him was two dozen movies in), complete with being among the first he made for his company The Filmgroup to help with distribution (read: trying to do productions without dealing with certain unions). The story was done by Kinta Zertuche (in her only screenplay, having served an assistant on Beast from Haunted Cave and Attack of the Giant Leeches) while the screenplay was done by Leo Gordon (the occasional writer of films such as The Cry Baby Killer to go along with acting). The movie (which lasts 66 minutes) is in the public domain, although there exists a version that was longer (73 minutes) because Corman asked Jack Hill to direct a few scenes for television a few years after the release of the film - the scene was an introduction to the Zinthrop character being fired for working on wasps instead of what he was assigned to do. In 1995, the movie was remade as a television production directed by Jim Wynorski with oversight from Corman (who saw a handful of his films remade in that era).

It is pretty unfortunate that the movie is not that great, because there sure seems to be a bit of potential to have made something really unnerving in the terror of trying to cope with aging. However, one basically gets The Fly (1958) crossed with The Wolfman but with very little tension zipped into a five-pound bag of corn. The body count is stretched pretty thin to go with little to really draw upon in suspense beyond watching the movie just for the sake of having nothing better to do (the film paired with it in double features was Beast from Haunted Cave, incidentally). This actually was the last movie for its star in Cabot, who appeared in a handful of Westerns and adventure movies (mostly in supporting roles) before doing work for Corman starting in 1957, with whom she appeared in six productions from Carnival Rock (1957) to this. Cabot did some stage work in the later years prior to her murder in 1986. It is a strange way to close a film career, wearing an odd little mask (with little place to breathe if dealing with vapors and a broken bottle) to go with spitting chocolate sauce onto people. But she expressed in later years that it was Corman who gave her "a great amount of freedom", so take that with a grain of salt. The peril presented by our lead is at least one that can be relatable: trying to survive the fear of being passed by in the sands of time. The rest of the cast is serviceable for a mostly quiet staging that doesn't really require too many sets or too much bombast. Even the wasp costume isn't that bad when you get down to it, mostly because with a bit more time or staging, you really could make something out of that unsettling mask in say, a metamorphosis rather than basically going with the "Wolfman" trick. It could've been so much more tragic but instead is just not quite enough to rise above "heh, I guess". As a whole, the general tragedy of chasing for victories of the superficial can only really work with a film committed to really striking somewhere in visual terror too. It is the kind of movie that I can't call good but will at least lend up as not being as bad as it sounds. When faced with little to do on a a weekend, this would be at least somewhat curious to look up.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

The Mummy (1959).

Review #2096: The Mummy (1959).

Cast: 

Peter Cushing (John Banning), Christopher Lee (Kharis / The Mummy), Yvonne Furneaux (Isobel Banning / Princess Ananka), Eddie Byrne (Inspector Mulrooney), Felix Aylmer (Stephen Banning), Raymond Huntley (Joseph Whemple), George Pastell (Mehemet Bey), Michael Ripper (Poacher), George Woodbridge (P. C. Blake), and Harold Goodwin (Pat) Directed by Terence Fisher (#257 - The Curse of Frankenstein, #258 - Dracula (1958), #272 - The Hound of the Baskervilles (1959), #469 - The Revenge of Frankenstein, #833 - Spaceways, #857 - Frankenstein Created Woman, #858 - Frankenstein Must Be Destroyed, and #859 - Dracula: Prince of Darkness, #1280 - The Brides of Dracula)

Review: 

"I have always strenuously tried to avoid being blatant in my pictures. Instead, whenever possible, I have used the camera to show things - especially nasty things - happening by implication."

If you recall, Hammer was on a roll with horror films fit for the international tastes. The successes of The Curse of Frankenstein (1957) proved that Terence Fisher was the right and reliable pick for Hammer's big venture in horror, and his subsequent direction of Dracula (1958) started yet another franchise for Hammer. Who better to do a film involving another monster with familiar cast and crew involved? While the film one might think of it as a remake of The Mummy since it has the same time, it actually seems more in line with the three sequels since the last name of Banning and the name of Kharis came from those, while The Mummy's Ghost also involved a swamp for its climax (at any rate, instead of tana leaves, one sees a Scroll of Life). In general, Universal (releaser of those classic horror films) distributed the film under the "International" label for, well, international releases. The film was written by Jimmy Sangster, who had written several scripts for previous Hammer films. Evidently, the writer of the 1932 adaptation in Nina Wilcox Putnam thought it was "disgusting" and was displeased that it was done without her knowledge or consent (ironic, since the resulting film is considerably superior to the older film in most respects). Three further films were done by Hammer with mummies with The Curse of the Mummy's Tomb (1964), The Mummy's Shroud (1967), and Blood from the Mummy's Tomb (1971); of these, only Pastell returned to appear in any of the films from the original cast, and he only appeared in Tomb; perhaps not surprisingly, none of the films were as successful as the original.

It probably would surprise nobody that the film was a reliable success with how efficient it is with being a viscerally gripping feature that exceeds the original Mummy films with plenty to spare. It is a vibrant feature beyond just being in color, to put it mildly. It is familiar routine (lost loves and impending doom) but it is entertaining routine that does not waver from its goals with distracting relief or imbalances. One would like to not play favorites with film-watching when it comes to acting, but I always find myself smiling at the prospect of seeing Christopher Lee in a lead role, even if it involves him under plenty of makeup, which is exquisite. With a role that invites only dialogue for the flashback sequence (for obvious reasons), he makes for a quality threat that has a looming wandering quality of tragedy that makes a distinct monster than if one simply had a stuntman do it all because of the eyes that come out to play; incidentally, he suffered a handful of injuries on the film, such as separating his shoulder for a break-in sequence. This also applies to Cushing, who has the great dignity required to make his leading qualities all the more enterprising for someone to follow along, because heaven knows there is no man that can deliver exposition like he can. Furneaux is the lookalike that is really more of an alluring presence in the latter part of the film, which goes about as well as you would think in passive energy. The supporting cast is fine, although it is mostly headlined by Pastell and his fervent energy. There are a handful of scenes one could highlight, such as the first sight of the mummy rising, or perhaps the story of how the mummy came to be (exposition is great when delivered by Cushing and Lee being present), but the sequence where Cushing essentially taunts Pastell with regard to his beliefs just to stoke the flame a bit probably should be mentioned. At any rate, it is a gripping feature made in the perfect time for Hammer to stoke the flames of spooking its audience in consistent entertaining fashion with a game cast and director to accomplish everything required to make one of the most interesting films involving mummies of its time. For the Hammer fan at heart, this is one of the more entertaining efforts by the company.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Tomorrow: AIP double feature.

Compulsion (1959).

Review #2052: Compulsion.

Cast: 

Orson Welles (Jonathan Wilk), Diane Varsi (Ruth Evans), Dean Stockwell (Judd Steiner), Bradford Dillman (Artie Strauss), E.G. Marshall (District Attorney Harold Horn), Martin Milner (Sid Brooks), Richard Anderson (Max Steiner), Robert F. Simon (Police Lt. Johnson), Edward Binns (Tom Daly), Robert Burton (Charles Straus), Wilton Graff (Mr. Steiner), and Louise Lorimer (Strauss's mother) Directed by Richard Fleischer (#453 - Soylent Green, #460 - Doctor Dolittle, #624 - Conan the Destroyer, #829 - Red Sonja, #870 - The Narrow Margin, and #881 - Fantastic Voyage)

Review: 

If you had a career that involved being awarded an Academy Award for your work as a director and included doing plenty of genres in multiple decades of film work, one would probably think that such a name would be fondly remembered for their work. But alas, it isn't always the case to give every director their due, as is the case with Richard Fleischer. Fleischer had directed a handful of films from his debut in 1946 for RKO Radio Pictures (along with the documentary Design for Death, which as producer earned him an Oscar in 1947), which resulted in a few noted releases such as The Narrow Margin (1952). But he shifted his focus to work with other studios as well, such The Happy Time (1952) being for Columbia or Disney with 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954). But with Violent Sunday (1955), the resulting success led to a contract to direct further with 20th Century Fox. With some exceptions, he would direct there for the next fifteen years, and one of his most noted films made there was Compulsion. It is an adaptation of the 1956 novel of the same name by Meyer Levin (who studied at the University of Chicago in the 1920s while also becoming a news reporter at the same time) that was inspired by the real-life events of what was called "the trial of the century" with the court case of Nathan Leopold Jr and Richard Loeb (two students at the University of Chicago) that saw them put on trial for murder after they tried to commit the "perfect crime" in the murder of Bobby Franks (with a chisel and gag), with one of them having been a firm believer in the concept introduced by Frederick Nietzsche in the "superman".  And yes, the first inkling in catching them involved finding a certain pair of glasses near the scene of the crime. Clarence Darrow, hired to defend the two, went for a criticism of capital punishment in terms of what kind of justice it was that resulted in Leopold and Loeb be sentenced to life in prison rather than death (he had them plead guilty to start, so that he could play this out to a judge rather than leave it to a jury). One year after his famed defense, Darrow would be asked to serve on the side of John T. Scopes for a trial involving evolution (deliberately staged for publicity), which would inspire its own play and film. Incidentally, the Leopold and Loeb case also inspired Rope, a 1929 play turned into a film in 1948 by Alfred Hitchcock. In 1958, the surviving Leopold (Loeb was killed in prison in 1936) was granted parole. A year later, he tried to sue the filmmakers on various counts that included "defamation" from the book that tried to block production of the film; incidentally, when he had written and published his own memoir in 1958, it only talked the aftermath of the crime with no childhood mentions or the crime itself; his response to Levin when asked about writing a book together was to ask if Levin would want to help write the memoir, which obviously Levin rejected (incidentally, the film doesn't show the actual killing portrayed on screen). The lawsuit went on for over a decade, for which I'm sure you can see how Leopold lost the lawsuit. 

The novel had been turned into a play that ran from 1957 to 1958 that had Dean Stockwell and Roddy McDowall star in the lead two roles. It is a devilishly good time in terms of the queasy murder-thriller that shows one thing above all else: give a rich person time and ideas and they could go crazy. Well, that isn't really the goal by Fleischer, because he really aims to make a solid gripping film with no rest for showing the wicked in all of their pathetic habits that would feel right at home for future films such as In Cold Blood (1967) when it comes to brutal turning-the-screws atmosphere. Of course, the fact that the film was done in CinemaScope probably helps in that regard, giving a scope to such a murky feeling where one is watching Dillman and Stockwell try to go along their way in the aftermath of such brutality to, well, no avail. Welles is given top billing because, well, who says no to Welles? Actually, he only appears after the first hour of a 103-minute film, and I'm sure you know that he will have at least ten minutes to employ a long monologue meant to evoke the actual Darrow and his defense at the trial, which if you did not know, was a closing argument that lasted twelve hours. Apparently, Welles was a grouch for the time he was on set because he wasn't asked to direct the film, which resulted in tantrums on set (the final speech needed a bit of cobbling together because he had to leave right afterwards). Regardless of all that, he does rein in a worthy performance fit for what the film requires as the knight of eloquence that does not overstate the matter at hand. It is about the nature of justice that matters rather than his obviously guilty clients. Of course, Dillman and Stockwell are no slouches when tasked to hold their part of the film, with the latter in particular being a tremendous presence. Stockwell has the challenge of presenting a killer with a varying level of brilliance (as one expects when basically playing Leopold, an intellectual and ornithologist) that is fascinating to view regardless of the amount of pity that can be driven from such a situation. Dillman maneuvers his way around with pronounced confidence that obviously believes in the acts of superior men getting to commit such wanton acts without remorse that makes for such a watchable pair of scoundrels. They make for quite the pair in terms of such deluded belief in superiority that they pretty much overshadow the others, although the recognizable nature of the faces (except for Varsi, who is mostly known for her Academy Award-nominated debut in Peyton Place that appeared in eleven total films) that includes the sharp timing of Marshall or the attempts at making the Milner-Varsi dynamic anything other than just a footnote (look I don't really think about them in a film that sounds more like a Columbo prototype, so...). At any rate, what matters most in such queasy drama is the conviction laid out by Fleischer and company to make the drama matter as much as possible when it comes to making a dark act of murder come out to such a useful piece of fascination. It ranks well among the films of Fleischer and his varying skills for whatever genre he was sent out to do that makes for a useful film to watch today, whether one has a compulsion for the classics or not.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Jazz on a Summer's Day.

Review #2033: Jazz on a Summer's Day.

Cast: 

Featuring the musical talents of: Jimmy Giuffre 3 [Jimmy Giuffre, Bob Brookmeyer, Jim Hall], Thelonious Monk Trio [Thelonious Monk, Henry Grimes, Roy Haynes], Sonny Stitt and Sal Salvador, Anita O'Day, George Shearing, Dinah Washington, Gerry Mulligan Quartet [Gerry Mulligan, Art Farmer, Bill Crow, Dave Bailey], Big Maybelle, Chuck Berry, Chico Hamilton Quintet [Chio Hamilton, Eric Dolphy, John Pisano, Nate Gershman, Hal Gaylor], Louis Armstrong and his All-Stars [Trummy Young, Danny Barcelona, and Jack Teagarden], and Mahalia Jackson.

Directed by Bert Stern and Aram Avakian.

Review: 

There is something useful about trying every type of film out there, and the concert film is one of those curious genres to look into. Jazz on a Summer's Day is a film released in 1959 that detailed music played from July 3-6, 1958, for the Newport Jazz Festival, which was played in Newport, Rhode Island. It was the fifth edition of a festival that had started in 1954, as founded by George Wein and Elaine Lorillard. There have been a handful of noted performances held at the festival, such as the performance of the Duke Ellington Orchestra in 1956 that was called one of the most famous in jazz history, capped with a 27-chorus solo by tenor saxophonist Paul Gonsalves. The next year saw extensive documentation by Verve Records with albums of recorded performances from numerous performers that went from Ella Fitzgerald to Count Basie. The basis of this film involves performers from the 1958 festival. The film was directed by a commercial photographer in Bert Stern and editor/director Aram Avakian (who was described once as having "avant-garde tendencies"). Stern was one of the three cameramen while Avakian edited the film and his brother George served as musical director that utilized his connections as an executive at Columbia Records. Stern wouldn't direct another feature, but Avakian would direct again while editing a handful of films, with such examples being the editor of The Miracle Worker (1962) and director of End of the Road (1970), an X-rated comedy-drama.

As a film involving the playing of jazz cut to images, it is a pretty good time for those who will accept something that is compromised by the decisions made by Stern and the Avakians in what to show and what not to show. This is perhaps most apparent by the opening two groups, in which a gradual reveal of the first group is done with credits (which is interesting) is then followed by a cut from Thelonious Monk to footage of America's Cup yacht trials that has a bit of voiceover in the way.  In general, the thing to remember about selecting what to film and not to film makes any type of film documenting a festival a fortuitous challenge. One can't please everyone, especially since the film does not cover artists such as Duke Ellington or Miles Davis. You think about these things and other curiosities, such as Anita O'Day, who admitted later she was high on heroin at the time of her performance. It isn't the definitive concert film, but it is a film of charmful curiosity that will suffice for 85 minutes. You'll hear the music and probably see just how your reaction tracks with the shots that come every so often of audience members viewing it in real time, one who couldn't have seen where these music artists will go from there, particularly with rock-and-roll artist Chuck Berry. The highlight, or at least the one that undoubtedly is most promising is Louis Armstrong and his performance of "Rockin' Chair", because no one can resist a famed presence, especially one who is obviously more than just a showman when it comes to performance. O'Day, regardless of the cuts to the audience, is obviously in her element with "Sweet Georgia Brown" and being infectious in energy. Jackson performed twice at the actual festival, once with the Duke Ellington Orchestra and the other at midnight as Saturday turned into Sunday on July 6 that had her sing gospel songs, which is certainly interesting to help close a film.  In the end, the road to putting festivals on film (fragments or not) is a strange one, but one can't go wrong picking this film to go along the road to seeing the coverage of music and audience alongside future documented works such as Woodstock (1970) and beyond. It's not a hard film to find and therefore should be a useful one to seek out for oneself to get a start on what all the fuss is about with jazz.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Return of the Fly.

Review #1738: Return of the Fly.

Cast: 

Vincent Price (François Delambre), Brett Halsey (Philippe Delambre), David Frankham (Ronald Holmes / Alan Hinds), Danielle De Metz (Cecile Bonnard), John Sutton (Inspector Beecham), Dan Seymour (Max Barthold), Jack Daly (Granville), Janine Grandel (Mme. Bonnard), Michael Mark (Gaston), and Ed Wolff (The Fly-Creature) Written and Directed by Edward Bernds (#1017 - Space Master X-7)

Review: 

I'm sure you remember The Fly (1958), directed by Kurt Neumann, based on that short story of the same name by George Langelaan about a man-fly hybrid creature told in flashback about how he ended up where he was, which ended up with a fairly interesting classic and other things. Naturally, there was a rush for another movie (despite the whole "dead fly" thing). Sure, there are a few signs that this might not be the most relevant course for a sequel. For one thing, the only person to return for it from the previous film is Vincent Price, who apparently liked the first draft of the script more than the one cut down later for production costs (Herbert Marshall, who played the inspector, apparently could not do the film because of sickness). Another is the fact that this was made for roughly $200,000 less than the last one. If you remember, both films were done under the unit of Robert L. Lippert (a "King of the Bs" kind of producer, who actually started as a theater chain owner), and he decided to bring in Edward Bernds to direct; perhaps it is fitting that it was him, since one of his five films that he directed with Lippert as producer was the film usually put on the double-bill with The Fly in Space Master X-7 (1958); a handful of his hundreds of films produced for 20th Century Fox involved CinemaScope, since he was contracted to make a number of films for them with the lenses, and this one would be done in black-and-white while re-using the lab sets from before (incidentally, this was put on a double bill with The Alligator People).

So yes, the course of action taken was to set the film years after the original and involve the son of the original lead focus. Honestly, for a made on the cheap kind of movie that was dubbed "The Zipper" by Price, it could have been a lot worse. Again, there is probably a limited amount of ideas one could make involving a guy and a fly costume, but I find what they came up with at least semi-plausible, since it isn't just another fluke accident. Unfortunately, the lesser effects for its title creature and trappings of conveniences and contrivances ultimately help to sink the film into mediocrity. Price leads the film in dignity, mostly because each Fly film doesn't lend itself to many opportunities to ham it up for most folks; there's that tinge of awareness that makes for somewhat useful drama. Of course, it is also evident where in the 80-minute run-time they decided to cut down elements for gimmicks, and it seems apparent right around the time the creature shows up (done out of spite by a secret crook). Halsey does fine with the small moments required in measured curiosity, but it probably doesn't help when he is sidelined for the parts involving the Fly (since not only does it not speak, it is played by a circus giant). Frankham might be an interesting double-crosser, but really this doesn't go too far being convenient stuff. Sutton doesn't exactly stoke much interest as the supposed inspector successor, standing in the background to say mild stuff after over half the film has already ended. I can't quantify exactly what De Metz is to the main characters, and honestly you won't really remember, because there isn't really much to the dynamic between her and Halsey. One will have a weird time figuring out which effect brings the film down more: the effect of seeing the fly-human creature, bumbling around looking like they want to not have the heavy contraption to slip from their head...or the human-faced fly that looks a bit too transparent (the mini-voice isn't helpful either). Honestly, I wasn't really expecting the film to end on a downer note, but the way they manage to tie it all together with its climax is pretty weak. Sure, there are probably only two ways this can end: life or death; however, it just seems a bit too silly to really stick the landing, probably because there's the whole matter of "well, somebody killed two people, but it wasn't the MAN who did it" (a crook may be a crook, but...you know, they are still dead). Really it seems more amusing that the creature can evade a whole bunch of cops (at least ones in the 1950s...wait, just when is the movie set?) and then come back to its original trappings with no trouble.

There would be another Fly film years later with Curse of the Fly (1965), which was one of Lippert's last features as producer. Look, both versions of The Fly (1958, 1986) are good enough to stand on their own without any follow-up, that much is for sure. But I suppose if one really needed to know where filmmakers can go with another story about man-flies, I guess you won't have too much disappointment with this movie. It isn't terrible, but mediocrity with horror is dime of a dozen that may or may not suit one's curiosity.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Birds (1963).

On the Beach.

Review #1402: On the Beach.

Cast: 
Gregory Peck (Commander Dwight Towers), Ava Gardner (Moira Davidson), Fred Astaire (Julian Osborn), Anthony Perkins (Lieutenant Commander Peter Holmes), Donna Anderson (Mary Holmes), John Tate (Admiral Bridie), Harp McGuire (Lieutenant Sunderstrom), Lola Brooks (Lieutenant Hosgood), Ken Wayne (Lieutenant Benson), and Guy Doleman (Lieutenant Commander Farrel) Produced and Directed by Stanley Kramer (#139 - Guess Who's Coming to Dinner and #228 - Inherit the Wind)

Review: 
"I take a very reluctant and conservative view on what a single film can do in affecting our lives. I don't make films to stir the world. I am not conscious of a responsibility to society or even to my own social consciousness when I make a film. My motivation can be as simple as saying, gee, this would make an exciting picture."

Message films, with the right execution, can strike a chord with an audience. Stanley Kramer was a director-producer who liked to specialize in these type of films throughout his career in film. Kramer had written columns for his university paper and graduated with a business degree from New York University, and it was his zest for writing that led to a internship with 20th Century Fox (as opposed to his initial ambition for law), which led to a variety of small jobs around the Hollywood studios for over a decade, such as set furniture mover, writer-researcher, and film cutter. His plan to make his own independent production company was delayed due to Pearl Harbor, and Kramer served underr the Signal Corps to make training films. After the end of the war, he formed a partnership alongside writer Herbie Baker, publicist George Glass and producer Carl Foreman to form Screen Plays Inc. They set out to make films with stories they wanted to do that had something of value to say as per their personal taste without needing to rely on stars. Their attempts at producing independent films met with a few notable films such as Champion (1949), The Men (1950), and High Noon (1952). In 1951, Columbia Pictures signed Kramer and the company to a deal that would give them their own production unit within the studio that gave them free rein and increased budgets. It did not last the contracted five years, and Kramer felt that this one of the most dangerous moves of his career. In a three year partnership, he would produce films such as The Wild One (1953) and The Caine Mutiny (1954) before deciding to enter the foray of directing and producing with Not as a Stranger (1955). This was his fourth work, released between noted films The Defiant Ones (1958) and Inherit the Wind (1960), and it simultaneously premiered on all seven continents one week before Christmas Eve. Despite fair reviews, it was not a big hit with audiences, although it has found appreciation in later years.

Can you imagine what the world would look like after a massive event that affected people's lives and led to long-term consequences? Authors have written apocalyptic and post apocalyptic fiction for as long as people have been around on this Earth, with the modern age being no different in inspiring further looks into what a world would look like with disaster from nuclear fallout, or from something like disease or the environment. Nevil Shute wrote one such work on the apocalypse, writing his work in 1957 while residing in Australia (he also worked as an aeronautical engineer and pilot before his death in 1960). The novel has been turned into a film twice, with the other adaptation being a TV film in 2000. Shute found dissatisfaction with this adaptation when it came to certain aspects of the novel, particularly the romance between Peck and Gardner's characters being more pronounced than in the book when it came to the former's fidelity to his dead wife (Peck agreed with this privately). It certainly must have been an interesting film to view for the time (where this decade had seen war in Korea and continuing Cold War tension) - a bleak movie through and through, where blame is not given to any one side of the unseen war. While one is spared visual decay of vanquished people or even the effects of radiation on the survivors, the film manages to do well enough in maintaining itself in grim composure that makes one think about their future that could have been or the future that could be for what was the future of 1964, complete with filming in Australia. Peck handles himself with resolve in a mellow voice that can handle impending doom and conflicting feelings with care. Two actors playing against the type they were usually known for in film are femme fatale Gardner and song-and-dance Astaire, and each follow Peck fine, making light romance and guilt come out with some effectiveness. Perkins and Anderson give off a bit of intimacy and anxiety decently enough, although they don't stick out as much as they could when it comes to such a dreary quiet time. It is the sights and what one can see and doesn't see within the Australia landscape and beyond (such as a shot of the Golden Gate Bridge with no one present) that drives the film for 134 minutes with adequacy. It comes off with an urgency that warns for the future without becoming too much of a lecture to stand on its own as a film of oblivion that resonates still after over six decades since release.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

And now, an announcement for the month of May, comprised of 30 films.

Pillow Talk.

Review #1401: Pillow Talk.

Cast: 
Rock Hudson (Brad Allen), Doris Day (Jan Morrow), Tony Randall (Jonathan Forbes), Thelma Ritter (Alma), Nick Adams (Tony Walters), Karen Norris (Miss Dickenson), Julia Meade (Marie), Allen Jenkins (Harry), Marcel Dalio (Mr. Pierot), Lee Patrick (Mrs. Walters), Mary McCarty (Nurse Resnick), and Alex Gerry (Dr. Maxwell) Directed by Michael Gordon.

Review: 
"Comedy is the most serious tragedy in the world. Play it that way and you can't go wrong. If you ever think of yourself as funny, you haven't got a chance."

Sometimes the best way to talk about a film is to just say it is nice and leave it that. This is a decent comedy for its time, a fair highlight for its stars and director to take pride in. Michael Gordon went from being a student of the Yale Drama School and member of the Group Theatre to working in films and stage, where he would go from crafting low-budget b-movies in the early 1940s to noirs and dramas by the end of the decade, with Cyrano de Bergerac (1950) serving as a highlight. His career was interrupted the following year due to blacklisting; he would do stage productions for the next eight years until successes in that field led to Universal-International wanting to bring him back into directing with this film, which would be the first in a string of eight comedies he would do for the rest of his career, which ended with How Do I Love Thee? (1970). As for Day and Hudson, both were established stars in their own right, with the former having success in musicals, comedies, and thrillers that went with a prolific singing career and the latter was a leading man for adventures and melodramas since the early 1950s. The two would collaborate on two further films together over the next five years, and they became lifelong friends.

For the time, this surely proved a fun daring time for enjoyment. The film was written by Stanley Shapiro and Maurice Richlin that was based on a story by Russell Rouse and Clarence Greene, who had done the script in the 1940s that was bought and sold numerous times without being produced (each would receive an Academy Award for their work in the category of Best Original Screenplay, beating out noted films such as The 400 Blows and North by Northwest). This was a time where even the title of the film had to go through wrangling with the Production Code before giving in (imagine if it had gone with the alternate choice of Any Way the Wind Blows). Party lines are (mostly) a thing of the past now, but they were quite prevalent for most of the 20th century as a way to provide service for cities both rural and urban through a shared local loop circuit. At any rate, there certainly is enough room for some clever moments with Day and Hudson with this scenario, particularly with the use of split-screens in certain sequences that make for some humor and passion. They click together in ways that seem instant, natural at inspiring curiosity and charm in their respective manners with class in romance, with Day being quite passionate and Hudson being subtle in charming humor. Randall (who would appear with Day and Hudson twice more) does well as a fussy foil while Ritter rounds out the cast with deadpan stupor. While one will know what they are in for pretty early in its 104 minute run-time, the film maintains itself with careful vigor that doesn't lead to impatience or a lack of meaningful interest in where the film wants to go to drive some laughs and passion, doing a relatively fine job in making appealing entertainment that has kept most of its luster through six decades of time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The 400 Blows.

Review #1400: The 400 Blows.

Cast: 
Jean-Pierre Léaud (Antoine Doinel), Albert Rémy (Julien Doinel), Claire Maurier (Gilberte Doinel), Guy Decomble (Sourpuss), Patrick Auffay (René Bigey), Georges Flamant (Monsieur Bigey), Pierre Repp (English teacher), Daniel Couturier (Betrand Mauricet), and Luc Andrieux (Le professeur de gym) Directed by François Truffaut.

Review: 
“I am often asked at what point in my love affair with films I began to want to be a director or a critic. Truthfully, I don't know. All I know is that I wanted to get closer and closer to films.”

There are numerous directors that can cited as notable or iconic in their own right around the world in many genres and styles. Francois Truffaut was a lover of film who wanted to break from the traditions of quality in film, particularly in his native France. He had an unsatisfying home life as a child, growing up primarily with his grandmother for the first ten years of his life, and he never met his biological father. Living with his mother and adopted father was not particularly satisfying, since she found him a distraction and he was often left alone on weekends, which led to him trying to get out of the house as often as possible that worked into a love for cinema. Some of his experiences in young life are reflected in this film, such as a stolen typewriter and his childhood friend Robert Lachenay also served as an inspiration for the film while working as an assistant to this and several future films. Although he found himself expelled from numerous schools, he aspired to become self-taught in cinema and books, doing the former three times a day and the latter three times a week, with some films he saw over ten times (before his death he would claim to have seen nearly three thousand films). He formed his own cinema club when he was 16 after time spent with film clubs all around Paris, with the biggest inspiration being the Cinémathèque Française, one of the largest archives of film documents and objects in the world that has offered screenings of films all over the world daily that has endured in Paris since 1936. André Bazin was a key figure in Truffaut's path from situations such as being in the French Army to journalism, since Bazin was a co-founder of Cahiers du cinema, which has endured in publication for six decades with several noted writers that would become filmmakers in their own right, including ones belonging to the French New Wave like Truffaut, who served as writer and eventual editor for the magazine, where he was once called "The Gravedigger of French Cinema", and he would later say that writing about films helped him understand them better in terms of exercising one's intellect. The French New Wave (described by Truffaut once as not so much a movement or a group but as a quality) found inspiration through blending Italian neorealism and classical Hollywood with directors like Howard Hawks and Alfred Hitchcock (who Truffaut would famously do an interview with in 1962 that was published into a book in 1966), who he and others applauded as auteurs that prevailed over the traditional quality from directors who seemed to follow the script as a stager without authority or flexibility. His yearning to make films led to short films in 1955 with A Visit and The Mischief Makers (1957). These, along with The 400 Blows (known as France as Les Quatre Cents Coups, which refers to an expression that involves living a wild life) would be made on modest budgets. Truffaut planned to film a bunch of sketches that involved childhood as a series of short films, which was the basis of his second short film Les Mistons. One of those ideas for a sketch would evolve into a film (the sketch in question involved the main character playing hooky from school and making up the excuse of his mother dying to try and get out of trouble). In a career cut short by his death from a brain tumor at the age of 52, he would make over twenty films as a director (while also acting in a few films as well), with notable productions of his being Fahrenheit 451 (1966; Truffaut's first film in color and only non-French production), Day for Night (1973, winner of an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film) and The Last Metro (1980).

Truffaut once predicted that films would become "more personal than autobiography...Tomorrow's film will be an act of love." He certainly seems to have been proven correct in his own right. What is there really to say about a film like this? How many directors can have a debut as tremendously fascinating as this one proves to be with how everything sticks together in realism with simplicity for a director making a very personal and very effective film that seems quite distinct from one could expect from a coming-of-age film. For one thing, most of the film was shot without sound, with dubbing being done later (the notable exception being the psychologist scene). The film was done in DyaliScope (a widescreen process similar to CinemaScope), with Henri Decaë serving as cinematographer (being the highest-paid person for the film), who does an excellent job with capturing a stark gorgeous look that is faithful to the film's purpose of naturalism without betraying it. The key to the power of this film is its main performance from 14-year old Léaud, who Truffaut picked after auditioning hundreds of children, finding similar traits to Truffaut himself in terms of "a certain suffering with regard to the family." He proves a worthy presence to follow with, filled with plenty of unruly conviction that is compelling to watch in the ups and downs that come from growing up. The misunderstandings that come from watching him is one we can see in ourselves in some way, particularly in that longing that comes out in the question sequence near the end, done with the actor having just an idea of what questions would be asked and what the answers would be that matched the storyline - in other words, he improvises quite well for is needed. The two would collaborate together on six further films together, with four of them (one of them being a short) featuring the character of Antoine in a two decade span. The rest of the cast keep up with him just as well, such as a rough Decomble (as to expect from a tough teacher) with Rémy and Maurier proving wonderfully morose when it comes to looking at these parents beyond initial conclusions about an unruly child and the parents that made said kid. I don't think there is a single person who grew up without feeling misunderstood once, whether by their parent(s) or their teachers or even people they believe are their friends. It doesn't end in adulthood either, depending on one's outlook on people, I suppose. Freedom doesn't really come from standing on a beach but in finding people to love. But in any case, this is a wonderfully crafted look upon adolescence in the eyes of stark realism and honesty that resonate now more than ever as a fascinating film for world cinema and for Truffaut as a whole.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Rio Bravo.

Review #1399: Rio Bravo.

Cast: 
John Wayne (John T. Chance), Dean Martin (Dude), Ricky Nelson (Colorado/Ryan), Angie Dickinson (Feathers), Walter Brennan (Stumpy), Ward Bond (Pat Wheeler), John Russell (Nathan Burdette), Pedro Gonzalez Gonzalez (Carlos Robante), Estelita Rodriguez (Consuelo Robante), and Claude Akins (Joe Burdette) Directed by Howard Hawks (#951 - The Big Sleep and #1352 - His Girl Friday)

Review:
"A good movie is three good scenes and no bad scenes."

Collaborations can make for an entertaining film if in the hands of the right people, with this being particularly true for Howard Hawks and John Wayne, who made five films together (all but one being a Western), which began with Red River (1948). The film was written by longtime screenwriter Jules Furthman and science fiction writer/screenwriter Leigh Brackett as a loose adaptation of a short story of the same name by B.H. McCampbell. The plot outline may seem familiar to those who have viewed High Noon (1952), which Wayne and Hawks both criticized, with Wayne calling it "un-American" since he viewed it as an allegory against blacklisting and Hawks disapproving the idea of a sheriff "running around town like a chicken with his head cut off asking for help, and finally his Quaker wife had to save him". For his part, Gary Cooper (star of said criticized film) thought it was phony (which to me seems like the key side in a triangle of eye-rolling statements). Quibbles aside, Hawks would go on to make two further films that were variations on this film in the next eleven years with Wayne as the lead and Brackett as writer with El Dorado (1967) and Rio Bravo (1970) and inspiration can be found in John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13 (1976).

One gets plenty of engaging entertainment here in this film, with five prominent stars besides Wayne present that come alive with their own quirks that make for riveting moments that fit the hallmarks of a Hawks film. Everything comes together without a stumble, particularly with its silent four minute opening sequence, which helps set the film up nicely and effectively with principle. It is a sprawling film that runs at 141 minutes with solid ambition and useful execution in its warmness. Wayne, playing on a type that he had done for several years (right down to the hat that was worn in several films starting with Stagecoach) does a fine job with a balancing act of stature and reaction to others that make for some amusing moments of chemistry with the others. Singers-turned actors Martin and Nelson do well in following along with Wayne in their own right, with Martin (told by Hawks to not play a cowboy but to just play a drunk) doing well with showing inner demons demanded by this part alongside growing assurance, and Nelson gives off a youthful confidence; each also is given a chance to sing, which comes around right before the climax, which is both unsurprising and not too distracting. Dickinson, in a breakthrough performance after getting her start in television, makes for a playful balance to Wayne, having a fairly believable chemistry, where one doesn't see the 25-year age difference between the two as too much of a distraction. Brennan and Bond fill out their time with warmness (moreso for the former) and capability in the time they are given to shine. Russell, though not given as much time as the others, does make for a fair adversarial presence to drive the tension for the inevitable showdown, which delivers in sealing the fate of a pretty good sprawling Western with folks one will come across plenty when searching for entertainment helmed by someone with plenty to deliver as well.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Monster of Piedras Blancas.

Review #1281: The Monster of Piedras Blancas.

Cast:
Les Tremayne (Dr. Sam Jorgenson), Forrest Lewis (Constable George Matson), John Harmon (Sturges, the Lighthouse Keeper), Frank Arvidson (Kochek, the Storekeeper), Jeanne Carmen (Lucille Sturges), Don Sullivan (Fred), Pete Dunn (Eddie/the Monster), and Joseph La Cava (Mike) Directed by Irvin Berwick.

Review:
I suppose anything goes when it comes to monster movies, whether it involves silly costumes or some other silly aspect to accompany what you could count as horror. My first question was what Piedras Blancas actually was, since it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, as opposed to those ones that are robots or brides. It actually refers to a light station (complete with its own point and lighthouse in its 19 acres) that is roughly five miles west by northwest of Sam Simeon in California (it also means white rocks in Spanish). Of course this film wasn't actually filmed in that location, instead being shot at a different lighthouse. One would think a film that wants to use a location for its film would actually shoot there, but this is certainly a movie lacking in other significant aspects anyway. Simply put, this is a lame little movie, harmless yet annoyingly mediocre. This was produced by Jack Kevan (in his only production effort), who did makeup work on several films (generally without credit), such as Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954), having supervising the manufacture of the suit used for the film. He created the monster costume for this film as well, which goes...not quite as well. This was released on a double bill with Okefenokee, a swamp movie that does Actually, what made me really amused is that one of the film posters shows the film "winning" a Shock Award from Famous Monsters of Filmland Magazine. If you can't trust posters that display the awards won before it even gets released, what can you trust? (this is where I would likely include a cynical response that lengthens this bland review by a few sentences, but I forgot to include one out of cynicism). One really can goof off when it comes to a film that really doesn't have much energy to it, particularly when it comes to its silly looking monster, which naturally shows up for a small amount of its 71 minute run-time and looks like a melted pig, which is funny since this is supposed to be a reptile. I wonder how I would've reacted to this if I had seen this film after Black Lagoon, but even "inspired" movies can still work if given enough to work with material. I can't even remember a single person from this film, where the acting seems too stiff to really make this seem big to go with. Imagine making a monster movie where the only interesting thing to think about is where you can find a lighthouse to visit just like the people do in this film. I take that back, actually, there is one interesting moment involving a head being carried around by the monster, which probably seems easy to stick out among films of its decade (unless one is Fiend without a Face, that is), so that sure is something. It isn't the kind of thing to move the needle heavily in the film's fate, but at least you can't say it is completely boring. When it comes to bland monster movies, this is easily the template film for that description, suited for a most boring and un-haunted night. Or in other words, a Tuesday.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

A Bucket of Blood.

Review #1186: A Bucket of Blood.

Cast: 
Dick Miller (Walter Paisley), Barboura Morris (Carla), Antony Carbone (Leonard de Santis), Julian Burton (Maxwell H. Brock), Ed Nelson (Art Lacroix), John Brinkley (Will), John Herman Shaner (Oscar), Judy Bamber (Alice), Myrtle Vail (Mrs. Swickert), and Bert Convy (Lou Raby) 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, and #1147 - X: The Man with the X-ray Eyes)

Review: 
Horror and comedy films are generally entertaining on their own, but mixing the two genres together can certainly invite the possibility of something really interesting, particularly if you have a good set of hands on and behind the camera. Roger Corman and an handy ensemble cast are sure up to the task. Unsurprisingly, the budget and time to shoot for this film was fairly low - $50,000 and five days (shooting under the working title of "The Living Dead"). The sets themselves were leftovers from another AIP film, Diary of a High School Bride (1959). Fittingly, the sets would be re-used for The Little Shop of Horrors the following year. Miller, although he was happy with the story and humor from the finished product, wasn't too happy with the production values, noting the mannequins used for the statues and the fact that they didn't put plaster on him (instead using grey makeup) for the last scene. Corman and screenwriter Charles B. Griffith spent a day drifting around beatnik coffeehouses, using observations of the scene along with ideas and reactions to make the basic story, which in some ways resemble Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933).

In any case, this is a pretty enjoyable little movie, shining fairly well with a good degree of black humor and occasional scares that prove efficient for a 66 minute run-time. Perhaps a longer film might've resulted in the characters being fleshed-out a bit more (or perhaps a bit more emphasis on horror), but the material involving the beatniks is pretty funny anyways, as one might expect from people with a bit of pseudo-intellectualism and offbeat nature. Miller does well making this hapless yet ambitious lead interesting to view the film through - after all, he is basically playing a serial killer (with a calling card, no less), but he manages to have the right kind of presence the film needs to go on. The other cast-mates don't have as much time, but they each do decently with their roles when needed, such Morris and her encouraging nature or Burton and his offbeat poetry. The movie has its limits with money and time, but it manages to carry itself with some dark charm through some magic with silly lines and a game cast that make for a good time. Like with other Roger Corman films, this is certainly one to advise for anyone with a curiosity towards some fun that makes for quite a delight.

Rest in peace to Dick Miller, who died yesterday. He was a noted character actor who appeared in several films over six decades of work - appearing in films such as The Terminator (1984) alongside over a dozen films for Roger Corman.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Alligator People.

Review #807: The Alligator People.

Cast
Beverly Garland (Joyce Webster / Jane Marvin), Bruce Bennett (Dr. Eric Lorimer), Lon Chaney Jr. (Mannon), George Macready (Dr. Mark Sinclair), Frieda Inescort (Mrs. Lavinia Hawthorne), Richard Crane (Paul Webster), and Douglas Kennedy (Dr. Wayne MacGregor) Directed by Roy Del Ruth (#395 - The Maltese Falcon (1931) and #432 - The Babe Ruth Story)

Review
With b-movies, sometimes you just have to lower expectations just a notch, and try to see if you can have fun, especially with a movie called The Alligator People. While it is a sci-fi monster film, it does try to utilize horror as well, with the framing device being the main character's recollection of previous events (done by two doctors), as strange as they are. Garland is the highlight, coming off as the most natural, while Chaney is certainly memorable in a villainous role that sometimes comes off as silly. Obviously, the movie has a few alligator people (due to an experiment gone wrong involving serum), with effects that are at least tolerable, if not a bit silly. My favorite is the climax, involving an "alligator person" with a head that reminds me of a Halloween mask. The movie runs at just over 70 minutes, but it feels a bit stiff when trying to actually get to the alligator people, and I do find it a bit funny that there's a laboratory right near a bayou of alligators. There is at least an ending that isn't too cliche, with the main character not being told that her tale is actually true. In any case, it's an okay movie, not too bad for anyone.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Attack of the Giant Leeches.

Review #742: Attack of the Giant Leeches.

Cast
Ken Clark (Steve Benton), Yvette Vickers (Liz Walker), Jan Shepard (Nan Greyson), Michael Emmet (Cal Moulton), Tyler McVey (Doc Greyson), Bruno VeSota (Dave Walker), Gene Roth (Sheriff Kovis), and Dan White (Porky Reed) Directed by Bernard L. Kowalski.

Review
With a title like this, you'll either get one of two things: An outrageously silly movie about giant leeches...Or a cheap movie that doesn't really show much of the leeches. In this, you get the latter. To be honest, leeches can be a scary thing to think about before going into the water, especially those blood sucking ones. In this, they are apparently mutated to giant size due to nuclear weapons, while residing in a cave and taking a bunch of people with them to slowly suck their blood. In theory, this would be scary. But the movie never really lives up to the premise very much, being a movie that seems to dwell on its characters more than the leeches. It's not a terrible movie, but it's not at all scary not really that interesting. It's not even easy to make fun of (aside from MST3K) because it goes so quick (barely an hour) that you'll forget about as soon as you watch anything else. It is interesting that this was produced by Roger Corman (who directed/produced #368 - The Little Shop of Horrors and produced #592 - Dementia 13), along with his brother Gene. The acting is standard, typical for a monster flick that plods along, but at least the monsters look okay. Ultimate middle of the road type of movie, but if you've got an hour to waste...and have no other options...you'll be okay.

Countdown to 750 Reviews: 10, 9, 8...

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Teenagers from Outer Space.

Review #741: Teenagers from Outer Space.

Cast
David Love (Derek), Dawn Bender (Betty Morgan), Bryan Grant (Thor), Harvey B. Dunn (Gramps Morgan), Tom Graeff (Joe Rogers), King Moody (Spacecraft Captain), Helen Sage (Nurse Morse), and Frederick Welch (Dr. C.R. Brandt, MD) Directed by Tom Graeff.

Review
Welp, gotta have one b-movie for October-wait a minute, this isn't exactly a b-movie, as this was actually distributed by a major studio (Warner Bros. Pictures)...though the production company is certainly unique. This film was (and I'm not joking) wrote, directed, edited, co-starred, and produced by none other than Tom Graeff. Oh, and he also provided the cinematography, special effects, and wrote the music. In fact, the budget ($14,000) was mostly provided by three of the actors in the movie, while filming was done around the Hollywood area, most notably Bronson Canyon (which has been used in movies such as White Zombie and even Star Trek VI).

I was not surprised to learn early in the film that the teenagers from outer space...are played by actors who look a bit too old to be playing supposed teenagers, though it should be noted the movie was called The Gargon Terror in the UK, which sounds better, though the gargon is only in the movie for maybe five minutes. Anyway, back to the film. The opening scenes are certainly interesting, what with the "Atomic Disintegrator" being used on a dog and all. To tell you the truth, the movie isn't really the usual kind of cheesy sci-fi invasion usually seen in some flicks of the era. There are two main halves to the movie, one being Derek being chased by Thor to return him to the ship, and the other being the effort to stop the Gargon. While the movie doesn't exactly succeed in either very well, the effort comes off as genuine. The acting is standard, but at least it doesn't distract too much. Okay, maybe the seeming generosity that Dunn's character gives to everyone (even the villain) is a bit amusing. The Disintegrator ray effect is about what you'd expect, right down to the jointed skeleton. The movie starts off a bit slow (especially the parts where Derek and Thor ask questions about stuff on Earth...like the parts of a car), but it eventually flows to a normal pace, with a quick ending for a movie that isn't too sluggish. It's not a terribly made movie, and you can see the amount of dedication it took. Sure, there's a bunch of noticeable parts of when they just couldn't make it look anything other than laughable, but I can't find myself giving too much flak for a movie that certainly has a history worth mentioning.

Before (and after) watching this, I'm both surprised and a little impressed at the sheer amount of responsibilities that Graeff did for this film. Not a lot a people can say they did so much to make a film...and maybe there's a good reason for that. Graeff suffered a breakdown shortly after the release, and he died in 1970, with this being the film he is most remembered for. But the film still has a legacy of its own, even being homaged (along with other sci-fi flicks of the time) in Mars Attacks! years later and even being spoofed on Mystery Science Theater 3000. In conclusion, while the movie is mostly standard fare for the course, its history and dedication by Graeff make for an interesting look that I'd at least watch once. Sure, it has its flaws, but they are flaws we'd probably make if we had to make a movie on what he did.

Countdown to 750 Reviews: 10, 9...

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Sleeping Beauty.

Review #660: Sleeping Beauty.

Cast
Mary Costa (Princess Aurora / Sleeping Beauty), Eleanor Audley (Maleficent), Verna Felton (Flora - The Red Fairy and Queen Leah), Barbara Jo Allen (Fauna - The Green Fairy), Barbara Luddy (Merryweather - The Blue Fairy), Bill Shirley (Prince Phillip), Taylor Holmes (King Stefan), Bill Thompson (King Hubert), and Marvin Miller (The Narrator) Directed by Clyde Geronimi (#178 - Peter Pan, #373 - Cinderella, and #573 - The Three Caballeros), Les Clark, Eric Larson, and Wolfgang Reitherman (#250 - The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh and #598 - The Rescuers)

Review
Sleeping Beauty was given such a middling reaction (and little profit) that it was the last fairy tale Disney film made for 30 years. But now the movie has a legacy and is now called a classic (being re-released a few times does help), so time does change. The movie is astonishing to say the least. The movie looks beautiful to watch, the way that it is animated and how the backgrounds look so colorful and detailed. I like how the three fairies are colored, it's not just a simple red-green-blue schemes, the way that it is colored makes the difference. The cast is pretty decent, with Audley standing out, mostly because of the character she plays. Sleeping Beauty herself is alright, but her screentime is limited, focusing more on the villain/fairies. Speaking of which, Maleficent is awesome. Her design and her voice are so delightful to watch, she manages to be more interesting than Sleeping Beauty herself, which is probably why they made a movie about it...55 years later (not exactly late for Walt Disney Studios), but at least the movie is still fun to watch. The songs are alright, and the movie flows quickly enough at 75 minutes to never really drag on, it's easily watchable and easily enjoyable for anyone, with a cool villain to headline it all.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Devil's Disciple.

Review #612: The Devil's Disciple.

Cast
Burt Lancaster (Anthony Anderson), Kirk Douglas (Richard Dudgeon), Laurence Olivier (General John Burgoyne), Janette Scott (Judith Anderson), Eva Le Gallienne (Mrs. Dudgeon), Harry Andrews (Major Swindon), and Basil Sydney (Lawyer Hawkins) Directed by Guy Hamilton (#280 - Diamonds Are Forever, #289 - The Man with the Golden Gun, #291 - Goldfinger and #293 - Live and Let Die)

Review
It figures to review a movie (based on a play) based around the Revolutionary War on the day of America' declaration of Independence 238 years ago, and The Devil's Disciple fits that bill just nicely. Is the movie good though? Yeah, pretty much. The most interesting actor is Kirk Douglas, playing a clever little character that fits so unevenly with the rest of the character, and yet he's the most interesting one of the bunch. Lancaster is at least commanding, and Olivier is as well, the cast is pretty good all in all. The action is brief, but it is fun to watch, and while the movie may run short, it does its job pretty well. The movie may take its time to get where it wants, but it eventually makes its mark, and it works well overall, especially today. Happy Independence Day to all, and stay safe.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: House on Haunted Hill (1959).

Review #369: House on Haunted Hill.

Cast
Vincent Price (Frederick Loren), Carol Ohmart (Annabelle Loren), Richard Long (Lance Schroeder), Alan Marshal (Dr. David Trent), Carolyn Craig (Nora Manning), Elisha Cook Jr. (Watson Pritchard), Julie Mitchum (Ruth Bridgers), Leona Anderson (Mrs. Slydes), and Howard Hoffman (Jonas) Directed by William Castle.

Review
In a way this was the longest time ever spent on a film. Why so? See, I began watching the film last Tuesday before being cut off due a neighbor's fire, which postponed the review until I got enough time to watch this ironically short length film which lasts about 70 minutes. So how was it? It was allright. It wasn't as silly I thought it could've been, and it does have its moments with even a twist at the end, which I didn't really expect honestly. And there's our main lead, Vincent Price, who has been reviewed here before in House of Wax and The Great Mouse Detective, and in this film he does pretty good, evoking the classical master of cool, overshadowing the rest of the cast and yet still making this a fine film to at least watch.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.