12 to the Moon.

Review #1247: 12 to the Moon.

Cast: 
Ken Clark (Capt. John Anderson), Michi Kobi (Dr. Hideko Murata), Tom Conway (Dr. Feodor Orloff), Anthony Dexter (Dr. Luis Vargas), John Wengraf (Dr. Erich Heinrich), Robert Montgomery Jr. (Dr. Rod Murdock), Phillip Baird (Dr. William Rochester), Richard Weber (Dr. David Ruskin), Muzaffer Tema (Dr. Selim Hamid), Roger Til (Dr. Etienne Martel), Cory Devlin (Dr. Asmara Markonen), Anna-Lisa (Dr. Sigrid Bomark), and Francis X. Bushman (Secretary General of the International Space Order) Directed by David Bradley (#824 - Talk About a Stranger)

Review: 
It only proves natural to land on a science fiction movie, but it also proves interesting to do a film involving people trying to travel to the Moon on this particular month and year, what with a film ship name of "Lunar Eagle 1". It was released in the time of the Space Age, sandwiched between the dawn of Sputnik 1 and Explorer 1 just a few years earlier and the Earth orbiting missions of Yuri Gagarin and John Glenn that would occur the year after the release of the film. It proves interesting to note the ideas the film has with travel to the moon - not only does the mission include a mix of men and women of several countries (only the second film to do so, with First Spaceship on Venus being released just months earlier), it also includes a bunch of animals like cats and monkeys with them as well (one's really got to know if the cats will raise any new kittens on the moon, which I guess is the curiosity the cat lobby wanted to know). It wouldn't be hard to think this was made on the cheap fast. After all, this was a film shot in eight days on a $150,000 budget, utilizing devices around them such as editing machines for communication devices, or darkroom timers with obscured brand names. But ambition can outride a dearth of money or big-name talent if done right. Really, the most notable person behind this is John Alton as cinematographer, with this being his penultimate work of over three decades of work that ranged, doing work such as He Walked by Night (1948) and the balletwork in An American in Paris (1951). 

Honestly, the final product isn't terrible, it just falters with clunky parts that can't hold an interesting international space angle together for 74 minutes. It is an odd little movie that surely will leave a few heads spinning with either confusion or a few chuckles - neither of which the filmmakers (or two writers with Fred Gebhardt and DeWitt Bodeen) probably wanted. Nobody pulls a real great performance with their respective time to make moments, but at least one can ride with these folks and pretend that each would be suitable to be on a big ridiculous mission like this, from the two with squabble over relatives taking out their relatives being the ones doing the final mission together to the French communist saboteur at the end. It would probably be too easy to give this movie flack for its holes in terms of science, since this was done before a picture of the Earth was even done, although I will say the moon picture writing being a bunch of random shapes that still gets translated is pretty amusing. Really, there are plenty of silly moments to sift through. The quicksand sequence is also a bit amusing to sit through, having about as much danger as if one just lied on their back on the beach and pretended to sink. One has to love the fact that the "The Great Coordinator of the Moon" want the crew to leave the cats with them right before they leave the place - guess the dog wasn't cool enough to belong on the Moon with the space folks, who we never actually see in person. Actually, the space helmets with "invisible electro magnetic ray screens" is just as hysterical to think about, if not more. The solar flare footage for the end when dealing with erupting a volcano to thaw out the world (yes, really) probably qualifies in the "taking the cake" competition. It could go on further, but let's just say that this is a movie with quite an imagination over what makes for a space movie, having plenty of cliches on less than half a tank of money and time to go with. In the end, this is a film that won't win any kind of award or notations for great entertainment quality, flailing the lines of mediocrity that only can come from a fast and cheap kind of sci-fi film as this, found in the bottom of an Internet search or multi-movie pack. You could get a laugh or two while looking at it with mild interest, for better or worse.

Next Time: Something truly deserving to commemorate the 50th Anniversary of Apollo 11...

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Return of Dracula.

Review #848: The Return of Dracula.

Cast
Francis Lederer (Count Dracula / Bellac Gordal), Norma Eberhardt (Rachel Mayberry), Ray Stricklyn (Tim Hansen), John Wengraf (John Merriman), Virginia Vincent (Jennie Blake), Gage Clarke (Reverend Doctor Whitfield), Jimmy Baird (Mickey Mayberry), Greta Granstedt (Cora Mayberry), and Enid Yousen (Frieda) Directed by Paul Landres.

Review
Four years to the day since I reviewed Dracula (1958, #258), I decided it was time to review the other Dracula film released that same year, with this one produced by Gramercy Pictures (no relation to the current studio of that name) and released by United Artists. This was released in April of 1958, a month before the Hammer production of Dracula was released in America. The plot structure has some resemblance to Shadow of a Doubt, though I didn't think I'd see Dracula roaming the streets of a small town in California (one of my favorite lines is the mother suggesting her daughter to cut class in order to escort "Cousin Bellac" around town). While the movie is low budget, there is at least some fairly good camerawork and camera shots on Dracula are satisfying to look at. To be honest, I didn't really have kind of expectation for this film before seeing it. I hadn't heard of Francis Lederer, and I wondered how he would try to provide his own spin on the role. After all, the Dracula character is such an interesting one to see people try and carry their own flair, with the Lugosi and Lee ones being the most notable. Lederer does fine in the role, making a serviceable effort. He isn't inherently memorable, but he is at least better than a stage version of Dracula, one might say. It should be noted that he would play the role once more in an episode (named "The Devil Is Not Mocked") of Night Gallery (created by Rod Serling) thirteen years later. One thing I really didn't expect was that apparently Dracula can transform people he attacks into dogs (I guess it's better than just having them being zombie like). Then again I guess the mythos of Dracula always seems to have strange things included, so take it for what it is. The climax is fairly decent, with a surprise shot of color that certainly sticks out in a nice way, with a fairly decent way to have Dracula killed. It isn't anything monumental, but it is at least a serviceable horror film. It's not better than the Hammer Dracula film, but it is at least something one should at least consider watching around Halloween time, even if just for a look.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.