The Steel Helmet.

Review #2234: The Steel Helmet.

Cast: 

Gene Evans (Sergeant Zack), Robert Hutton (Private Bronte), Steve Brodie (Lieutenant Driscoll), James Edwards (Corporal Thompson), Richard Loo (Sergeant Tanaka), Sid Melton (Joe), Richard Monahan (Private Baldy), William Chun ("Short Round"), Harold Fong (The Red), Neyle Morrow (First GI), and Lynn Stalmaster (Second Lieutenant) Written, Produced, and Directed by Samuel Fuller (#1790 - Park Row)

Review: 

"I hate violence. That has never prevented me from using it in my films. It's part of human nature." - Samuel Fuller

It isn't too surprising that there were a few films made about the war effort in Korea while the war there was occurring, particularly one made by a veteran of the last World War. Samuel Fuller had served in the United States Army within the infantry. He went from working on screenplays to offering his services to direct with I Shot Jesse James (1949), which worked well enough to get him to continue as a director, which led to The Baron of Arizona (1950). With this film, he added producer to his line of credits (each of these first films were produced in some way by Robert L. Lippert). In his autobiography, he stated that he wanted to make a movie different from the usual stuff seen involving war, such as seeing the "genuine hardship of soldiers" to go with the fact that war in its confusion and brutality needed to be shown more so than straight heroism. Fuller cast Evans (an actor who had done only bit parts after returning from U.S. Army after having served as an engineer) on the strength of his actions when he approached for the role: when Fuller tossed an M1 rifle at him, he grabbed it, complete with racking it back when asked to by Fuller. He was kept even when suggestions were made to cast Larry Parks (of course, bigger studios earlier had thought of making it with John Wayne as the lead). Fuller shot exteriors for the film at Griffith Park in Los Angeles. His attempts to show the "organized insanity" that comes in war managed to ruffle feathers on each side (lefty or not), particularly with a visit with Army officials because of certain actions depicted in the film that, well, matched with actual events seen by Fuller, such as the shooting of a prisoner of war. The resulting film was a general hit (incidentally, the war would enter a period of stalemates that lasted until the 1953 ceasefire) that saw Fuller get a contract with 20th Century Fox for a time, for which his next film in Fixed Bayonets! (1951) also was a war film.

What we have is a straight-to-the-point story that manages to achieve the brilliance of looking like a thoughtful movie about the madness that arises in war that struck differently from the angle of the time within budgetary limitations that do more than if it had been a multimillion-dollar film. One gets an honest movie for 85 minutes with a worthwhile ensemble that shows the worry that arises from being packed in such a rough situation without turning it into a mark for eventual ra-ra heroism. In fact, the end of the film merely has a card saying, "There is no end to this story", which one doesn't usually get from their war films. It stokes curiosity for seeing strangers in a strange land rather than just being a mark for patriotism. Of course, they also don't usually see people asked about why they maintained their service even in the face of racism back home (such as the prior internment of Japanese Americans less than ten years prior). Fuller acts on his instincts to make a pulpy war film (dedicated to the U.S. infantry, as seen in the intro) that likely will leave a cutting impression on its viewer after it is finished. It doesn't take long to see the wisdom of having casted Evans (who would feature in a few more Fuller films) when it comes to his naturalistic performance that we follow along with in great interest in its gruff glory from the word go. The melting pot within the people around Evans is a curious one (one even is a conscientious objector) that consisted of actors who either didn't get many chances to get their due that do pretty well, such as the weariness played by Loo (a Hawaiian-born actor with Chinese ancestry that did plenty of stock roles) and Edwards. The bond of Evans and Chun is a curious one because of how each fit in the loosest of senses with the others, particularly since most of it is spent in a Buddhist temple with tension bubbling among these strangers that probably match the quote stated best in the film involving two kinds of soldiers, "those who are dead and those who are going to die." Aside from its partial time with Fong, one is mostly here with these shaky band of brothers before that fateful climax (as skillfully done with a handful of extras in a park) that drifts to a sobering conclusion for those who survive as opposed to the ones that did not get killed that day. As such, this is a worthwhile hard-nosed war film that rises above expectations with a useful cast and director all working in stride that results in an honest winner.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Vulture.

Review #1236: The Vulture.

Cast: 
Robert Hutton (Dr. Eric Lutens), Akim Tamiroff (Prof. Hans Koniglich/the Vulture), Broderick Crawford (Brian F. Stroud), Diane Clare (Trudy Lutens), Philip Friend (The Vicar), Patrick Holt (Jarvis), Annette Carell (Ellen West), Edward Carrick (Melcher, the Sexton), and Gordon Sterne (Edward Stroud) Directed by Lawrence Huntington.

Review: 
One may wonder what is to be expected a film with a title like this. After all, this is a fairly obscure film that can't be found on DVD (the version I watched occasionally shows a TNT logo on the bottom, back when the network showed MonsterVision, a series dedicated to a marathon of older movies), only on VHS. Actually, this is a film I heard about a few years ago due to a video that I watched from a film reviewer (James Rolfe of Cinemassacre fame) that went into a little detail about the film. One would expect at least some semblance of horror, what with a poster tagline that starts with "Talons of terror!" and tells you about a half-man, half beastbird that swoops on prey, drinks blood, and mutilates flesh. This was the creation of Huntington, who served as both director and writer; he sold the story (first known as Manutara) to executive producer Jack O. Lamont, who garnered some funds on the condition of having American names as the leads. Other contributors of the budget (50,000 pounds) were from small British and Canadian studios. This happened to be the last film he directed, passing away the following year at the age of 68 following a career of 37 years, spent primarily in Britain. Oddly enough, this was a movie shown in black-and-white on original release in theaters, yet it was shown in color for television.

Believe it or not, all of these facts are probably more intriguing than the actual film itself. Would you believe that this is a film that shows its title beast for only 30 seconds throughout a 91 minute movie? Would you believe that this is a movie that has bland characters? Would you believe that this was made on the cheap and represents a mockery of what films can be with limited range of funds but ambition at the wheel? The answer to these questions are all a resounding yes, particularly with the last question. It is actually astounding how one could make a film with such dullness - this barely even qualifies as horror, feeling more akin to a murder mystery than anything dealing with real suspense. If this was done in any other decade, I do wonder how it might have panned out - or at least made with a bigger budget, where one could try to deal with the idea of depicting someone transformed into a vulture/human mix. The only times you see the vulture are very brief shots, showing its talons when it takes someone away, or at the end when the human head on the vulture is seen briefly; I imagine the film made sure to depict the scenes in the dark in order to hide the cheapness of these effects, since I can't imagine the hysterics if one tried to show this thing in a full shot just swooping around with an old man's head. Trying to think the logistics of this film's plot become a chore, as it throws stuff around about some old coins (buried alongside an accused warlock and his dastardly pet vulture because...I shrug to figure out why), a guy believing himself to be a descendant of said dead man and doing an experiment to disintegrate himself into the grave and then reassemble said self back with nuclear energy, and some sort of curse involving the descendants of the guy who buried warlock and vulture alive.

With such a mess of ridiculousness, how does the film deal with delivering some sense of fright? It does so with paleness, as if everyone was affected by a mysterious bug that wouldn't let them give any sort of life of amusement to what is occurring; the exception is a grouchy (but quirky) Crawford, who gets to be the first victim all because he wants open windows just to get sleep and gets snatched from said vulture (the astonishing thing is how strong said vulture must be, even if it has to turn him around first before it lifts him into the air). Hutton isn't really much better, figuring out a bare mystery with no real semblance of interest generated for the audience. Tamiroff is okay, but it is so amusing to see him turn out to be the villain, what with the lack of any real hints to go around - exactly how does he hide those bird feet and feathers in the daylight? Also, the idea of him swooping around eating animal flesh is weird to picture, although maybe that's just the vulture side wanting something to pick at, besides some old folks. I'm still astounded he actually decided to go through with such a bizarre experiment and never thinking to just simply dig up the grave and maybe check the body instead. If you can believe it, the count of victims of this ridiculous bird are a resounding two, and one of the takings isn't even shown to the audience. The bird gets offed by the silliest of climaxes: a character needing to be reminded that they have a gun with them by their spouse, falling off a cliff. To add on to these ridiculous terms, the couple actually buries the thing at sea, as if not showing this ridiculous freak of nature would be better served (or at least just to show to the authorities who think the murders is all about a bunch of coins and not big bird) - on the whole, this is just a mess. You could actually make a comedy out of such offbeat things, and yet this is meant to be taken with such seriousness that it actually just comes off like stale bitter coffee in an age where one would expect something with a bit more of a jolt. Even films that don't show off their title monster have some sort of atmosphere or pace that invite a viewer in to share a level of tension or calm fear. This doesn't even get off the platform, moving an inch at the starting gate and then proceeding to fall asleep for the rest of the race. You always seem to be waiting for something to actually happen, and the fact that you know it will only strike at night and strike certain people (from the oldest to the youngest of the Strouds), so what you are left with is filler. A film of such tediousness isn't quite deserving of the label of one of the worst, but it sure ranks up there in terms of ways to kill time the worst way possible, that is for certain.

Overall, I give it 1 out of 10 stars.

The Racket (1951).

Review #1008: The Racket.

Cast: 
Robert Mitchum (Captain Thomas McQuigg), Lizabeth Scott (Irene Hayes), Robert Ryan (Nick Scanlon), William Talman (Officer Bob Johnson), Ray Collins (District Attorney Mortimer X. Welch), Joyce MacKenzie (Mary McQuigg), Robert Hutton (Dave Ames), Virginia Huston (Lucy Johnson), and William Conrad (Detective Sergeant Turk) Directed by John Cromwell.

Review: 
When I reviewed the original 1928 version of The Racket (#901), I described it as an efficient film that ran at a fine pace that pushed the right buttons and served its purpose as a crime drama that had originally served as a stage play the previous year. In any case, it is interesting reviewing the remake that was made just two decades later, with the man who had starred as McQuigg in the original Broadway production serving as director. In any case, this is a movie that isn't much of an improvement on the original, though it is also a movie that is at best moderately satisfying to the standard of film noir crime drama that you might expect. The best thing about the movie is the scenes involving Mitchum and Ryan, such as their first scene together, when the latter ends up having to deal with his brother's involvement with a singer and an ensuing conversation about his care for him - along with dialogue about how the other will try to pull one over the other. There isn't much going for the film that you could already see in other gangster films (or even the original version), and the characters themselves aren't really all too interesting. Sure, Mitchum and Ryan pull off fine performances, and the rest of the cast are fairly decent, but they can't really elevate these characters to anything too special or compelling, although Conrad is certainly interesting to watch even when in the background. It seems to hint at something more with the corruption element, but it never really comes off as anything too revealing nor does it seem like it wants to say something more relevant than what you might expect. Oddly, though Cromwell is the only credited director, four other directors directed supplemental scenes in the film due to re-shoots ordered by Howard Hughes (owner of the studio that released the film, RKO Radio Pictures): Nicholas Ray (director of Rebel Without a Cause (#181) and Bigger Than Life (#928), Tay Garnett (director of films such as the 1946 version of The Postman Always Rings Twice), Sherman Todd (who also served as editor of the film) and Mel Ferrer (actor/director). Notable scenes that Ray directed include the beginning scene with the the Crime Commission, a police locker sequence, and other bits and pieces.

At 88 minutes, it's not exactly a slog of a film to go through, and it is a movie that is on a basic level entertaining, but it's really hard to recommend this film over other films (The Big Combo (#934), He Walked by Night (#947), or the 1928 original). On a grading scale, this would fall along a C level, but I can't blame someone for finding it useful to watch at least once. It's a mess, but it is a fine mess that shines in all sorts of directions for everyone, for better or for worse, being a pretty good example of a toss-up.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

They Came from Beyond Space.

Review #854: They Came from Beyond Space.

Cast:
Robert Hutton (Dr. Curtis Temple), Jennifer Jayne (Lee Mason), Zia Mohyeddin (Farge), Bernard Kay (Richard Arden), Michael Gough (Master of the Moon), Geoffrey Wallace (Alan Mullane), Maurice Good (Agent Stillwell), Luanshya Greer (Female Gas Station Attendant), John Harvey (Bill Trethowan), and Diana King (Mrs. Trethowan) Directed by Freddie Francis.

Review:
It figures I had to pick some low budget sci-fi flick for today, especially one made from sets from another Amicus Productions film, Daleks - Invasion Earth: 2150 A.D (#472), while being based on a novel named "The Gods Hate Kansas"...while utilizing a title as cliche as one would expect. It is evident early on the lack of charisma this movie has, with everything being conveyed in a very dull manner with its ridiculous aspects seeming to be cobbled from better projects. If you like seeing random sets and random splotches of plot (like a metal plated scientist being protected from some sort of attack), this is the movie for you, with all the stops of lunacy one would expect from a low budget, low rate film. This is the kind of movie where you fight to stay attention and watch it, in part because you want to make sure you're still conscious. The cast doesn't really have any seeming life to them, with Hutton being as standard as it gets, and there is no real charisma between any of these actors. One highlight (or whatever word you would use) is one of the characters melting down their silver trophies in order to make a "helmet" to protect himself from the intruders...and it looks about as you'd expect. Naturally, the climax is a cluster of stuff thrown on the wall, with Michael Gough appearing as the Master of the Moon, where it is revealed that they did their intrusion in order to get workers to get them home to die. Yes, I'm serious. At the end (to spoil it for you), the two groups agree to have a partnership together, because I guess enslaving humans as workers to build a ship can be swept under the rug because they learned they could just have asked. The best thing about the movie? It lasts only 85 minutes. If you know me and this show well, I do have a spot for low budget flicks, provided that the movie actually looks like it's trying to be good, but this is not the right example of a good low budget film, nor a competent one.

Overall, I give it 3 out of 10 stars.