Hell's Outpost.

Review #1871: Hell's Outpost.

Cast: 

Rod Cameron (Tully Gibbs), Joan Leslie (Sarah Moffit), John Russell (Ben Hodes), Chill Wills (Kevin Russel), Ben Cooper (Alec Bacchione), Kristine Miller (Beth Hodes), Jim Davis (Sam Horne), Taylor Holmes (Timothy Byers), Barton MacLane (Sheriff Olson), and Ruth Lee (Mrs. Moffit) Produced and Directed by Joseph Kane.

Review: 

Admittedly, the action movie is in more forms than just big-budget adventure or costume drama. No, one can also encounter action flicks in cheap B-movie form, courtesy of studios like Republic Pictures. Republic, if you were wondering, was the motion picture company behind many, many Westerns, serials, and B-films (with occasional A-features like The Quiet Man), which just happened to have a select number of films that featured John Wayne, Gene Autry, or Roy Rogers. It came about in 1935 as the result of merging six Poverty Row studios together, as devised by founder Herbert J. Yates that was focused on low-budget product with his laboratory to counter the lack of need from major studios to have his lab. As for the director for this film...Joseph Kane naturally ended up behind the chair because of his experience with Republic. The San Diego native actually went from an interest in cellist to directing, and he took up jobs with Mascot Pictures and Republic Pictures with serials in 1935, and he would stay with the latter studio until its demise in 1958, serving as an associate producer on numerous films along with editor and screenwriter. While he did not get to serve as primary director much in the years after the 1950s ended, he continued with second-unit work until his death in 1975 at the age of 81. 

Sure picked a winner, huh? Technically, it is more of a noir than an action movie, but at least there are a few fistfights (lasting less than five minutes each) to go along with a little bit of action involving loony rich guys and oddball heroes writing false letters in which both actors look like more famous ones if you squint a bit. There really isn't anything particularly great about the movie in any sense or form, and it definitely seems a bit too packed at 89 minutes, but one interested in B-movies or things to pass by on a long summer day could tolerate it. The only thing that sounds fun is the fistfight, because who doesn't want to hear about it? It happens, naturally, in the dark, and one hopes you have a good eye to see with the print (or video, if you like easy-to-find old movies). It isn't anything too special, but again, it satisfies the basic requirement when it comes to stomaching the rest of medium product that makes only the slightest of sense (rich guy decides to fight a guy, agrees to giving him $10,000 in a loan if the other guy wins and then does wild things to stop him enjoying using the money for a mine). This was based on a Luke Short's book Silver Rock, with Kenneth Gamet serving as screenwriter. Truly it fun to be talking about tungsten mines and guys trying to circumvent the other while middling relationships lurk in the background. Cameron (born in Canada but raised in New Jersey) kind of looks like if an old studio executive tried making a discount Randolph Scott, particularly since he did plenty of Westerns to go with other genres you might expect in cheapie fun; beginning in 1953, he ended up doing syndicated television over the course of three different shows in the span of eight years that made him a nice amount of money. He grits his teeth like it was a modern Western rather than the action crime drama hodgepodge, and it doesn't really gel greatly for anything besides mild stares and the occasional attempt to make a gray-shaded hero but having a guy who makes a few false letters isn't really as interesting as it could be for hustle quality. The sillier a movie like this, the better it seems...so it doesn't quite work with a stiff lead. Hey, what do you know, the villain is also a television presence: Russell is best known for his starring role on two shows that ran in the late 1950s involving adventure. He is mildly effective here in chewing the bland ham thrown to him in dastardly ideas, looking more like a guy trying to convince himself to pick apart the wings of baby birds because of boredom. Honestly, Wills might be the only name that sticks out today, albeit one who didn't grow to acting by Westerns, since he had his own singing group in the 1930s that he quit to go for acting, and his deep rough voice certainly wishes for something with riveting material to bite on rather than the mush here. To be nice to Leslie, one hopes that the assignment was a decent experience for them. As a whole, all one might enjoy is the occasional action bit, whether that involves drunken antics or the final sequence involving dynamite that goes...kind of the way you would expect from a cheapie needing to end quickly. It's a humble movie, where names go in one ear and out the other for nothing too special for a mediocre result. But, as a comparison to say just how action movies stack up from different eras when it comes to mushy foundations trying to hold it together with middling actors or effect, it fits the bill adequately.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

I know sometimes it is ideal to say what is next for a themed month but cobbling together a list is easier said than done...That said, next up is Motorpsycho.

Dracula vs. Frankenstein.

Review #1154: Dracula vs. Frankenstein.

Cast: 
J. Carrol Naish (Dr. Frankenstein), Lon Chaney, Jr. (Groton), Zandor Vorkov (Count Dracula), John Bloom (Frankenstein's monster), Jim Davis (Sergeant Martin), Regina Carrol (Judith Fontaine), Russ Tamblyn (Rico), Anthony Eisley (Mike Howard), Anne Morrell (Samantha), Maria Lease (Joanie Fontaine), Angelo Rossitto (Grazbo the evil dwarf), Forrest J Ackerman (Dr. Beaumont), Greydon Clark (Strange), and Shelley Weiss (The Creature) Directed by Al Adamson.

Review: 
It really is better sometimes to just not take your time making a movie. This film took two years to make, with working titles such as Blood Freaks and The Blood Seekers. You may wonder if this film (written by William Pugsley and Samuel M. Sherman) was haphazardly put together with all of the random plot elements thrown together. Well, we've got Chaney playing an axe-wielding maniac, a doctor trying to cure his paralysis with a serum made from some sort of chemical in the bloodstream through the trauma of death (along with somehow curing his assistant and his evil dwarf), a part with bikers and hippies, and then there's Dracula (with some sort of grease paint and eye-shadow for makeup) somehow mixed in, who suddenly gets the idea to use the serum to give him immunity to the sunlight while bringing back the monster of Frankenstein (with the passing of a comet, no less), who looks like rotted clay. You know how classic movies seem to get re-made or done over and over again? I'm surprised no one has had a focus on improving terrible movies such as this one instead, since this would probably be a good one to make again, whether as a student film or just something for fun. Given how the film looks like it takes place in a big dark room, you might as well film everything in one big room. This is a 90 minute movie that manages to perplex its viewer with such random bits of odd moments - such as an dwarf who eats a dollar, or Vorkov and his ring that vaporizes people to ash. However, the pinnacle of lunacy comes with the fight sequence between Dracula and Frankenstein, which takes place just as the sun is coming up - although you can't really tell due to how dark everything seems to look due to the fact that they are fighting in an area with so much tree leaves and branches. The amazing thing is that they made a fight sequence that lasted less than five minutes that also proves to be incredibly one-sided and dull at the same time. Believe it or not, this was not the original intended ending for the film, which was meant to end with the two main leads (Carrol and Eisley) survived without a fight from the main villains. Instead, we are shown Dracula vaporizing "Mike", played by Adamson from the back as this scene was filmed after production had ended. Honestly, the sequence showing Dracula being melted by the sun is the only effect that sort of works, as if decay is the only thing the movie is good at showing. You may be wondering if this is the only Dracula vs. Frankenstein film out there. Technically, no. There exists a film called Los Monstruos del Terror (1970), which was known under Dracula vs. Frankenstein in the UK alongside other titles such as The Monsters of Terror and Assignment: Terror. There was also another film called Dracula contra Frankenstein (1971) that had several other titles it went by, such as Dracula, Prisoner of Frankenstein but also Dracula vs. Dr. Frankenstein. In fact, this film had several titles of its own, depending on the country, with my particular favorite being the reissue title in the US of Teenage Dracula - as if that makes Vorkov and his performance seem any less silly. In any case, always check your film titles, I suppose.

It should be mentioned that this was the last films for Naish and Chaney Jr, who both died two years after this film's release. It's pretty easy to see when Naish is reading off cue cards since you can see clear movement of said eyes at times when he is speaking, and the chattering of his false teeth can be heard at times - but at least he is somewhat amusingly hammy. Chaney doesn't have any lines, and he mostly just does a bunch of funny faces, but it definitely isn't him at his best. Vorkov (a pseydonym for his real name of Robert Engel, stockbroker thought of by Ackerman) is terribly wooden, invoking laughter instead of terror, particularly since there is an echo to the voice. None of the other castmates are too particularly memorable, aside from Tamblyn randomly showing up with no bearing on the plot. I do find the brief appearance of Ackerman (who serves as technical consultant) to be interesting, since he was a famed magazine editor (most notably Famous Monsters of Filmland), sci-fi writer/editor along with being a literary agent and avid collector of film memorabilia. Searching about him is far more interesting to think about than the film itself, honestly. Bloom, who played the monster for most of the film, was an accountant, but Weiss is the one with the job of fighting Dracula, lumbering his share for the schlock scene for a movie that does not have much shame. What can you expect from a production company named Independent-International Pictures? This is a terrible movie, filled with ridiculous scenes that make it a mockery among other horror films, particularly ones involving Dracula or Frankenstein - but it certainly will prove entertaining for people wanting campy schlock and not much else.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.

Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter.

Review #1153: Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter.

Cast: 
John Lupton (Jesse James), Narda Onyx (Dr. Maria Frankenstein), Estelita Rodriguez (Juanita Lopez), Cal Bolder (Hank Tracy/Igor), Jim Davis (Marshal MacPhee), Steven Geray (Dr. Rudolph Frankenstein), Rayford Barnes (Lonny Curry), William Fawcett (Jensen, the pharmacist), and Nestor Paiva (Saloon Owner) Directed by William Beaudine (#463 - Billy the Kid versus Dracula and #535 - Bela Lugosi Meets a Brooklyn Gorilla)

Review: 
Older fans of mine will remember my coverage of Billy the Kid versus Dracula, which I covered all the way back in October of 2013, which served as part of a double feature with this film.

Admittedly, combining the genres of a western with horror could be interesting. I suppose there really must've been a push to make some cheap thrills and make a quick buck out of it while featuring outlaws from the Old West. The result is two films directed by Beaudine that were both shot in eight days while written by Carl K. Hittleman while shot at the Corrigan Ranch in Simi Valley, California. The only noteworthy thing to look at in this movie is the lab equipment, which came right from Kenneth Strickfaden, who had designed the electrical effects for Frankenstein (1931) and several other projects. It is easy to say both films are awful, but it may prove a bit difficult to figure out which one is "better" - as if one was comparing scab wounds. I could probably edit my description that I said about Billy the Kid versus Dracula and have it work now, as this is also a sloppy mess from beginning to end, starting with the hokey, if not drunkenly written premise of Jesse James in a horror film. Let's not forget that this film not only decides to depict him as having survived the shooting by Robert Ford in 1882, but also encounter the (grand)daughter of Frankenstein. If you can believe it, this film feels like a drag with its run-time of 83 minutes, probably since it takes half of its run-time for the two main characters to meet but also due to the fact that it feels like there are two plots mixed into one, and they are both pretty boring.

Lupton is pretty wooden, not really generating sort of interest in wanting to follow his outlaw character - as reading about the real Jesse James would probably be more interesting. Onyx (in her last film role) is the one who stands out, having plenty of ham and ridiculousness that would probably be suited for stuff such as Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943), but then again it actually makes this film seem tolerable, even if it is let down by nearly everything else. Rodriguez (also in her last role prior to her death in 1966) is okay, but the romance between her and Lupton is as stilted as everything else in this movie, not being particularly convincing (I'd also like to point out that James was married at the time of his death - to his first cousin), seeming to fill time and plot. Bolder is bland as the heavy, and the effect used to turn him into the Monster (called Igor for some reason) is awful, since the stitches (on a bald head) is rubber tape. I especially take amusement that the Monster doesn't even wear a shirt, as if that is going to make all the difference for showing strength and terror. You may be surprised that there are two Frankensteins in this film. You may be even more surprised that they are siblings, since the age difference between the two (Onyx and Geray) is 27 years. Speaking of which, Geray isn't awful, having a reluctant nature to him that is somewhat believable to go along with. Honestly, there is nothing here to watch the movie for, since there are no real big spectacles, and the parts when the monster finally comes to life are just as lame as the parts leading up to it. You would actually be better off with The Beast of Hollow Mountain (1956) if you want something with horror and western elements, and that was an incredibly mediocre movie. The only way to watch both this and Billy the Kid versus Dracula is on a night where you want something fast and cheap (they are both in the public domain) and don't care what they deliver as long as they give you some sort of monster and hero to watch. In that sense, they are just fine as a double feature of terror to terrorize the audience in their spooky awfulness.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.