Showing posts with label Jonathan Haze. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jonathan Haze. Show all posts

March 18, 2021

Blood Bath.

Review #1654: Blood Bath.

Cast:
William Campbell (Antonio Sordi), Karl Schanzer (Max), Lori Saunders (Dorian / Meliza), Sandra Knight (Donna Allen), Marissa Mathes (Daisy Allen), Sid Haig (The Tall Beatnik), Jonathan Haze (A Beatnik), Fred Thompson (Another Beatnik), Biff Elliot (Cafe Manager), and David Ackles (Carousel Operator) Written and Directed by Jack Hill and Stephanie Rothman.

Review:
What we have here is an interesting tale of two directors, each in their own beginnings of filmmaking. Born in New Jersey but raised in California, Stephanie Rothman did study in sociology with the University of California (Berkeley), but her focus to film came with a viewing of The Seventh Seal (1957). She subsequently did study with the University of Southern California in filmmaking, and she would earn a fellowship by the Directors Guild of America with her student film directing. She was hired by Roger Corman in 1964 to work as his assistant, and she would do a variety of tasks on films that could range from writing new scenes to final cut edits that had to be done on a set time and budget. Corman was ultimately the first and only mentor she would have when it came to filmmaking. Rothman would direct her first solo effort with It's a Bikini World (1967, although shot two years earlier) and follow it up with five further films in the next few years; her most noted film was The Student Nurses (1970), which ended up inspiring New World Pictures to make subsequent efforts within depicting nurses. Rothman's career stalled in 1974. Although she tried to find work within television and script treatments with her husband, no sales resulted from these efforts (her work in exploitation, which gave her a chance to direct, ended up as a stigma against her when trying to do work away from it). A decade of languishing misses and rejection of going back to exploitation led to her retirement, although she did find work to live on within real estate investment. On the other side, California native Jack Hill started an interest in film within study at UCLA's film school. One of his mentors would be Dorothy Arzner, and one of his classmates was Francis Ford Coppola, incidentally. Hill did a variety of side-work in his rise to the industry with Roger Corman that ranged from editing to contribution within writing/directing, such as shooting a 20-minute prologue to a TV version of The Wasp Woman (1959) or doing re-writes/direction for The Terror (1963). Hill made his formal directing debut with Mondo Keyhole (1966), which he co-directed with John Lamb. Ultimately, Hill would make fifteen films over the course of sixteen years, which ranged from horror with films like Spider Baby to lesser-known works such as The Incredible Invasion (1971, the last of four that Hill directed the US sequences in USA-Mexico productions that all had Boris Karloff as star before his death) and blaxploitation such as Coffy (1973).

Okay, history time. It all started with a film that was slated to be released in Yugoslavia that was named Operacija Ticijan [Operation Titian] (1963), starring William Campbell, Rade Markovic, and Patrick Magee. It was a thriller film involving a stolen painting, and Roger Corman (on vacation in Europe at the time) ended up being a silent partner in the hopes that he could acquire it and Americanize the feature for release later. Francis Ford Coppola was behind script supervision, interestingly enough. However, the final result was something not quite suitable for the drive-in circuit. He commissioned a re-cut and re-scored edit, which was known as Portrait in Terror. Somehow, it did not satisfy Corman, although a re-edited version of that cut would find its way into television; enter Hill, who was tasked to take the footage and write/shoot new material to go on top of what could be used with Campbell in tow (who reportedly got a nice check for his services, which angered Corman and makes me smirk a little), which turned a spy thriller into a horror film. Somehow, this version (known as Blood Bath) was still not suitable enough for Corman. Two years later, Corman wanted to try again, so he hired Rothman to make her own edits in the story while shooting new footage. So now a film that had a killer artist was changed to a killer artist vampire. To add on to this, Campbell did not participate in the re-shoots, so now Rothman had a film with a vampire lead that would have to re-cast its main lead for the vampire scenes (an actor that has not been identified). Corman at last found something worth releasing despite a film with two directors/writers that never even met and they all lived happily...nope, the story isn't over. There is yet one more version of this film that is called Track of the Vampire, which included just a little more footage to play on television (Rothman/Hill's film lasted 69 minutes). Funny enough, you probably wouldn't even know Corman's fingerprints are there at all, because he doesn't even have an on-screen credit. Rothman would later call it a "mish-mosh", while Hill thought it was "totally ruined" by the changes made to his original cut.

So...we have a Yugoslavian film that got edited / re-shot into two television films AND two feature films, and the one that we are focusing on today is the one with Rothman & Hill on the credit (strangely enough, the one cut entirely by Hill is missing, but all the other ones are there). If one intends to watch the film, the best version to watch it would be a recent release that includes a video essay by Tim Lucas that includes detail of the whole saga of what became Blood Bath with interviews that likely make for an interesting hour to listen to (a full detail also is found with a series of articles done in Video Watchdog). Of course I forgot to mention that in this portrait of a killer artist, there are also beatniks included within the process, so one really seems to be in for a familiar rendition of A Bucket of Blood. Honestly, the beatnik stuff seemed better the first time around, what with its rendition of "beatnik slang" alongside its legend about vampire artists; my favorite head-slapping moment is someone mentioning to Knight's character about a tower and the legend having "peculiar things" happening before telling them to find it for themselves because they have their own problems (that's one way to inspire someone to read up on vampires and say exposition). Hill definitely had more of the prints involved when it comes to matching his horror type over Rothman's more conscious style in women's films (although both obviously were cut on the cloth of cheap filmmaking). Trying to guess who made what can be a doozy, but just know that the film probably didn't make any more sense when it was just Hill at the helm...of shooting/re-writes - the fact that it is only an hour long might come from the fact that the seams would probably have snapped if one tried to put more logic if it lasted longer than that. In other words, the only thing to say is that the history behind its making is far more efficient than the actual result - a mess. An amusing mess with curious moments, but a mess. Campbell is a capable guy, but he can only do so much with a role that is bargain-bin killer at best, and the fact that there is a different actor in the terror scenes dilutes credibility in the same way one would see in a creature feature where someone wears a weird costume with a lack of time to act (so The Man from Planet X, but not as good). It all goes on how one views the death scenes, which can range from a decent sequence involving a friendly conversation leading to a cleaver...to someone being chased into a pool and drowned (for some reason). The fact that two of the actresses in the film look similar to each other at any rate makes this an even sillier affair. The other actors act as one could expect from patchwork, which results in distinct levels of mediocrity, with the beatnik aspects having that middling feeling of semi-seriousness that one could only bear in irony drenched in insomnia. At least one could give credit to folks like Haig (who had starred in one of Hill's short films) for not wilting like a confused cat (despite having a conflict of timing that means there are scenes with/without a beard). Saunders is okay, but the focus is technically more on Knight before we are baited and switched on who the focus is (not that it matters anyway, since one can barely make head or tails about who or what matters in the first place in plot). Schanzer is the bare minimum for folks to focus on, seeming like an abstract of a lead hero than anything. For a film with a bloody title, the count of four is probably more about what could be salvaged than any real sense of terror - it is a jumble, where the vampire twist borders on the idea that you the viewer are going to buy into a deranged descendant of a vampire that happens to change his face before turning them into wax for art...which then turn on him for the climax. Rothman and Hill's assembly of footage into what was one film into four others is a curious tale, but for a movie it is easily too average for its own good. At least Rothman and Hill can each say they went on to better things in filmmaking.

Next Time: On the shortlist a few months ago, now seems like a good time to reach out for Daisies [Sedmikrásky] (1966).

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

January 24, 2018

Five Guns West.


Review #1039: Five Guns West.

Cast: 
John Lund (Govern Sturges), Dorothy Malone (Shalee Jethro), Mike Connors (Hale Clinton), Robert Wright Campbell (John Candy), Jonathan Haze (Billy Candy), Paul Birch (J.C. Haggard), James Stone (Uncle Mike), and Jack Ingram (Stephan Jethro) Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, #852 - The Terror, #931 - Not of This Earth, and #1007 - Attack of the Crab Monsters)

Review: 
Admittedly, Five Guns West does not stand out too particularly well from other Roger Corman productions, but it does have the distinction of being Roger Corman's first film as director. Prior to this film, he had been involved in the production of three other films: Highway Dragnet (1954), which he contributed the story to, Monster from the Ocean Floor (1954), which he served as producer, and The Fast and the Furious (1955), which he provided the story and served as producer. Corman served as producer and director for this film, with Robert Wright Campbell providing the story and also starring in the movie, which was filmed in nine days for a sum of $60,000. The plot shares some similarities with The Dirty Dozen (#1014), involving outlaws being pardoned in order to perform a dangerous mission set near the end of the American Civil War. There isn't anything too terrible in this Western, although it definitely doesn't stand out much. This is a B-movie through and through, although it is fairly well-made and fairly competent, despite not having much in terms of big entertainment. It feels a bit talkative at times with its dialogue, but at least the words that are used aren't too wooden. Lund and Malone prove to be fairly useful leads, having a bit of chemistry with each other, although it isn't anything too special. The rest of the main group (Connors, Campbell, Haze and Birch) are not too bad, with their own little conflicts that aren't too shabby, although I can't say they really are much in terms of villainy, but I digress. The action is fairly decent stuff, having some gun action that works alright for the intent of the film. The look of the movie isn't too bad, either. At 78 minutes, the movie doesn't feel too long, so in that way it helps the movie feel a bit worthy for watch. There isn't anything that is great about the movie, but there also isn't anything that is terrible about the movie either. It falls in the middle in terms of quality, for better or for worse. It won't win any kind of honor, but it is a fairly okay film for people wanting to see something from Roger Corman, even if it is formula entertainment such as this.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

May 6, 2017

Not of This Earth.


Review #931: Not of This Earth.

Cast:
Paul Birch (Paul Johnson), Beverly Garland (Nadine Storey), Morgan Jones (Harry Sherbourne), William Roerick (Dr. F.W. Rochelle), Jonathan Haze (Jeremy Perrin), Dick Miller (Joe Piper), Anna Lee Carroll (Davanna Woman), and Pat Flynn (Simmons) Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors, #684 - It Conquered the World, and #852 - The Terror)

Review:
With an estimated budget of $100,000 and a run-time of 67 minutes (some prints have it as 71 due to repeating certain scenes), this is certainly a movie that fits in as a carefully crafted sci-fi flick. And who better than Roger Corman? It had been a while since I covered one of his numerous films, so this seemed to fit the bill. Birch is a neat villain, in that his insidious nature and voice go well together in making the scenes with him and Garland have their share of thrills. Garland also does a fine job, having a fair share of competence along with a fair sense of panic. I have to admit, a movie about an alien studying the effects of human blood on him and his dying race is an interesting premise, while wearing sunglasses most (but not all) of the time, even in the dark. Jones and Roerick are also pretty good in supporting roles; Haze stands out, mostly because he seems so capable at playing this assistant role with a good touch of charm. Miller is in the movie for one fun little scene as a vacuum cleaner salesman, with a little look toward the camera just before his untimely departure, which is amusing somehow. The effects on the alien (such as his eyes) is pretty good for the time, though the flying creature does remind me an umbrella or lamp (whichever seems funnier). It's not exactly a clear cut invasion movie, nor is it a movie about a sympathetic alien, but there is something about how he interacts with the humans (and vice versa) that works. This is a fairly competent kind of science fiction movie, having some quick thrills and some level of suspense that I'm sure would fit well for anyone. It's no masterpiece, but it is a fairly manageable experience and sometimes that is all one needs for a movie.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

October 21, 2016

The Terror (1963).


Review #852: The Terror.

Cast: 
Boris Karloff (Baron von Leppe/Eric), Jack Nicholson (Andre Duvalier), Dick Miller (Stefan), Sandra Knight (Helene/Ilsa), Dorothy Neumann (Katrina the Witch), and Jonathan Haze (Gustaf) Directed by Roger Corman (#368 - The Little Shop of Horrors and #684 - It Conquered the World)

Review: 
It figures that I get to a Roger Corman movie for this month, and it just so happens to have Jack Nicholson in one of his earliest roles, alongside Boris Karloff. The idea for the movie came not because of a really great idea for a movie, but because Corman wanted to take advantage of sets left over from another production of his, The Raven. In fact, Karloff's scenes were done in three days, and he later described Corman as having "the sketchiest outline of a story.", which is amusing. One thing I can say is that there are some good looking sets, and some moderately entertaining effects. The movie is a bit of a mess, suffice to say, but what do you expect? In addition to Corman, there were four other people who directed parts of the movie (Francis Ford Coppola, Monte Hellman, Jack Hill, and Jack Nicholson), with an 81 minute run time as well. The movie runs at such a strange jumbled pace, with a small cast making up the characters and plot twists being revealed here and there, which one should remember was written for the price of $1,600. You might as well make a flow chart for the movie, or set up a bingo card of things that happen (witch being struck by lightning got me bingo)...and what is The Terror anyway? (the answer to this is placed under your floorboard). I especially love the climax where Karloff and Knight "fight" each other right before a flood happens. Karloff does what he does best in a role as strange as it would be for anyone not named Boris Karloff, and he has quite the screen presence. Nicholson can't really give his character much charisma, but he tries his best to make for an adequate performance. Honestly this isn't a terrible movie, just a strangely cobbled one that could be entertaining to watch late at night before going to bed, which is easy considering this is in the public domain. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

April 22, 2013

Movie Night: The Little Shop of Horrors.



Review #368: The Little Shop of Horrors.

Cast
Jonathan Haze (Seymour Krelboyne), Jackie Joseph (Audrey Fulquard), Mel Welles (Gravis Mushnick), Dick Miller (Burson Fouch), Myrtle Vail (Winifred Krelboyne), Karyn Kupcinet (Shirley), Leola Wendorff (Siddie Shiva), Lynn Storey (Hortense Fishtwanger), Wally Campo (Joe Fink/Narrator), John Shaner (Dr. Phoebus Farb), Jack Nicholson (Wilbur Force), and Charles B. Griffith (Audrey Junior) Directed by Roger Corman.

Review
Not only is today Jack Nicholson's birthday, it is also the first review of a film directed by Roger Corman, who reportedly has directed over 50 films and produced 300...one of them being Sharktopus. But nevertheless, this is an early 60's film made in two days from sets used in another Roger Corman production that has inspired a musical and a remake. And...the film is good. Despite the title, it actually has a good amount of laughs, which make the horror scenes more contrasting, creating a good balance. And of course, Audrey Junior makes me giggle, and that may sound strange, given the amount of reviews here. Nicholson may have a small part, but it certainly is memorable. The acting is fine, and it has its good moments all throughout. The effects work well and the film flows well given the small, but fine length. Happy 76th birthday, Jack. Great way to celebrate Earth Day, huh?

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.