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 Killers (1946).

Review #2041: The Killers (1946).

Cast: 

Burt Lancaster (Pete Lund/Ole "Swede" Anderson), Ava Gardner (Kitty Collins), Edmond O'Brien (Jim Reardon), Albert Dekker ("Big Jim" Colfax), Sam Levene (Lt. Sam Lubinsky), Vince Barnett (Charleston), Virginia Christine (Lilly Harmon Lubinsky), Jack Lambert ("Dum-Dum" Clarke), Charles D. Brown (Packy Robinson), Donald MacBride (R.S. Kenyon), Charles McGraw (Al), William Conrad (Max), Phil Brown (Nick Adams), and Jeff Corey ("Blinky" Franklin) Directed by Robert Siodmak (#468 - Son of Dracula, #797 - People on Sunday, and #1826 - The Suspect)

Review: 

In 1927, Ernest Hemingway's short story "The Killers" was published in literary form. Set in his home state of Illinois, it details two hitmen entering a restaurant with an owner and a cook alongside a patron named Nick Adams, which Hemingway wrote from his own experiences. The two hitmen suddenly take Adams and the cook into the kitchen to tie them up while telling the owner that they were hired to kill a prizefighter expected to enter the place soon. Of course, when the guy doesn't show up, the hitmen leave while Nick is sent to a boarding house to warn the man about the job, but Nick is told to do nothing because it is futile for there to be attempts to save him from his fate. Hemingway later stated, "That story probably had more left out of it than anything I ever wrote. I left out all Chicago, which is hard to do in 2951 words." The entirety of that story is told in the first twenty minutes of the 1946 film adaptation (the killing depicted isn't in the actual story, of course). This was the fourth adaptation of a Hemingway story, following in the wake of A Farewell to Arms (1932), For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943), and To Have and Have Not (1944). The screenplay is credited to Anthony Veiller, although it was said in later years that Richard Brooks and John Huston contributed to the script in uncredited form. At the helm as director was Robert Siodmak, who had directed films in his native Germany and France before being driven to America by the rise of Nazism each time. He had done his fair share of genres, although most know his film noirs or B-movies that made him a "actor's director". This would work wonders for Burt Lancaster, who was making his film debut. He actually had an early interest in theatre productions and the circus from a young age, but injuries had him give up the circus. After serving in the U.S. Army in World War II, he took up acting and made an impression on Broadway in a flash. Mark Hellinger, who produced The Killers, happened to need another unknown to make up the cast after getting Ava Gardner from doing pretty much nothing at MGM (Wayne Morris and Sonny Tufts were the initial choices in mind for the role played by Lancaster). He got a tip about Lancaster (near the age of 33 when this film was released), who had signed a contract with Hal Wallis but hadn't made anything for release until Hellinger tested him and decided to sign him on. The film was an audience hit and received four Academy Award nominations that year (directing, editing, score, and screenplay), for which it received none. In 1964, a second adaptation of the story was done in film (after being thought of as too much for television) with Don Siegel as director that had Lee Marvin, Ronald Reagan, and Angie Dickinson as stars.

The premise sure is an interesting one to setup a noir, particularly one built for 103 minutes where one of the key characters is dead right then and there. But it is the journey in the way that things are shot or lit that matters when the scenarios matter most with femme fatales, double crosses, and the good ol' setup for a bag of dough. It isn't often you get a cast filled with so many dependable actors (future or at the moment), whether as stars or not. O'Brien is the one observing all of the pieces moving across the board that has the air of inevitability that he does well with, maneuvering through the tension with good timing. Lancaster is a lean block of excellence, one who generates screen presence in a near instant that delivers well among the flashback sequences told (aside from the one of his death, which he handles pretty well to begin with) in a malleable force of nature. He will only end up in one path, but it is the choices that are made there that make it interesting to see the level of challenge it takes for anyone to try and escape their big desire. It's clear to see how his face became one to reckon such desires in further films. Gardner makes a solid femme fatale, one who has the allure required to drive tension into the heart of anyone, a devastating display of dashing duplicity. The rest of the cast follow along in worthy interest for the subject at hand, whether that involves the heavy or the key part of the crisscross of who is fixing who. The robbery sequence itself is executed quite skillfully, done with resounding timing without wasting a moment. By the time the film has maneuvered its way through all of the twists and turns that come with "the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry”, the final result is a lean and mean noir that shows the potential of its stars in a solid effort from Siodmak and company. The fatalistic nature of the whole affair makes for a solid entertaining ride that merited the highest praise from Hemingway, who once called it "the only good picture ever made of a story of mine." That pretty much says it all right then and there.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956).

Review #920: Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Cast:
Kevin McCarthy (Dr. Miles Bennell), Dana Wynter (Becky Driscoll), Larry Gates (Dr. Dan Kauffman), King Donovan (Jack Belicec), Carolyn Jones (Theodora "Teddy" Belicec), Jean Willes (Nurse Sally Withers), Ralph Dumke (Police Chief Nick Grivett), Virginia Christine (Wilma Lentz), and Tom Fadden (Uncle Ira Lentz) Directed by Don Siegel (#893 - Dirty Harry)

Review:
What is it about science fiction that entertains us so much? What is it about horror and and aliens that lure us so much to watch? The 1950s definitely had a great deal of entertainment with these things, but this film (based of the novel "The Body Snatcher" by Jack Finney) manages to shine on its own, becoming a film worth discussing in part because of how it constructs himself. Even if one treats it as just a horror flick (as what the director and writers have stated they were intending), It's an interesting horror film in how it invokes fear and fright from how little you really see of the terror. The film also has decent cinematography by Ellsworth Fredericks, with the shadows and lighting working nicely with the sets. McCarthy is a good lead, fitting as a storyteller and hero like a glove. Wynter is also pretty decent, having some chemistry with McCarthy while also proving to be capable for some scenes. Donovan and Jones do a pretty fine job as well in accompanying the others in a movie that always seems doing something beneath the surface. Nobody is killed on screen, nor is there much in terms of what the pod people are (aside from a part near the climax), but it has a great degree of layers within this thriller. Numerous things have been written about it being an allegory for things in the 1950s (this was the Cold War era after all), but the easiest one can be the way that people can act towards cultural things with a sense of unfeeling. While the nature of how the narrative is set up may be a bit clunky (in short, it's a flashback narrative), the movie is at least swift enough to never cop itself out too much. There is something really interesting about the way it speaks about conformity and autonomy in this film, and it doesn't bash you over the head with any sort of overwrought kind of nature. On the whole, this is an entertaining film that inspires fear along with thought in part due to a fine cast and fine direction that work together to make a critical film from the 1950s.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Billy the Kid versus Dracula.

Review #463: Billy the Kid versus Dracula.

Cast
Chuck Courtney (William 'Billy the Kid' Bonney), John Carradine (Count Dracula), Melinda Plowman (Betty Bentley), Virginia Christine (Eva Oster), Walter Janovitz (Franz Oster), and Bing Russell (Dan Thorpe) Directed by William Beaudine.

Review
Originally released on a double bill with another horror film (Jesse James Meets Frankenstein's Daughter), the film is a sloppy mess from beginning to end, starting with the hokey, if not drunkenly written premise of Billy the Kid in a horror film. The fake bat I can understand, Dracula (1931) has the same thing, I guess real bats couldn't be used due to having to train them. Courtney isn't too terrible, though I can't say too much for the supporting cast, but at least John Carradine is okay, though his "hypnotic stare" isn't as scary as say, Bela Lugosi, though Carradine also played Dracula in Universal's sequels twenty years prior. The climax of the film is either really, really stupid, or just plain perplexing, and since the film is over 45 years old, I figure I can spoil it: Billy the Kid throws his gun at Dracula, knocking him out as he then stakes him. I don't know if you can actually throw your weapon at someone that actually hurts, essentially the equivalent is throwing a rope at someone and expecting them to be tied up. If you want to watch a probably better Billy the Kid film, I'd stick to Young Guns, but oh well.

Overall, I give it 2 out of 10 stars.