The Mummy's Curse.

Review #2266: The Mummy's Curse.

Cast: 

Lon Chaney Jr (Kharis), Dennis Moore (Dr. James Halsey), Kay Harding (Betty Walsh), Virginia Christine (Princess Ananka), Addison Richards (Pat Walsh), Peter Coe (Dr. Ilzor Zandaab), Martin Kosleck (Ragheb), Kurt Katch (Cajun Joe), Ann Codee (Tante Berthe), Holmes Herbert (Dr. Cooper), and Napoleon Simpson (Goobie) Directed by Leslie Goodwins.

Review: 

Oh hell, let us get this over with. This was released six months after the last film and now takes place in the swamps...which seem more southern than what had been seen in the last one, which if one remembers correctly, was a sequel to a movie that was set 30 years after The Mummy's Tomb. That film basically was set in New England, so clearly the swamp from there must've morphed down under. And apparently, it is now 25 years after the supposed sinking of a mummy and his girl into the bayou, which means that really the film is set 55 years after The Mummy's Tomb, which means you could play pretend that this is the 1940s interpretation of the late 1990s (of course, there was no DVD to re-watch Mummy films before release so they probably just assumed people would assume "25 years later" meant like, the film was set in 1969 or something). Anyway, the only returning actor is Chaney, as this time one is spared having to go through exposition from someone like Zucco (I suppose being depicted not dying means he really did die). The director of the film was Leslie Goodwins, who actually had gotten his start with gagwriting and directing for silent films, which included Academy Award-nominated shorts. He directed from 1936 to 1959, with this apparently being his only horror film. The screenplay was done by Bernard Schubert and the story was done by Leon Abrams and Dwight V. Babcock. For once, the Egyptian-related woman is not the love interest of the totally relevant male lead. Eleven years later, Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy (1955) came out involving a mummy named "Klaris" played by Eddie Parker, who actually had done stunts for one of the previous Mummy films.

You already know the other three Mummy films of the 1940s kinda stunk, so you probably know this one is not much better. It actually has more mush than the last couple of features, where you basically can check out for 30 minutes and miss almost nothing. Things just happen and that is about it. Time and space might as well exist as just a concept. Part of the thing about writing two paragraphs for a review is that one tries to find the proper balance for buttering up the details how a film came to be or setting the table for the real review. You might notice that this second paragraph might suck, and that is because there just isn't that much to say about this film! It is bland in a way that will make one appreciate the lesser Frankenstein fare Universal had come up with (as evidenced here and here) because even those films felt like someone had commitment. At least Chaney had his round of drinking when in that chicken suit (at least the mask was preserved, because otherwise nothing else exists from Jack Pierce's line of work). The only memorable lines probably come from Simpson when it comes to "the devil's alive and he's dancing with the mummy" (he also says it in reverse). Where was I? Oh, right, the film ends with a cell-like room having its walls being brought down by the mummy that sees them perish while the once-princess is back to mummy form. Underwhelming is the easiest word to call this film, pure and simple. It is made on the cheap with the only value being that an hour could have been spent doing worse such as say, stubbing your foot or having to hear five stories from customers in a row. Flush the film and go to anything you can think about for horror.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

The Mummy's Ghost.

Review #2265: The Mummy's Ghost.

Cast: 

Lon Chaney Jr (Kharis), John Carradine (Yousef Bey), Robert Lowery (Tom Hervey), Ramsay Ames (Amina Mansori), Barton MacLane (Police Inspector Walgreen), George Zucco (High Priest Andoheb), Frank Reicher (Professor Matthew Norman), Harry Shannon (Sheriff Elwood), Emmett Vogan (Coroner), and Lester Sharp (Dr. Ayad) Directed by Reginald Le Borg (#1179 - The Black Sleep)

Review: 

Okay, so here we are with another Mummy film (in the timeline of 30 years after The Mummy's Hand as established by The Mummy's Tomb). It's hard to believe that this is the third of the four Kharis films released from 1940 to 1944, and yet here we are. It is funny that Zucco returns for this film, having apparently survived being shot and going down the stairs from the last two films just so he can go assign the task of getting the mummy to the character played by John Carradine (creatively called Yousef Bey, after the last film had used named the follower character Mehemet Bey and the 1932 film had used "Ardath Bey"), who was busy enough to be on four Universal horror films (the others being The Invisible Man's Revenge, House of Frankenstein, House of Dracula). The film was written by Griffin Jay, Henry Sucher, Brenda Weisberg, as based on a story by Jay and Sucher. The movie was shot quickly in August/September of 1943 but wasn't released until June of 1944. This is also yet another movie where a priest tries to get involved with a woman while trying to deal with Kharis. Oh, and reincarnations involving people thought to be the long-dead woman lover, which you might recognize as being from the 1932 Mummy film. The movie was done by Reginald Le Borg, an Austrian who had moved to the States in 1934 that rose from staging in film to bit part actor to directing by the late 1930s. He had made films for the Office of War Information during World War II but got to be part of Universal in 1943 for a handful of their films, most notably the first three "Inner Sanctum Mystery" films; he didn't care for his horror films, but he was a craftsman of several films in the B-level for many years.

You are not getting anything different that you saw in Tomb or Hand, but are you really that surprised? Sure, those movies weren't actually that good, but you could at least say they tried. Here, there just isn't anything to really grouse about, and this is a movie with Carradine in it. He just doesn't get that much to really do when compared to the stuff you saw before when it comes to goofy priests. Lowery might as well be an actual broomstick. Ames has one defining characteristic: a streak of white in her hair, which clearly means danger and sleepwalking. Since one knows that Chaney had a painful time with the makeup (couldn't even scratch an itch), it does amuse to see him try to go around with one good arm (such as with a fence). The people in the film sure have a fun time trying to avoid him, and it is pretty funny to see in a giant case of steps for the climax. Probably the most amusing thing about the movie is the use of a dog to help guide the people around to find the mummy, because then one can make a lazy Lassie joke. Nah, actually, my favorite joke is that a few times the movie has someone ask "Amon-Ra" to aid his quest and I could simply say "but Amon-Ra (St. Brown) plays in Detroit." The only thing that saves the movie is the ending, because for once, you don't get to have a happy ending wrapped up in the last five minutes. I do wonder just what the headline writers or folks did when it came to the time after the swamp episode ("Men Swamped By Swamp", anyone?). In conclusion, nothing has been improved from before in a series of serviceable but wholly "not particularly good" 1940s Mummy films. Making one have to debate between Hand and Tomb for the "best follow-up to The Mummy until being blown out by the 1999 rendition" is a sad task indeed.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

High Noon.

Review #2083: High Noon.

Cast: 

Gary Cooper (Marshal Will Kane), Thomas Mitchell (Mayor Jonas Henderson), Lloyd Bridges (Deputy Marshal Harvey Pell), Katy Jurado (Helen Ramírez), Grace Kelly (Amy Fowler Kane), Otto Kruger (Judge Percy Mettrick), Lon Chaney Jr (Martin Howe), Harry Morgan (Sam Fuller), Ian MacDonald (Frank Miller), Eve McVeagh (Mildred Fuller), Morgan Farley (Dr. Mahin), Harry Shannon (Cooper), Lee Van Cleef (Jack Colby), Robert J. Wilke (Jim Pierce), and Sheb Wooley (Ben Miller) Directed by Fred Zinnemann (#1377 - The Men)

Review: 

"Sheriffs are people and no two people are alike. The story of High Noon takes place in the Old West but it is really a story about a man's conflict of conscience. In this sense it is a cousin to A Man for All Seasons. In any event, respect for the Western hero has not been diminished by High Noon."

It is never a bad time for a Western, particularly ones with interesting stories beyond the camera. The film is based on the short story "The Tin Star", as seen in 1947 in Collier's magazine that was done by John W. Cunningham. Carl Foreman (the credited screenwriter of the film) claimed later that he had written an outline that apparently seemed similar to Cunningham's story, which led to him buying the rights to the story. However, Richard Fleischer claimed in his autobiography (written decades after the fact) that he had helped Foreman develop the story while they had been working together in The Clay Pigeon (1949). Anyway, let's talk about Foreman for a bit. He had studied at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign as a teenager, dropped out to seek out Hollywood, went back to Illinois to study at the John J. Marshall School of Law, and then dropped out of there to work a variety of jobs (writer, reporter, and even carnival barker) before eventually returning back to Hollywood by the late 1930s; during that time, he became a member of the Communist Party, which he left by the dawn of World War II, which saw him serve with the U.S. Army Signal Corps. Foreman had done his first writing in film with the 1941 film Bowery Blitzkrieg in an uncredited manner, but he got onto a more regular pattern of work with story/writing credits for Dakota (1945) and So This Is New York (1948) - the latter was the first Foreman made in association with Stanley Kramer (who he met when they both were serving in World War II). There would be a handful of films that Foreman made as a writer for Kramer's company, which included The Men (1950), as directed by Fred Zinnemann. At any rate, Foreman's career took a beating due to the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAAC), who labeled him as an unfriendly witness after he admitted to being a party member but did not want to name names. He later called the film a parable against blacklisting, one that seems apt when considering that Kramer essentially shortchanged him when it came to having him sell his share in the company and even tried to get him booted off the production prior to the meeting with the HUAAC (because he feared he would be implicated by Foreman, assocation or not). Living mostly in London for the rest of his days, Foreman was given the cold shoulder from Hollywood for the rest of the 1950s that saw him either work on the side away from Hollywood or with modified credit that ranged from The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957); he also did a hand of producing in addition to writing for films such as Mackenna's Gold (1969); Foreman died in 1984 at the age of 69.

Fans of the Western know that Howard Hawks made Rio Bravo (1959) as a response to what he thought about this film that he felt didn't make much of a good Western, which naturally starred John Wayne (incidentally, he called High Noon "un-American", which is probably the silliest thing ever said by Wayne in the 1950s). Of course, Zinnemann years later responded by saying he wished Hawks would leave his films alone, so there's that. It seems only apt to have Cooper here, since the film that made him a key presence for bigger things in film was The Virginian (1929), which incidentally was a film that dealt with a man recently finding love in the West having to deal with the ramifications of an old foe coming into town for revenge in a shootout. The amusing point in all of this is that the two films are basically the same in quality anyways, ones that serve as being pretty good for what they are with distinct human qualities that make for a useful Western. The anguish and fear shown in its lead character (with credit going to Zinnemann and cinematographer Floyd Crosby) make a resounding effort to make a panicky piece of entertainment that makes a suitable morality tale that also is a sharp real-time thriller of conscience. In the end, a town may be a town, but it is nothing if there are no good people willing to stand side by side with folks in need of help, whether that involves men bound to their duty and honor or not. It is the kind of film that enforces the idea that beyond the one person bound to serve and protect folks sees them exposed for who they are (cowardice, resentment, jealousy, or bad timing) when the cards are down, which isn't always the easiest thing to confront when seeing human nature that leads to a man needing to make a decision (in Zinnemann's words) "according to his conscience." Cooper makes the ideal lead to make this grand quandary worth watching, which works pretty well when presented with a collection of various recognizable presences that make the lineup of human frailty (well, aside from the Quaker and an assertive presence of who stands by their man most) that even overshadow the outlaws (a quartet led by MacDonald), which somehow seems right. Kelly makes a decent pacifist in the middle, but really the most suitable presence to counter Cooper in pursuit is Bridges or Jurado, who each show the side of just what past loyalties mean when it comes to pride. The climax proves worthwhile in showing the chase of just how much pride and devotion mean when staring at a frontier where guns are in the picture rather than the idea of safety. As such, High Noon is a worthwhile effort in showing the nature of man and pride in a story that is distinct from the general Western tales and myths that arise from gunslingers and towns of man and dirt. Analyze all you want about just where the best Western lies, but this one is a pretty good one to go along with no matter where you encounter it in your travels.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Mummy's Tomb.

Review #1908: The Mummy's Tomb.

Cast: 

Lon Chaney Jr (Kharis), Dick Foran (Prof. Stephen A. Banning), John Hubbard (Dr. John Banning), Elyse Knox (Isobel Evans), Wallace Ford (Babe Hanson), Turhan Bey (Mehemet Bey), George Zucco (Andoheb), Mary Gordon (Jane Banning), and Cliff Clark (Sheriff) Directed by Harold Young (#511 - The Three Caballeros and #1799 - Carib Gold)

Review: 

Two years after the release of The Mummy's Hand (1940) came this film, which retained a couple of actors from this film as a sequel (of sorts) to this one. Foran, Ford, and Zucco return for this film, while Lon Chaney Jr replaces Tom Tyler as the title character. Honestly, I fail to see the point of having Chaney in the role, since he doesn't have a word of dialogue beyond all that makeup, and he would end up starring in the next two of these films. Given the time that the film it was made, it should only make sense that the film re-uses footage from the previous Mummy film, and this is done to recap what happened in a ten-minute opening (while Zucco is used to do other exposition before dying after monologuing). So yes, an hour-long film is really 50 when you take that out. You could call it incredibly redundant, but I guess it works if you really don't remember mediocre movies like before. I would like to point out that it is set "thirty years later", which would actually mean this film was set 30 years in the future and since the last one was a contemporary film...well, 1970 sure looks like 1940. 

It sure is a shame that this sequel is only just the same kind of mediocre horror movie, complete with oddball decision making that goes along with the benefit of having less comic relief without dragging along for an intolerable hour. You get a body-count and a silly motivation for the climax, what more is there to say? At least Bey makes for a useful adversary, following in the footsteps of Zucco in terms of smooth devotion before the inevitable story bits come in. So yes, a bunch of actors in elderly makeup are taken down by a mummy that survived being burned that moves at an amusingly slow pace. Hell, one of the guys gets killed when he is cornered at a wall and doesn't think to just...run to the side of him. But hey, the townspeople get a bunch of torches and chase the mummy, which happens to remind one of the Frankenstein movies, with the mummy being a tool to kill, which isn't too fun. My favorite bit is the group of townspeople staying still with their torches before they decide to throw some of them into the house the mummy is present (while people happen to be in the house). In short, nothing really is improved from the last film despite the small improvements from before. Maybe it is a bit interesting to see where the story ends up for Foran and Ford along with Zucco (seemingly alive after getting shot down a staircase), but yeah, they don't really have much to do to make you care very much about what goes on, so the disposability of them isn't exactly a shocker. Hubbard is just kind of there, existing only to interact in the mildest of mild things when the mummy is not on screen. Knox is just as bland, only serving as an object for desires of the most predictable kind, because this is yet another Mummy movie where the priest wants the girl for himself (the last one had them plan to eat tana leaves to be immortal). Sure, it is nice to see Bey in the role rather than someone who would play it for stereotypes, but nothing really changes in terms of captivating drama beyond the mild horror things. As a whole, if you want only a movie that serves the basic requirement of mummy terror and nothing else, then it will probably rank better than the prior Mummy sequel, but otherwise, there isn't really much to say in terms of positivity besides calling it mediocre.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Spider Baby.

Review #1740: Spider Baby.

Cast: 

Lon Chaney Jr. (Bruno), Carol Ohmart (Emily), Quinn Redeker (Peter), Beverly Washburn (Elizabeth), Jill Banner (Virginia), Sid Haig (Ralph), Mary Mitchel (Ann), Karl Schanzer (Schlocker), and Mantan Moreland (Messenger) Written and Directed by Jack Hill (#1654 - Blood Bath)

Review: 

"It was the first film I could really call mine. It was the only time I actually did a film that wasn't an assignment."

If you remember, the first film released with Hill's name as director was Mondo Keyhole (1966). Of course, there is a bit more to that story, since he came from the (unofficial) school of Roger Corman in the 1960s, and his first key task would be to shoot 20 minutes to be added on The Wasp Woman (1959) for syndication in television, which occurred in 1962. The following year, he would be given the dubious task of being the fourth director asked by Corman to direct scenes for The Terror (1963), which also came with re-writing the script (of course, he wasn't given credit for directing, but neither were the others). Gil Lasky and Paul Monka had a bunch of real estate profits they wanted to invest into a horror film, and they happened to have met Karl Schanzer, who suggested that Hill would be a good choice. 12 days of shooting happened in Los Angeles in August of 1964, but fate dealt a cruel hand when a market crash held up all of Lasky and Monka's assets. David L. Hewitt acquired the film years later and re-titled the film while releasing it alongside Dr. Terror's Gallery of Horrors (also just known as Gallery of Horror). For three decades, the movie's original negative was lost (with middling VHS versions existing in the 1990s, remember) before being acquired by Hill, who had a clean transfer done along with adding a scene deleted from release that he would call his "Director's Cut". 

It sure is a shame that the film did not receive much attention in its time, because it certainly has an interesting place among the line of horror for all of the aspects that would play prominent in more noted films in the half-century since its release. I think there certainly is a line that can be drawn through the timeline that could go from The Old Dark House (1932) to this film to others like The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974) and House of 1000 Corpses (2003) with their own type of eccentric characters that happen to live in an infested house of murder and other such things. Of course, one involves a chain saw, the other involves rock music directors, and the other is whatever it is...Spider Baby is a creepy movie that holds its own when it comes to vicious goofiness, one that is disturbing in the chuckles drawn, and one will likely be drawn to this from the opening title song (composed by Ronald Stein while sung by Lon Chaney Jr himself, who apparently had a good time singing about spiders, ghouls, and other stuff). Basically, it is a film for the ghoulish at heart, and I readily enjoyed its 81 minute run-time in all the little weird things it ends up doing in building up its ultimate punch-line by the end that merits curiosity. 

This was released near the end of Chaney's career, which had gone through ups and downs in horror and character actor roles (film and television), but it can be safely said that this is definitely one of his best roles. He goes after the role with the right sense of dedicated warmth and edge that comes from contrasting all the strange kooks that inhabit both sides of this on-screen family, one that still has the timing necessary to make the material work with fondness; this is best signified by the scene between Chaney, Washburn, and Schanzer talking about staying together after the discovery of a dead man and the promises one has to keep (while the eyes start to water a bit). Redeker and Mitchel play the "normal" folks (framing the film for its beginning and end), while Ohmart jots in with assertiveness. One can't forget about the trio of eccentrics. Haig doesn't have much to say (as part of the plot, since the older one gets in the family, the less they say...), but he does well with a hodgepodge of moments that goes for weird within being a strong mute that likes to look at everybody (to varying results...). This was the debut of Banner (who had graduated Hollywood Professional School in 1964) in what became her most noted role before her untimely death in 1982. She plays the title character (i.e. someone who likes to play a game called "spider baby", as seen in the opening scene with Moreland). She does pretty well here in generating playful terror, which includes plenty of shots involving spiders in some way (such as tying someone up). Washburn is most likely known for both her appearances in Old Yeller (1957) and this film (having appeared sporadically in TV and film as a child). She contributes to the savagery in her own potent awareness that seems innocent like the other two on the surface that help the movie stay on its feet. Schanzer finishes it off with sniveling potency. As a whole, the movie relies on generating terror with atmosphere in terrorizing chuckles without needing overt effects or bloody gore, which results in a curious charmer that likely will reward folks who see it again and again. Hill would go on to explore further in exploitation films in the next couple of years, but Spider Baby has managed to find a place within his line of work worth checking out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Dr. Phibes Rises Again 

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.

Review #1736: Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.

Cast: 

Bud Abbott (Chick Young), Lou Costello (Wilbur Grey), Lon Chaney Jr. (Lawrence "Larry" Talbot / The Wolf Man), Béla Lugosi (Count Dracula), Glenn Strange (Frankenstein's monster), Lenore Aubert (Dr. Sandra Mornay), Jane Randolph (Joan Raymond), Frank Ferguson (Mr. McDougal), and Charles Bradstreet (Professor Stevens) Directed by Charles Barton.

Review: 

Oh, sure, I had been waiting to do this film for a time. Technically speaking, the idea of doing a Universal horror film with tinges of comedy isn't exactly the newest concept, since a handful of the classic films had comic relief (ranging from Una O'Connor to Wallace Ford), with varying results. Of course, by the time of 1948 (now under the moniker of Universal-International), the well was starting to run a bit dry with the monsters they had brought in and used over the prevailing decade, and I'm sure you remember that House of Dracula (1946) and its middling quality of bringing in monsters with little plot to support it (the next serious horror film wasn't until Creature from the Black Lagoon). You might wonder why this is even being covered at all...well, because it is one of the more memorable features involving the studio and its monsters, and all it took was two comedians at their relative peak. Bud Abbott and Lou Costello first worked together in 1935 because Costello's regular partner was sick; as such, they would do a variety of burlesque sketches together, and they would start doing radio together in 1938, with their own show coming in 1940 (which lasted nine years). In 1940, they were signed by Universal Studios for supporting roles with One Night in the Tropics; this and The Naughty Nineties (1945) contain the two doing their most famous routine with "Who's on First?" (which I'm sure you know a little about, at least for baseball). Buck Privates (1941), their first film as stars, started them on a path of box office demand.

This wasn't exactly their first foray into comedy-horror, having ventured into it with stuff such as Hold that Ghost (1941), which had its own gag involving a candle. But it would be their first of numerous films with them encountering monsters, which would include one with Boris Karloff (named in the title as "the Killer", for some reason), one with the Invisible Man, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, and The Mummy (while each was made with Universal, the middle involved a character not previously featured in a Universal film). This was the 22nd collaboration between the duo in a film, for which they did 36 together from 1940 to 1956 (with 28 done at Universal), including a television and radio series. So, yea, there's that to think about. Producer Robert Arthur suggested the idea first, with Oscar Brodney and Bertram Milhauser being brought in to consult on writing before being dismissed. Ultimately, it would be written by Robert Lees and Frederic I. Rinaldo (who had written the aforementioned Ghost film along with stuff such as 1940's The Invisible Woman); Costello hated the initial idea, but a cash advance and choice of director soothed him. So yeah, we have a comedy that plays on the clichés from before without deluding into all of the cheesy failings that can come from weak efforts. In other words, it's a nice chuckler of a movie that happens to be a nice swan song for folks interested in the original Universal line (ranging from the curiosity of the actors to the fair sets and so on), complete with a budget of $800,000 that helps to show the benefits that come from not being trapped in all the B-movie elements. No matter how experienced or not one is with the comic duo or the monsters, there is something for everyone that is readily apparent and quick to please for 83 minutes, with a good majority of the gags working well. Abbott is a quality straight man, jawing his way through the odd duck stuff that happens in and offside from him, which we can appreciate. Costello plays the other side in amusement in wisecracking franticness that gels perfectly with the honed-down Abbott (because hey, seeing a monster is one thing, having other see it is another); each have their little lines to shine, with Costello getting the benefit of being paired with Aubert and Randolph for curiosity (each by the way are just fine, including a neat heel turn for one of them).

Among the actors playing monsters, the easiest highlight is Lugosi, returning to play Dracula (somehow, he had been in such a down state in his career that the studio thought he was dead at first). He was said to have liked the humor on the set (quoted by his son as laughing just as hard as others who would be around to hear the gags), although he would not be as patient if a scene was not progressing as efficiently as possible. He probably has more things to do than he did in the original movie (complete with a transformation sequence in animation by Walter Lantz), and this includes actually being involved in the climax without trouble of woodenness. Folks familiar with Chaney and his sympathetic role will find nothing too different and therefore find it suitable. Strange is nobody's idea of the ideal monster portrayal, but he fits the imposing nature needed in those short moments required (including one on his lap). The table scene near the end with Dracula and the Wolfman going after each other while someone is tied to the bed near them is pretty interesting, although the demise sequences are a little too convenient (still, continuity is a puddle). As a whole, the gags and overall pacing in horror cliches make for a worthy swan song for Lugosi and Chaney (who of course kept working, just not so much for Universal as stars) while being a favorite to have a frightful laugh with, goofy but right on target.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: The Creature Walks Among Us.

The Black Sleep.

Review #1179: The Black Sleep.

Cast: 
Basil Rathbone (Sir Joel Cadman), Akim Tamiroff (Udu the Gypsy), Herbert Rudley (Dr. Gordon Ramsay), Patricia Blake (Laurie Munroe), Phyllis Stanley (Daphnae), Lon Chaney Jr. (Dr. Munroe aka Mungo), John Carradine ("Bohemund"), Bela Lugosi (Casimir), and Tor Johnson (Mr. Curry) Directed by Reginald Le Borg.

Review: 
With horror films, there surely is an expectation for terror and suspense with some sort of capable cast of characters to make something worth watching as entertainment. With this film, that statement isn't too particularly true, since the only thing that drives the film is its cast. It has an occasional shocking moment or two, but there isn't enough energy present in its story to make something other than just a fairly forgettable piece in a decade filled with films with frights and schlock that stand out much clearer. When the most interesting thing to view is one shot of an exposed brain seeping cerebral fluid (second place going to Rathbone's hand double used for the surgery being an actual neurosurgeon), perhaps your movie needs a bit more noteworthy things to go around. Undeniably, the one thing that does shine above all else for this feature is Rathbone, who manages to give his role a fair bit of dignity that goes past being just the madman scientist who values results over things such as not operating on living patients and their brains, balancing a bit of tragedy with scientific ambition. Alas, not even he can save this film from falling into the world of blandness. Perhaps the story from Gerald Drayson Adams and screenplay by John C. Higgins (both of whom were mostly writers for adventure or mystery films) is to blame a bit. The dilemma involving the use of live brains would probably work better for a film with a bit more action to it, or at the very least would work better in a film that had a more compelling second lead than Rudley. He isn't too particularly interesting, and his chemistry with Blake is cursory at best, so there isn't too much driving drama (or much suspenseful horror, for that matter) besides occasional moments with Rathbone until the climax. It doesn't help that Chaney is tasked to simply growl, either. Lugosi appears in the film, although he has no spoken lines. Sadly, this was the last film of his to be released during his lifetime, as Lugosi died on August 16, 1956, just two months after the film's premiere. Tamiroff, playing a role originally intended for Peter Lorre (prior to disputes over salary rates) is alright, but he falls into the background for a good chunk of it. When the film finally decides to arrange an ending, what better way than to have Carradine chew a bit of scenery as a character who believes he is a legendary crusader from the 11th/12th century? It may be a bit ridiculous to see him (along with Johnson and another actor playing people affected by the brain surgery) run amuck on the people doing the experiments, but at least it is something to give the film a bit of a jolt, even if it is a bit on the over-the-top side, what with Carradine chanting "Kill!" and all. On the whole, it isn't a terrible experience, and the 82 minute run-time isn't too interminable to go through, but it really is only worth it for people willing to look past the lack of suspense and look more at the atmospheric moments and a fairly game performance from Rathbone. I don't think that the film does enough to prove a winner, but it is at the least a curious little horror film that serves its purpose better than some other horror films of its time (such as The Beast of Hollow Mountain (1956) for example), so take it for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

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.

House of Dracula.

Review #849: House of Dracula.

Cast
Lon Chaney, Jr. (Lawrence "Larry" Talbot/The Wolf Man), John Carradine (Count Dracula / Baron Latos), Martha O'Driscoll (Milizia Morelle), Lionel Atwill (Police Inspector Holtz), Onslow Stevens (Dr. Franz Edelmann), Jane Adams (Nina), Ludwig Stössel (Ziegfried), Glenn Strange (The Frankenstein Monster), and Skelton Knaggs (Steinmuhl) Directed by Erle C. Kenton (#845 - The Ghost of Frankenstein and #847 - House of Frankenstein)

Review
This was the last of the monster mashup movies by Universal in a dramatic light, released a year after House of Frankenstein (#847). By this point, it seems they were running out of gas, with this film lasting only 67 minutes, which is the same length of The Ghost of Frankenstein (#845). I guess that is the case when you release four of these in three years (1942-1945). At least this time around Dracula is given something to do...in that he wants to be cured of being a vampire (sort of). This time, the theory about the Wolf Man is due to some form of "pressure around the brain", whatever that means. At any rate, continuity is thrown out the window and promptly steamrolled into the ground once again, which never ceases to amaze me. Once again, Dracula does not fight any of the monsters, though someone else does get turned into a vampire this time around. Footage is recycled (for some scenes with The Monster, including the climax from The Ghost of Frankenstein), which is disappointing but not exactly surprising considering the low budget and the time this was made. The movie isn't a clunker, but it really shows the decline of these monsters and it doesn't stick out in any real successful way. Chaney is fine as ever, though you could watch him in any other film with the Wolf Man, though at least he gets some closure to his arc. Carradine is given a bit more to do, but it doesn't really translate to anything too memorable. This was one of Lionel Atwill's final roles before dying four months later. Stevens gets to be interesting when he turns into a vampire over halfway through the film, because for one thing he doesn't just mosey on about like Carradine, with this vampire getting to do the crazy eyes and also attack someone, too, though that may be the highlight sadly. O'Driscoll and Adams are fine, but they can't help a movie undedicated to being anything other than a standardized experience. Instead of getting angry over it being what it is, I can only come up with an exasperated sigh. There isn't much mash to this "monster mash", and really there isn't much of anything to this, but I guess this could work as a way to kill an hour...or not. Honestly, stick to any other Universal horror film of the era previously reviewed here, or write your own Dracula/Frankenstein/Wolf Man story.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

House of Frankenstein.

Review #847: House of Frankenstein.

Cast
Boris Karloff (Dr. Gustav Niemann), Lon Chaney Jr. (Lawrence "Larry" Talbot/The Wolf Man), John Carradine (Count Dracula), J. Carrol Naish (Daniel), Elena Verdugo (Ilonka), Anne Gwynne (Rita Hussman), Peter Coe (Karl Hussman), Lionel Atwill (Inspector Arnz), George Zucco (Bruno Lampini), Sig Ruman (Bürgermeister Hussman), William Edmunds (Fejos), Charles F. Miller (Tobermann), Philip Van Zandt (Müller), Julius Tannen (Hertz), Hans Herbert (Meier), and Glenn Strange (The Monster) Directed by Erle C. Kenton (#845 - The Ghost of Frankenstein)

Review
Released one year after Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man, House of Frankenstein not only brings in Dracula and a hunchback to the monster mix, but it also has Boris Karloff, now starring in a main role who gets more time on screen than the monster he had originally played less than a decade before. This time around, Glenn Strange (the fourth actor to play him) plays the Monster for a very brief amount of time, which I guess makes sense considering how much we've seen of the character in the past few films, only being in the climax. Karloff and Naish do go well together, having some fine banter along with seeming right for the roles. Chaney is good as ever, just like the effects. If you're looking for a Dracula meet up with Frankenstein's monster, you will be sorely dissappointed, as Dracula is killed off less than an hour into the film. It is funny that he was brought back to life only because Karloff's character removed the stake from his heart. Carradine is fairly decent, but he doesn't really seem to evoke any creepy charisma that Lugosi had in the role. Verdugo is not as interesting to watch, although her calling Naish's character "mean and ugly" (the whole exchange is pretty strange itself) is somewhat enjoyable cheesy. The characters aren't really anything too special, but it is fun at least to see the ways that everything tries to be set in place, even if it comes off as cheesy, though that can work for most. At least it isn't the Wolf Man fighting Frankenstein's monster again, though there really isn't a full on monster mash. At 71 minutes, it works okay enough to pass for at least somebody. I find it to not be as good as the previous film, but it is marginally entertaining.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man.

Review #846: Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man.

Cast
Lon Chaney, Jr. (Larry Talbot/The Wolf Man), Ilona Massey (Baroness Elsa Frankenstein), Patric Knowles (Dr. Frank Mannering), Lionel Atwill (Mayor), Béla Lugosi (Frankenstein's Monster), Maria Ouspenskaya (Maleva), and Dennis Hoey (Inspector Owen) Directed by Roy William Neill.

Review
This was the first in the Universal franchise to utilize two monsters for a crossover film, although one could see this as a sequel to The Wolf Man (#260). Chaney is excellent once again as the Wolf Man, expressing the tragic nature of this character with ease, along with wonderful effects and transformation once again. Lugosi's performance is well known for having been butchered by the studio, to the point where you do not get to hear him speak, not get much context into his walking nature. It's not a movie where the monsters just fight each other (that happens briefly near the end), but it is a fairly engaging yarn to watch. The music number (yes, you read that) is somewhat amusing, in that you wouldn't really expect it to actually occur. Massey does a fine job as well. Knowles is okay, but nothing too special. Atwill returns once again, getting to play a mayor, which is a bit amusing in that this time he doesn't end up dying. The continuity is a bit strange (the Monster is found in ice. What exact time period is this set in? And why does the Wolf Man need to die like this instead of just getting shot by silver and buried deeper?), but there is at least a plausible set up to most of the events of the film. The climax is satisfying in that we get to see these two monsters meet and fight (briefly), which seals the fun aspect of a concept that could have been played out terribly but thankfully isn't.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Ghost of Frankenstein.

Review #845: The Ghost of Frankenstein.

Cast
Lon Chaney Jr. (The Monster), Cedric Hardwicke (Dr. Ludwig Frankenstein/Henry Frankenstein), Ralph Bellamy (Erik Ernst), Lionel Atwill (Dr. Theodore Bohmer), Béla Lugosi (Ygor), Evelyn Ankers (Elsa Frankenstein), Janet Ann Gallow (Cloestine Hussman), Barton Yarborough (Dr. Kettering), Doris Lloyd (Martha), and Leyland Hodgson (Chief Constable) Directed by Erle C. Kenton.

Review

The original three films (#072 - Frankenstein, #394 - Bride of Frankenstein, #844 - Son of Frankenstein) are all entertaining, with Boris Karloff making for a superb monster. This is the first film without Karloff playing the role, with Chaney (who we saw in #260 - The Wolf Man) now taking the role. His performance in this one isn't as interesting, mainly because he never speaks, mainly just lumbering around, more than he did in the last one. The monster this time is wearing a suit (unlike that fur coat from the last one...don't ask how he's back to the suit), and it's a shame that there isn't much to him, save from lifting a girl to try and get a ball midway through the movie. At least Lugosi returns once again, though it isn't as memorably creepy this time. The lines at the end where he talks about living forever are pretty chilling, though. It really a movie only interesting at the end, when the Monster gets some sort of brain surgery. It is a quick movie at 67 minutes, but there really aren't too many great moments to it. I do find it funny that there is another Frankenstein around to operate on the monster (and that the ghost looks like him, too), but also funny that when he looks at the original Frankenstein's notes that it shows clips from the first film. Hardwicke does okay, but he isn't as fun as the other two Frankensteins. The effects are adequate, but it is clear to note this was the first Frankenstein movie made as a "b-picture", with lower budgets and reuse of actors. It's not a bad flick by at means, but it really doesn't seem to do anything new, which is probably why the next film would be a crossover between a familiar monster...

Overall, I give it 6 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.

Movie Night: Son of Dracula.

Review #468: Son of Dracula.

Cast
Lon Chaney, Jr. (Count Alucard), Robert Paige (Frank Stanley), Louise Allbritton (Katherine Caldwell), Evelyn Ankers (Claire Caldwell), Frank Craven (Dr. Harry Brewster), J. Edward Bromberg (Professor Lazlo), and Adeline De Walt Reynolds (Madame Queen Zimba) Directed by Robert Siodmak.

Review
Despite the misleading title (Dracula seriously needs to be more creative than just reversing his name, by the way.), Son of Dracula is a mostly satisfying film that keep the Dracula mythos going. In the third film of this "trilogy" of Dracula films (#071 - Dracula, #297 - Dracula's Daughter), this is definitely better than the last film, but the 1931 film is still the most impressive of the three. But all comparisons aside, Lon Chaney, Jr isn't that bad of a Dracula, and while he doesn't have the creepiness of Lugosi, he certainly isn't a bad replacement. The rest of the actors like Robert Paige and Louise Allbritton aren't that bad, mostly engaging in their performances. While the scare factor isn't that high, it at least doesn't stray from its approach, to continue one of their longest running monsters, and in a satisfying way, which the previous film didn't strive to do. This film has one notable moment, the transformation scene to a bat, the first time ever shown in the franchise. The locations are fairly decent, and while the film isn't as good as it could have been, this is a welcome addition nonetheless.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Wolf Man (1941).

Review #260: The Wolf Man.

Cast
Lon Chaney, Jr (Larry Talbot/The Wolf Man), Claude Rains (John Talbot), Warren William (Dr. Lloyd), Ralph Bellamy (Colonel Montford), Patric Knowles (Frank Andrews), Béla Lugosi (Bela), and Maria Ouspenskaya (Maleva) Directed by George Waggner.

Review
The Wolf Man was only the second film released by Universal Pictures (Dracula, Frankenstein & The Invisible Man - #069, #071 & #072) involving werewolves, the first being Werewolf in London back in 1935. This is my first foray with Lon Chaney, Jr (Who I have heard about before as was his father before him), and he does a good job, as does Claude Rains (who is very familiar: The Invisible Man, #102 - Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and #125 - Casablanca). The film has good moments, mostly in the last act with the makeup. It starts off slowly, but eventually gets better. It's a flick not as good as Dracula or Frankenstein, but it come close. By sheer coincidence, today just happens to be Béla Lugosi's birthday (who also is in this film).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.