Master of the World (1961).

Review #2255: Master of the World (1961)

Cast: 

Vincent Price (Robur), Charles Bronson (John Strock), Henry Hull (Prudent), Mary Webster (Dorothy Prudent), David Frankham (Philip Evans), Richard Harrison (Helmsman Alistair), Vito Scotti (Airship Chef Topage), Wally Campo (First Mate Turner), and Ken Terrell (Crewman Shanks) Directed by William Witney.

Review: 

Oh sure, an American International Pictures production that isn't just about horror, what could go wrong? The movie is loosely adapted from the works on Jules Verne, specifically the novels Robur the Conqueror (written in 1886) and Master of the World (written in 1904), as screenwriter Richard Matheson (in his second screenplay for an AIP film, as this was released between House of Usher [1960] and The Pit and the Pendulum [1961]) combined elements for this hodgepodge. But hey, we (yes, I include you) are here for the entertainment value in whatever is being cooked up on an "efficient" budget and maybe even in its cast. And this seems especially apparent here with Vincent Price being the star. Believe it or not, there were rumblings of making a follow-up feature, despite the way the actual film ended (an explosion!), complete with drawings, although these plans were scrapped pretty quickly. Witney was an experienced director dating back to the 1930s, which included films such as Adventures of Captain Marvel (1941) along with plenty of television; he directed until he was in his late sixties. 

Really this is a curious movie, because you get a little adventure in color with Price trying to thread the needle of adversary that doesn't require fey qualities to go with Bronson getting a chance of a leading man as opposed to the early heavy stuff (such as Machine-Gun Kelly, if you remember) to go with a few others that either will keep your interest or have the effect of a puddle. 102 minutes is probably decent enough to command the attention of a movie that has pretty routine filmmaking to go with occasional goofy comic-strip moments. So yes, you get the triangle of conflict between the obviously cool adversary in Price (no bias detected), a bullish Hull, and "ambiguity" (nicest word possible) in Bronson. Well, and a bit of hammy old-man acting from Frankham and window-aisle stuff in Webster, but you get the idea. Price seems to be having quite the ball here, playing the angle that arises in pacifism taken to a certain type of notch when it comes to trying to force it down on everyone from the clouds to go with occasional spouting of the Bible. Price isn't playing it for camp, but he makes it fascinating, nonetheless. Bronson and his dryness might not compare to, say, The Magnificent Seven (1960), but it probably does reflect well to see his casual observation at the difference between ideals and methods, particularly with how leaden one finds Hull or Webster (set in the 19th century or not, wondering what is fit for a "gentleman" is not interesting in the slightest for someone like me). Interestingly, this is a movie made for about a million dollars that still manages to look a bit cheap, particularly if you like to wonder just what is made of stock footage and what is not (the opening at least is obvious because hey, "flight'!). Sometimes the aerial view is a bit silly (those familiar with rear projection might have a guess), which is especially true with the rope sequence. At a certain point, one just has to wonder where the low bar is but considering certain other AIP features past and present in terms of trying one's patience (such as here and here), I was fine with it here just enough. I can at least dig the climax for giving one a good sendoff in terms of unsettling ideas. Those with the fortitude to enjoy an AIP film for what it is in goofy entertainment will find something fine here, while others might recognize an even more hammier AIP film than usual. I went with the flow because it went with my expectations of a fairly decent time, which I suppose made it a winner that I could recommend for those with the fortitude to enjoy a goofy film from old yesteryear with one worthwhile performance to follow along with in the usual tradition.

Overall, I give it 7 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).