Showing posts with label Merry Anders. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Merry Anders. Show all posts

July 8, 2023

Beauty and the Beast (1962).

Review #2035: Beauty and the Beast.

Cast: 
Joyce Taylor (Althea), Mark Damon (Eduardo), Merry Anders (Sybil), Walter Burke (Grimaldi), Eduard Franz (Orsini), Alexander Lockwood (Man), Dayton Lummis (Roderick), and Michael Pate (Prince Bruno) Directed by Edward L. Cahn (#331 - It! The Terror From Beyond Space, #560 - Experiment Alcatraz, and #656 - Invasion of the Saucer Men)

Review: 
In 1740, a story was published in La jeune amĂ©ricaine, et les contes marins (The Young American and Marine Tales) that in English was called Beauty and the Beast. It was written by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve. Sixteen years later, a re-written and abridged version was published by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont, which is the one that ended up being most known among fairy tales told to folks. Oddly enough, Beauty and the Beast took considerable time to adapt for film. The most notable film adaptation for most of the 20th century might be the French film Le Belle et la BĂȘte (1946), which was directed by Jean Cocteau to noted interest in its visual style. The first English-language adaptation, however, was made in 1962, with Edward Small as executive producer. Small was a producer with a lengthy career that spanned both the silent and sound era and covered various productions such as The Man in the Iron Mask (1939), Raw Deal (1948), and Witness for the Prosecution (1957). This film was one of numerous ones that he did with United Artists that were targeted to make money when sold to television rather than make large profits on its budget (roughly $100,000-$300,000), whether that involved Westerns, or melodramas. This was one that was targeted for the family audience that he called a "fairytale for everybody - no messages, no menace." The film was written by George Bruce and Orville H. Hampton. At the helm of director was Edward L. Cahn, who had directed films since the 1930s after getting his start with Universal Pictures in 1917 within the editing department. He became known for his work in Poverty Row studios such as Monogram along with short films that kept him busy (this was the fourth of four films he directed for release in 1962 alone). It may interest you to note this was the last film for Cahn as a director, as he died the year after it was released at the age of 64. It was also the penultimate film with makeup by the famed Jack Pierce, who closed his career with The Creation of the Humanoids (1962) and constant work on the TV show Mister Ed prior to his death in 1968.

I wish I could say that the film is a decent little cheapie. I wish that there was something positive beyond a few effects within a story about a guy who turns into a wolf-looking beast at night, particularly since the effect resembles The Wolf Man from two decades earlier. Alas, this is not one of those little gems that you wish to find and spend 77 minutes with intent curiosity. You can't even be mean about calling it "not good", because it mostly is just a bland film that could be constituted to about five sentences: Duke wants to get married to a woman, silly prince wants to stop him, Duke is a wolf at night that stands around cursed because [reasons], woman saves him with love at the stake, the end. The debate you will have here is whether to call the film "paper-thin" or "paint by the numbers", unless you are not really interested in harvesting as many words as possible. Small's message of no message or menace unintentionally comes true in the worst way possible that it also has no real sense of urgency. The transformation sequences with Damon merely seem to come and go with him standing like a shaggy statue rather than convey any sense of tragedy that come from someone who spends more time than necessary wondering how much sunlight is left, which isn't exactly a compliment for Damon or Taylor when it comes to trying to sell this patchwork of romance. At least Pate seems like someone who could be a useful stoolie for adversarial presence, but again, the only threat the movie has going for it is the idea of tricking villagers into murdering someone that happens to look like a wolf at that very moment. As a whole, Beauty and the Beast at least has a look like a set for the Middle Ages, so that is probably the best thing I can say for a movie that seems a bit too slipshod all the way around to work for anything other than for people who really, really want to see anything that moves. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

August 20, 2018

Legacy of Blood (1971).


Review #1123: Legacy of Blood.

Cast: 
Rodolfo Acosta (Sheriff Dan Garcia), Merry Anders (Laura Dean), Norman Bartold (Tom Drake), Ivy Bethune (Elga), John Carradine (Christopher Dean), Richard Davalos (Johnny Dean), Faith Domergue (Veronica Dean), Buck Kartalian (Igor Garin), Brooke Mills (Leslie Dean), Jeff Morrow (Gregory Dean), John Russell (Frank Mantee), and John Smith (Dr. Carl Isenburg) Directed by Carl Monson.

Review: 
The most interesting thing about this movie is the fact that there isn't one consistent title - there are three. The titles are Legacy of Blood, Blood Legacy, and Will to Die, but I think I will go with the first one, since that one was used for the opening title sequence. It also happened to be featured on Elvira's Movie Macabre with that same title, who I imagine had more fun delivering commentary for a cruddy film like this than I could generate. In any case, this is a movie that is described as a "mystery slasher" - and I put that term in quotation marks because the film is barely a mystery and barely a slasher in any respectable sense. Basked in cliches, the only surprise is how frustrating it operates itself, having minimal gore but maximum tedium. None of the situations or characters presented aren't too particularly interesting. The best thing one can say about the cast is that Carradine is the only one adept at making something watchable - even material boring as this. He's kooky, but he commands attention that the others can't do as well. There isn't anyone to follow with, whether to cheer or hiss at, just a bunch of oddball people who look like they are either doing it for a paycheck or doing it for "the art", whatever that means. Everybody else comes off as stale or not particularly exciting to follow with, unless you count sideburns as something to look at. The body count goes up at a snail's pace while the soap opera type plot serves to irritate its audience, with its best scene being one single shot - a lamp, which relates back to an earlier line about one character's past. How does a movie manage to make a bee sequence come off as boring? Have the setup to said sequence not make much sense. The climax (and its "twist" ending) is like a big joke to its audience, since it comes out of nowhere while bringing itself to a crashing halt - with a last line that breaks the fourth wall that is a sure groaner. Ultimately, this is a dull experience that is more horrible than horror.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.